U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany has said his campaign is aiming to raise $40 million for the 2026 gubernatorial race. Tiffany delivers a speech at his launch event in Wausau in September. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, the current frontrunner in the GOP gubernatorial primary, criticized the “billionaire loophole” that has led to record spending in statewide races in Wisconsin, even though he voted for the legislation that helped expand spending in 2015.

Tiffany has said his campaign is aiming to raise $40 million for the 2026 gubernatorial race. “We’ll see if we get there,” Tiffany said in an interview with PBS Wisconsin last week. “But, you know, Wisconsin, because of that pass-through loophole, I call it the billionaire loophole, there’s just so much money that comes into Wisconsin. But, you know, you can cry about it or you can compete. We choose to compete… We’re hoping to raise $40 million.”

Spending on Wisconsin statewide elections has grown substantially over the last decade in part because of an overhaul of the state’s campaign finance laws adopted in 2015 under the leadership of former Gov. Scott Walker and the Republican-led Legislature. 

Republican lawmakers at the time argued that the changes to the campaign finance laws were necessary to align state law with U.S. Supreme Court decisions, including Citizens United v. FEC, which in 2010 struck down a nationwide ban on political donations from corporations, and McCutcheon v. FEC, which in 2014 found that annual caps on total political donations from one person are unconstitutional.

Under 2015 Wisconsin Act 117, Wisconsin lawmakers eliminated a state law that capped individual donations to all candidates and political committees in a single year at $10,000. Limits on contributions for each state and local office were increased and limits on contributions to party and legislative campaign committees were eliminated, creating a loophole that allowed unlimited money to flow through parties and committees into individual campaigns. The law eliminated restrictions on coordination between political parties and candidates and allowed for political parties and legislative campaign committees to make unlimited contributions to candidate committees.

The state law has become a topic of conversation again as the U.S. Supreme Court heard a case Tuesday challenging a federal law limiting the amount of money that political parties can spend in coordination with a candidate for office.

Tiffany has represented Wisconsin’s 7th Congressional District since 2020, but prior to that he served in the state Senate. As a state senator, Tiffany voted for AB 387, which later became Act 117, along with the other Senate Republicans. Only one Republican, former state Sen. Rob Cowles, voted against the measure.

Tiffany’s campaign has not responded to a request for comment about the vote and whether he wants to see changes to state campaign finance law.

At the time, advocacy groups and Democratic lawmakers warned the legislation would lead to obscene spending in Wisconsin elections. The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign warned in written testimony that the legislation would mean “billionaires and multimillionaires will have an outsized influence over who gets elected” and that political contests would “be less between candidates and more between tycoons.”

Spending in governors’ races was already growing following the U.S. Supreme Court decision and before the state law was adopted. In 2010, $37.37 million was spent on the governor’s race; in 2014, spending increased to $81.78 million. The increase in spending ballooned dramatically  after the passage of the 2015 law.

A record-breaking $164 million was spent in 2022 on Wisconsin’s gubernatorial race. According to the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, the cost represented a 77% increase from the previous $93.06 million record that was set in the 2018 governor’s race.

Democratic gubernatorial hopeful Mandela Barnes, who served in the Assembly in 2015, did not vote on the campaign spending bill, joining the rest of his Democratic Assembly colleagues who said it was a conflict of interest for lawmakers to rewrite the laws that govern their campaigns. He is the only Democratic candidate in the current crowded primary field who was in the Legislature at the time.

Barnes said in a press release in 2015 that he opposed the bill because Republicans rejected an amendment that would have delayed implementation until after the 2016 election cycle. He said Republicans “acted in blatant self-interest for their campaign committees by voting down my effort,” so he “recused myself from voting on ultimate passage of this outrageous proposal.” 

Barnes also said then that with the legislation Republicans had “fully embraced the darkness of corruption by voting to rig the rules to line their own campaign pockets with shady special interest money and allow for more corruption to go undetected and unprosecuted.”

Barnes, a former lieutenant governor and U.S. Senate candidate, recently said he is aiming to raise $50 million over the course of the race, but at the same time criticized the escalation in campaign spending.

“It’s not a good sign for things. I wish that were not the case,” Barnes told reporters Monday. “The goal is to get big money out of politics. The goal is for campaign and ethics reform… We should be taking more steps to reduce the impact of money in politics.”

Other Democratic candidates include Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez, Milwaukee Co. Exec. David Crowley, state Sen. Kelda Roys, state Rep. Francesca Hong, Wisconsin Economic Development Corp. CEO Missy Hughes and former state Rep. Brett Hulsey.

Washington County Executive Josh Schoemann is the only other Republican candidate currently in the race.

Barnes and Tiffany have not had to file campaign finance reports yet as they entered after the last deadline. Candidates’ next campaign finance filing deadline is Jan. 15, 2026. Those reports will cover July 1, 2025 through Dec. 31, 2025.

Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers announced Tuesday that he has signed 34 bills into law, including a bill requiring judges to sentence offenders to at least 10 years in prison if convicted of a human trafficking crime and 15 years for a child trafficking crime. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers announced Tuesday that he has signed 34 bills into law, including a bill requiring judges to sentence offenders to at least 10 years in prison if convicted of a human trafficking crime and 15 years for a child trafficking crime. 

“Crimes of this nature — most especially when it comes to our kids — should be punishable by the full extent of the law,” Evers said in a statement. “With this bill, we are helping ensure that we’re protecting some of our most vulnerable youth and holding predators accountable, most especially when they prey on our kids.”

The bill includes increases to the maximum amounts of prison time a person can receive for human and child trafficking crimes, and it allows more time for prosecution of human trafficking crimes. 

Human trafficking involves using force, fraud or coercion for labor, services or a commercial sex act. Trafficking of a child can involve a knowing attempt to recruit a child for commercial sex acts. Wisconsin trafficking law also bans benefiting from trafficking or knowingly receiving compensation from the earnings of debt bondage, a prostitute or a commercial sex act. 

Last month, the Wisconsin Examiner reported on lawmakers’ reasons for supporting the bill, such as preventing human traffickers from doing further harm. Rep. Jerry O’Connor (R-Fond Du Lac) cited cases that appeared to have taken place in other states in which people convicted of sex trafficking received between six and eight years in prison. 

The Examiner reported on criminal justice advocacy groups and attorneys’ criticisms of the mandatory minimums, including a concern from attorneys that judges would sentence people who are trafficking victims themselves to the mandatory minimum punishment without being able to consider whether the person deserved a lighter sentence because their trafficking crime was influenced by their trafficker. The bill didn’t contain an exception to the mandatory minimum for that type of situation. While Wisconsin law allows a defense in court for people who committed a crime as a “direct result” of trafficking, that didn’t allay critics’ concerns.

The anti-sex trafficking organization Shared Hope International gave Wisconsin law failing grades on multiple categories relevant to survivors of child sex trafficking: “protection from unjust criminalization,” “legal relief” and “survivor-centered supports.” The analysis was based on laws enacted as of July 1. 

Th Democratic bill would fund special education reimbursement on a sum sufficient model instead of a sum certain model. An empty high school classroom. (Dan Forer | Getty Images)

Democratic lawmakers are proposing a bill to ensure that school districts get reimbursed for their special education costs at the rates projected when the current state budget was signed. 

The 2025-27 state budget, passed by the state Legislature and signed by Gov. Tony Evers in July, provided funding that was estimated to bring the reimbursement rate to a historic 42% in the first year of the budget and 45% in the second year. However, recent estimates show the funding set aside will not be enough to meet that rate.

Wisconsin currently uses a “sum certain” funding model for its special education reimbursement rate, meaning payments to schools come from a fixed pot of money set aside in the budget. If schools spend more than estimated, there is no increase in reimbursement and the rate falls. 

The Department of Public Instruction notified school districts in November that the initial special education reimbursement payments this year will be about 35% of their costs. This will not be the final reimbursement rate.

The Democratic bill would change state education funding to a sum sufficient model, meaning the amount of money provided by the state would meet shifting costs to maintain a set reimbursement rate.

Rep. Angelina Cruz (D-Racine) said in a statement that the bill gives Republican lawmakers the opportunity to “prove” that they were serious about providing a special education reimbursement at the rate that they proposed in the budget.

“Imagine your employer choosing to pay you for less than half of the work you’ve done,” Cruz said. “That’s the position we’re putting our public schools in. This level of reimbursement is not what our schools want or need, and it’s not what our children with disabilities deserve. At the very least, we must keep our promise.”

Rep. Christian Phelps (D-Eau Claire) said school districts deserve a higher reimbursement rate, noting that many advocates including state Superintendent Jill Underly called for a 90% reimbursement rate in the state budget, and Democratic lawmakers, who are seeking to win control of the Legislature in 2026, would pursue making that a reality in the future. 

“When Democrats control the Legislature, we will fight for full, fair funding in the budget. But right now, this bill ends the broken promises,” Phelps said. “It prevents another year of shortfalls and tells kids, families and districts that they can count on the state to keep its word.”

Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., answers questions from reporters after chairing a hearing of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on Sept. 17, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Republicans announced Tuesday they will hold a vote on their own health care proposal later this week to counter a Democratic bill that would extend enhanced tax credits for Affordable Care Act marketplace plans for three more years.

The 32-page GOP bill would not address the expiring ACA marketplace tax credits but would send payments to certain Americans through Health Savings Accounts to cover some of the cost of health care. 

Neither measure has the 60 votes needed to advance under that chamber’s rules. That would leave the ACA marketplace subsidies to expire at the end of the year and dramatically spike the cost of health insurance for the millions of people enrolled in those plans. 

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said Democrats’ bill to simply extend the enhanced ACA marketplace tax credits to offset the costs Americans pay for that insurance was unacceptable. 

“The way that the program is structured, the money goes straight to the insurance companies,” Thune said. “And the way that we think this ought to work is you ought to come up with a way in which you can deliver the benefit to the patients and not to the insurance companies.”

Thune said the Democratic bill lacks an income cap for ACA marketplace tax credits and allows $0 premiums for health insurance plans — guaranteeing the measure will fail.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, of New York, called the GOP proposal a “nonstarter” that would lead to “junk insurance.” He said the only way to avoid a dramatic increase in health insurance costs next year is to extend the enhanced ACA tax credits. 

“Their phony proposal is dead on arrival,” Schumer said. “The bill not only fails to extend the tax credits, it increases costs, adds tons of new abortion restrictions for women, expands junk fees and permanently funds cost-sharing reductions.”

Multiple plans

Senate Republicans have debated for weeks whether to hold a vote on a GOP plan to show the party has something to offer toward reducing health care costs. Thune promised Democrats a vote on a health care bill of their choosing in exchange for votes to end the government shutdown. 

Schumer announced last week that Democrats would hold the vote on a three-year extension of the enhanced ACA tax credits as they exist now. 

Several GOP senators, including Maine’s Susan Collins and Ohio’s Bernie Moreno, have released plans that would include an extension of the expiring tax credits while beginning to transition away from those subsidies. 

But Republican leaders ultimately decided to hold a vote on a proposal released earlier this week by Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chairman Bill Cassidy, R-La., and Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo, R-Idaho. 

The Cassidy-Crapo legislation would have the Department of Health and Human Services deposit money into Health Savings Accounts for people enrolled in bronze or catastrophic health insurance plans purchased on the ACA marketplace in 2026 or 2027, according to a summary of the bill. 

Health Savings Accounts are tax-advantaged savings accounts that consumers can use to pay for medical expenses that are not otherwise reimbursed. They are not health insurance products.

ACA marketplace enrollees who select a bronze or catastrophic plan and make up to 700% of the federal poverty level would receive $1,000 annually if they are between the ages of 18 and 49 and $1,500 per year if they are between the ages of 50 and 64. 

That would set a threshold of $109,550 in annual income for one person, or $225,050 for a family of four, according to the 2025 federal poverty guidelines. The numbers are somewhat higher for residents of Alaska and Hawaii.  

The funding could not go toward abortion access or gender transitions, according to the Republican bill summary. 

Proposal modeled on Trump comments

Cassidy and Crapo outlined how their proposal would work during afternoon floor speeches, where they also aired their grievances with how the Affordable Care Act has affected Americans’ health care costs. 

Crapo rebuked Democrats for establishing the enhanced ACA marketplace tax credits during the coronavirus pandemic and scheduling them to sunset at the end of this year. 

“The pattern has become clear: Democrats respond to rising premiums by throwing taxpayer dollars at the problem,” Crapo said. “Their supposedly short-term fixes only drive premiums higher and make the problem harder to solve. Leaving us with apparently no choice other than to do the same thing again and again and again.”

The GOP plan, he said, was modeled off President Donald Trump’s request to send funding directly to Americans to spend on their health care. 

“Families can use that money to cover costs not handled by their insurance policy without having to wait for insurance companies to approve their treatment decisions,” Crapo said. “Because families want the best value for their money, they will seek out the most appropriate treatment. Over time this will result in lower health care costs as providers compete for patients.”

Cassidy said the bill would not subsidize health insurance premiums but would help some Americans pay for doctor exams, dentist visits, glasses and prescriptions. 

Once eligible ACA marketplace enrollees receive that funding in their Health Savings Accounts, he said, they will shop around for better prices, including on x-rays, which are often used to determine if someone has broken a bone. 

“She’s going to say, ‘Wait a second, the x-ray is $150 here and $500 there. I’m going to where it’s cheaper, not more expensive,’” Cassidy said, giving an example. “And I can tell you when that begins to happen, the people who are more expensive begin to lower their price.”

The U.S. Education Department announced a proposed agreement with Republican-led states to permanently eliminate the Biden-era SAVE plan. (Catherine Lane/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Education announced a proposed agreement Tuesday that would permanently axe an income-driven student loan repayment plan in which more than 7 million student loan borrowers are enrolled. 

Under a joint proposal with seven Republican-led states that challenged the program, the department would not enroll any new borrowers in the Saving on a Valuable Education, or SAVE, plan, deny any pending applications and place borrowers currently in the plan into legally compliant repayment plans.

The program, introduced in 2023 under then-President Joe Biden’s administration, was hit with legal challenges from several GOP-led states, including Missouri, and has been blocked by the courts. The initiative sought to provide lower monthly loan payments for borrowers and forgive remaining debt after a certain period of time. 

If a Missouri federal court approves the agreement, the department said borrowers currently enrolled in the SAVE plan “will have a limited time to select a new, legal repayment plan and begin repaying their student loans.”

The agreement stems from a legal challenge to the plan brought by Missouri, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, North Dakota, Ohio and Oklahoma in 2024.

A ‘deceptive scheme’

In a statement alongside the announcement, Under Secretary of Education Nicholas Kent said President Donald Trump’s administration “is righting this wrong and bringing an end to this deceptive scheme.” 

“The law is clear: if you take out a loan, you must pay it back,” Kent added. “Thanks to the State of Missouri and other states fighting against this egregious federal overreach, American taxpayers can now rest assured they will no longer be forced to serve as collateral for illegal and irresponsible student loan policies.” 

Republicans argued the permissive repayment plan let borrowers off the hook at the expense of federal taxpayers.

Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway said in a statement Tuesday her office “fought for hardworking Americans who were being preyed upon by Biden Administration bureaucrats, and we won in court every time.” 

“We appreciate President Trump’s real, long-term solutions instead of illegal student loan schemes,” Hanaway added. 

Student advocates, though, said the agreement would place an additional burden on student borrowers already struggling with a rising cost of living.

Persis Yu, deputy executive director and managing counsel at the advocacy group Protect Borrowers, blasted the settlement agreement as “pure capitulation” in a Tuesday statement. 

“While millions of student loan borrowers struggle amidst the worsening affordability crisis … billionaire Education Secretary, Linda McMahon chose to strike a back-room deal with a right-wing state Attorney General and strip borrowers of the most affordable repayment plan that would help millions to stay on track with their loans while keeping a roof over their head,” Yu said. 

Interest accumulating

In February, a federal appeals court upheld a lower court injunction that blocked the SAVE plan from going into effect. Borrowers under the plan were placed in an interest-free forbearance last year amid legal limbo. 

But borrowers’ loans in the SAVE forbearance began to accrue interest Aug. 1 — a move the department announced in July to comply with court orders. 

The SAVE plan was already set to be phased out by July 2028 under congressional Republicans’ tax and spending cut bill that Trump signed into law this year. 

The front entrance of the E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse in Washington, D.C., which houses the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. (Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration Tuesday defended the merits of its fast-track deportation policy before a panel of judges in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, saying immigrants who have been in the country for less than two years without legal authorization are not guaranteed due process.

The suit, brought by immigration rights advocacy groups, challenges the Department of Homeland Security’s expanded expedited removal rule’s application to immigrants in the interior of the United States who cannot prove they have remained in the country for more than two years. 

The expanded policy, which allows the removal of immigrants without an appearance before an immigration judge, is a pillar of the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign. 

Arguing on behalf of the Trump administration, Drew Ensign from the U.S. Department of Justice said that immigrants cannot rely on due process rights granted in the Constitution because those rights are reserved for U.S. citizens. Congress and Supreme Court precedents restrict immigrants’ rights to due process, he said.

Additionally, Ensign argued that because Congress authorized the DHS secretary to use expedited removal, the courts have no jurisdiction on the matter. 

Anand Balakrishnan, legal counsel for Make the Road New York, the immigrant rights advocacy group that brought the challenge, said the policy skirts a fair legal process for immigrants.

Democratic state attorneys general also submitted a brief in support of the immigrant rights groups, arguing that the expanded use of expedited removal is unconstitutional. Those states include California, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai’i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont and Washington state. 

Policy expanded to interior

For decades, expedited removal has been used to apply to migrants apprehended at the U.S. border and quickly deported without appearing before an immigration judge. In January, the Trump administration expanded its scope to the interior of the country and applied it to any immigrant apprehended who cannot prove they have remained in the country for more than two years. 

An appeals court in late November declined the Trump administration’s request to pause a district court’s block of the policy while the appeal was pending. 

Tuesday’s hearing was part of the Trump administration’s appeal on the merits of its policy before a different appeals panel, Judges Justin R. Walker, Neomi Rao and Robert L. Wilkins. President Donald Trump nominated Walker and Rao and former President Barack Obama nominated Wilkins.

The panel appeared skeptical of the administration’s argument that due process rights do not apply to immigrants who entered the U.S. without legal authorization.

Duty to notify

The judges seemed split, though, about if the government should be expected to explain the expedited removal statute to a person it is attempting to remove and what that person’s rights are to challenge their removal, or if the person should have to ask for their own due process rights. 

“Even if we accept your portrayal of how the due process works, … under that framing, there still has to be adequate notice (of removal),” Wilkins said to Ensign. 

Ensign argued that immigrants subject to expedited removal have sufficient notice they are being removed and can’t rely on the due process clause of the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment to challenge it. The executive branch has the authority to decide how to apply the clause to immigrants, he said.

Wilkins pushed back on that argument, saying notices must meet minimum standards. 

“The notice (of removal) has to be sufficient,” he said to Ensign. “(It) has to inform you of at least what the procedures are or what you’re facing.”

Balakrishnan said a mere notice of removal is “inadequate.” An immigrant subject to expedited removal can be deported within hours and without having time to challenge their removal or even speak to an attorney, he said.

Walker seemed skeptical that the burden of notifying an immigrant that they were subject to the policy fell to the government. 

“For someone who has chosen to be here illegally, in violation of our laws….from a due process perspective it’s not too much to ask that if someone here illegally wants the special non-expedited removal procedures that Congress has graciously afforded them, it’s not too much to ask that they ask for them,” he said. 

Balakrishnan argued that wouldn’t be sufficient due process.

“I think it’s common sense that having even that bare amount of information, ‘if you’ve been here for over two years you’re not subject to expedited removal’ would certainly decrease the risk of error,” Balakrishnan said. “I’m not sure how it would be overly burdensome for the government to do that.” 

Then-U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Geoffrey Berman announces charges against Jeffrey Epstein on July 8, 2019 in New York City.  (Photo by Stephanie Keith/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A Manhattan federal judge granted an order Tuesday to unseal grand jury records in the case of Jeffrey Epstein co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell, who was convicted of sex trafficking minors among other offenses in 2021.

Federal Judge Paul Engelmayer wrote in a 24-page order that unsealing the documents fell within the scope of a new law passed by Congress and signed by President Donald Trump. The law compels the U.S. Department of Justice to release nearly all investigative files in the government’s case against Epstein, who died in jail in 2019 awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.

The U.S. Department of Justice asked the court to release the records after Congress overwhelmingly passed the legislation last month requiring disclosure of “all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials in its possession that relate to Epstein or (co-conspirator Ghislaine) Maxwell.”

Attorney General Pam Bondi must release the material by Dec. 19 in accordance with the law, which lawmakers dubbed the Epstein Files Transparency Act. 

Law covers grand jury material

Engelmayer described the act’s language as “strikingly broad” and wrote Congress was “undeniably aware” that grand jury materials in Maxwell’s case were in possession of the U.S. attorney’s office in the Southern District of New York.

“Its decision not to exclude grand jury materials despite knowledge as to their existence, while expressly excluding other categories of materials (such as classified information), indicates that the Act covers grand jury materials,” Engelmayer wrote.

The order comes days after a Florida federal judge reached a similar conclusion Friday and ordered the unsealing of federal grand jury materials related to the government’s investigation of Epstein from 2005 to 2007.

Epstein pleaded guilty to a state charge for soliciting a minor for prostitution but avoided a federal probe when then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta cut a deal with state prosecutors. Acosta was later appointed secretary of Labor during Trump’s first administration.

Florida interview

Maxwell is serving a 20-year prison sentence. The Trump administration recently transferred the sex offender to a minimum security prison shortly after Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche interviewed her in a Tallahassee, Florida, facility as pressure to release the Epstein files ramped up in Congress and among Trump’s base.

According to transcripts, Maxwell told Blanche, Trump’s former personal defense attorney, that she “never witnessed the president in any inappropriate setting in any way. The president was never inappropriate with anybody. In the times that I was with him, he was a gentleman in all respects.”

Trump had a well-documented friendship with Epstein but denies any involvement with Epstein’s alleged crimes. The president has said that he kicked Epstein out of his private Florida club, Mar-a-Lago, because Epstein had poached young female staffers from the club.

Maxwell was convicted in December 2021, after a one-month jury trial, of conspiracy to entice minors to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, conspiracy to transport minors to participate in illegal sex acts, transporting a minor to participate in illegal sex acts, sex trafficking conspiracy, and sex trafficking of a minor.

The Justice Department maintains Epstein had over 1,000 victims.

Dr. Martin Makary testifies during his confirmation hearing to lead the Food and Drug Administration before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee at the Dirksen Senate Office Building on March 06, 2025 in Washington, DC.  (Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Two of the country’s largest anti-abortion organizations want President Donald Trump to fire U.S. Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary over access to medication abortion. 

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, expressed frustration Tuesday that the FDA hasn’t completed a review of the prescription drug mifepristone.

“The FDA needs a new commissioner who will immediately reinstate in-person dispensing as it existed under President Trump’s first term and immediately conduct a comprehensive study,” she wrote in a statement. “Commissioner Makary is severely undermining President Trump and Vice President Vance’s pro-life credentials and their position that states should have the right to enact and enforce pro-life protections. Makary must go.”

A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services, which houses the FDA, wrote in a statement that “FDA’s comprehensive scientific reviews take the time necessary to get the science right, and that is what Dr. Makary is ensuring as part of the Department’s commitment to gold-standard science and evidence-based reviews.”

White House spokesman Kush Desai wrote in an email to States Newsroom that “Makary is working diligently to ensure that Americans have the best possible, Gold Standard Science study of mifepristone.”

“The White House maintains the utmost confidence in Commissioner Makary, whose leadership at the FDA has delivered and continues to deliver one landmark victory for the American people after another, from cracking down on artificial ingredients in our food supply to conducting the first safety review of baby formula in decades,” Desai added. “Uninformed attacks against Commissioner Makary from individuals outside the Administration will not change these facts.”

FDA approval 

Mifepristone is one of two pharmaceuticals used in medication abortion. It is FDA-approved for up to 10 weeks gestation and can be prescribed via telehealth and shipped to patients remotely. 

About 63% of the abortions in 2023 were medication, as opposed to procedural, according to the Guttmacher Institute. 

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected an attempt by anti-abortion medical organizations to overturn the FDA’s current prescribing guidelines for mifepristone in 2024. 

Numerous medical organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Medical Association, filed briefs to the justices in that case attesting to the safety and efficacy of medication abortion. 

“The scientific evidence is overwhelming: major adverse events occur in less than 0.32% of patients,” the groups wrote. “The risk of death is almost non-existent.”

‘No preconceived plans’

Makary testified before a Senate committee in March as part of his confirmation process that he planned to review data on mifepristone and follow the research where it led him.

“I have no preconceived plans on mifepristone policy except to take a solid, hard look at the data and to meet with the professional career scientists who have reviewed the data at the FDA,” Makary said at the time.

Lila Rose, founder of the anti-abortion group Live Action, also called for Makary to be fired, writing in a social media post that his request to delay the results of the review until after the November 2026 midterm elections, which was reported by Bloomberg Law, was unacceptable. 

“If Dr Makary will not act as head of the FDA to protect children and mothers he should be fired,” Rose wrote, later adding the administration should, “Ban the abortion pill now!”

Americans United for Life CEO John Mize released a statement after meeting with Makary, saying it “is glaringly obvious that flawed political calculations” have stalled the FDA’s review of mifepristone. 

“To avoid political backlash in the upcoming midterm elections, advisors within the Administration are acting on a false premise, that emphasizing the importance of women’s safety and direct in-person consultation with her clinician is a political liability,” Mize wrote. 

An oak savannah in southern Dane County that the Badgerland Foundation is working to conserve using Knowles-Nelson Stewardship funds (Photo by Henry Redman/Wisconsin Examiner)

The looming shutdown of Wisconsin’s decades old Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Grant program has put conservation projects across Wisconsin at risk as land trusts attempt to muddle on without the program that has protected more than 700,000 acres of land in the state. 

Without the stewardship fund, projects to conserve 1,300 acres of Northwoods forest near the headwaters of the Wisconsin River in Vilas County, hundreds of acres of “ecologically significant” wetlands in Door County and dozens of acres of prairie and grassland in Dane County could go unfinished. 

“It’s a bit bleak and it’s so disheartening to know that there’s so many beautiful, wonderful places kind of on the chopping block right now all across the state,” says Emily Wood, executive director of the Door County Land Trust. “It’s not just us. We hear from our partners that there are hundreds and thousands of acres that are just not going to be protected if [the program] goes away, and that’s going to have such an impact, domino effect, on future generations.” 

The Knowles-Nelson Stewardship fund was created in 1989 to fund land conservation in Wisconsin. The program provides grants to local governments and non-profits to cover some of the costs for purchasing and conserving land that can be used for recreation, preserving animal habitats and supporting local industries such as forestry. 

The program enjoys massive bipartisan support, yet in recent years, some Republicans in the state Legislature — largely from communities in the northern part of the state — have grown hostile to it, claiming that the program has too often been used to fund the purchase of land up north, depleting local tax bases. 

Republican legislators have also complained that they no longer have oversight over the Department of Natural Resource’s management of the program after a Wisconsin Supreme Court decision last year found that the Legislature had given itself an unconstitutional veto authority over the DNR’s grant decisions. 

Several attempts have been made to save the program from expiring next summer. In his initial state budget proposal, Gov. Tony Evers asked to extend the program for ten years with $100 million in annual funding. Republicans stripped that provision from the budget immediately. 

Rep. Tony Kurtz (R-Wonewoc) and Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point) have authored a bill that would extend the program for four years at $28 million per year. The bill also includes a provision that would require the full Legislature to approve any land purchases that cost more than $1 million — a proposal that critics say would be far too slow for the speed at which real estate transactions need to move. 

A separate proposal from Sen. Jodi Habush Sinykin (D-Whitefish Bay) would re-authorize the program for six years at $72 million per year and create an independent board made up of members appointed by the Legislature to approve large land purchases through the program. 

But there has been little progress made on advancing either proposal and now conservation groups are trying to plan for the next year without the support that Knowles-Nelson has traditionally provided.

Wood says that her organization is trying to protect the landscape in one of the most ecologically significant parts of the state. The challenge for her group is that Door County’s natural beauty draws tourists and increased development, yet too much development would damage the natural beauty. 

The Door County Land Trust has protected more than 5,000 acres of land in the county and Knowles-Nelson has covered half the cost in nearly every transaction, according to Wood. With the program shuttering next year, three projects totaling about $1 million — all of which scored highly on the DNR criteria — are at risk. 

“The county as a whole receives a ton of money from the Knowles-Nelson stewardship fund, because we are so geared towards tourism and access to natural resources,” she says.  The stewardship fund is critical for Door County to continue “to be the county that you know, everyone expects us to be when they get in the car and come up here.” 

Near the southern border of Dane County, Filip Sanna and the BadgerLand Foundation are working with the Driftless Area Land Conservancy and The Prairie Enthusiasts to protect and restore vital oak savannah and prairie in southern Wisconsin. 

Hundreds of years of agriculture have all but destroyed the native prairies in what was once one of the most ecologically diverse regions in the world.

The foundation has already conserved and gifted to the Driftless Area Land Conservancy hundreds of acres between Belleville and New Glarus that will soon be open to the public for hiking and hunting and used for sustainable practices such as regenerative agriculture. But future plans are threatened by the looming loss of stewardship funds. 

Recently, a tract of about 30 acres became available on the market within an area environmental groups have targeted as important for protecting grassland bird habitat. The Prairie Enthusiasts wanted to conserve the land but funds through the stewardship program wouldn’t be available fast enough. So the BadgerLand Foundation and the Prairie Enthusiasts reached an agreement in which the foundation would purchase the land and then sell it to the Prairie Enthusiasts once the stewardship grant comes through. 

Now those funds are uncertain and Sanna says it could sidetrack future plans.

One of the arguments Republican legislators have often made against the Knowles-Nelson program is that more populated areas in the southern part of the state should bear more of the land conservation burden. 

But the program dying off could jeopardize land conservation in the population centers because land is more expensive there. Dane County’s recently enacted 2026 budget doubled the size of the county’s conservation fund from $5 million to $10 million. That, Sanna says, can be a Band-aid for now. But county and local governments are facing their own budget challenges and smaller counties won’t be able to step into the DNR’s conservation shoes. In many places, the local governments are also dependent on stewardship program funds to conserve and maintain public land. 

“One of the responses we have to the uncertainty about Knowles-Nelson is to try to look to the county level and then some combination of county funding and private donations,” Sanna says. “That might work in Dane County, where we have a relatively strong tax base. But if you go to the neighboring counties around, Green and Iowa and Lafayette and all of those counties, that’s probably not an option.” 

“if [Knowles-Nelson] dies, the next step is going to be, now you’re going to have nice parks around all the wealthy people, but all the rest of Wisconsin that is smaller population centers that’ll just be like towns, rural housing, farmland, private land,” he continues. “There won’t be public land.” 

Way up in Vilas County, in the part of the state where the fight over land conservation has been most heated, a handful of administrative delays might end up killing a 1,300 acre conservation project because stewardship funds will no longer be available. 

The Northwoods Alliance and Partners in Forestry are working together to use federal and Knowles-Nelson funds to preserve two tracts of land west of the town of Land O’ Lakes. Joe Hovel, director of Partners in Forestry, says the project would include trails as part of the extensive Wilderness Lakes bike path system. 

Because the real estate deal on the project got delayed, and the slow speed at which the state and federal government have moved, it’s likely that the chance to use Knowles-Nelson dollars has already passed. 

Hovel says the complaints about land conservation up north discount the economic value of protecting the land for recreational uses. 

“It’s really short sighted in a sense that there isn’t enough respect for the recreational value of this land conservation stuff,” Hovel says. “The value of public access conservation land dwarfs, I mean it literally dwarfs, the value that timber revenue brings in.” 

A report from the Outdoor Recreation Roundtable found that recreation on federal public lands generates $128.5 billion in economic activity every year. All the logging on federal land generates $200-300 million per year.

The Legislature has just over six months to extend the program. Wood says it would be a self-inflicted wound if elected officials allow a program that other states look to as a model to expire. 

“It’s so disheartening to hear that the fund that has had so much success over the years, that other states look to how to fund conservation, they look to Wisconsin’s model on how to do it, and that we as a state, that same model is going to go down just because of partisan gridlock,” she says. “We really just need to keep it alive because funding it in a later year, or coming back and making changes to make it better are way more possible if it’s an existing program.” 

“But coming up with another one from scratch, it just seems like it would be an impossibility. So right now, it does feel like we are just screaming to keep it, just keep it alive. Just don’t kill it.”

Democratic gubernatorial hopeful Mandela Barnes spoke with bike shop owner Mitch Pilon about rising costs under President Donald Trump and the effects of tariffs. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Even with a crowded Democratic primary field, gubernatorial hopeful Mandela Barnes told reporters Monday that he is focusing his efforts on the Republican candidate he might face in November 2026 and he has raised a “strong haul” in the first week of his campaign.

Barnes, a former lieutenant governor and U.S. Senate candidate, visited Black Saddle Bike Shop (where he said he’s often had his bike serviced) on the North Side of Madison. The stop was part of Barnes’ “Wisconsin Way” tour, launched last week after he announced his campaign. He has joined a field of candidates in the Democratic primary that includes Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez, Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation Missy Hughes, state Sen. Kelda Roys (D-Madison), state Rep. Francesca Hong (D-Madison) and former state Rep. Brett Hulsey.

Barnes said his fundraising so far is “something that’ll make my mom proud,” though he wouldn’t expand on how much money he has raised. He said his goal will be to raise $50 million in the race overall, though he also criticized the need to raise so much. 

Barnes noted that during Gov. Tony Evers’ successful second bid for the office, Evers spent around $42 million to defeat Republican businessman Tim Michels, who spent $28.48 million. A record-breaking $164 million was spent in 2022 on Wisconsin’s gubernatorial race.

“It’s not a good sign for things. I wish that were not the case. The goal is to get big money out of politics. The goal is for campaign and ethics reform,” Barnes said, adding that reform is needed at both  the state and federal levels. “We should be taking more steps to reduce the impact of money in politics,” he said.

Barnes said the first week of the campaign has been exciting, and he has been trying to talk to as many people as possible. He spoke with bike shop owner Mitch Pilon about rising costs under President Donald Trump and the effects of tariffs. 

“With an absence of support from the federal government, even if the state doesn’t have all the resources to make it better, at least staving off some of the worst from happening, I fully believe that’s a responsibility of state government,” he told Pilon, adding that he wants to help “tip the scales back into the favor of working people.” 

Pilon, who opened the shop in February 2020, said making ends meet has been a challenge for him and his partner, who is a social worker.

“In Wisconsin, after 10 years, your student loans should be absolved, which they’re not going to be now, and she has a master’s degree… that’s $100,000 in debt at social worker’s compensation,” Pilon said. The Trump administration has sought to upend student loan forgiveness programs this year. “I own a small business. I work really hard… we can’t afford a house.” 

“[Trump] promised to lower costs for people,” Barnes told reporters after the conversation. “He said he was going to bring back manufacturing to this country, specifically to this state. It hasn’t happened. As people continue to feel the pinch, tough decisions are being made.” 

Barnes said he got into the race because of the urgency of those sorts of challenges. 

“It’s a critical moment that calls for leadership. It calls for boldness, to not just take on the president, but to also offer real solutions for the problems that people are facing,” Barnes said. “So this is one of many small businesses that we’ll be showing up to… over the course of this campaign.” 

Pilon also asked Barnes about one of the obstacles that his campaign will need to overcome — his failed challenge to U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson in 2022. Barnes has faced pushback to his campaign due to that loss. 

“We lost the Senate race…” Pilon said. “How do you get over that? How do you rise above that?”

Barnes responded that he didn’t get into the race for “personal reasons.”

“I got into it because there was work that needed to be done,” Barnes said. “I don’t feel like the job is being done and, alright, that’s a wakeup call to go out there and raise my hand and do the job.” 

“How do you change people’s minds?” Pilon asked. 

“A lot of it is personal stories and experience,” Barnes said. 

It has been rare for candidates in Wisconsin to succeed in winning a statewide race after an earlier loss. Charles Franklin, director of the Marquette Law School poll, found in an analysis of previous governor and U.S. Senate election results that the last time a candidate won one of those statewide campaigns after losing a previous one was in the 1970s. Examples of failed second chances include Tom Barrett, who lost bids for governor in 2010 and 2012, Tim Michels, who lost to Evers in 2022 after he lost a bid for the Senate in 2004, and Russ Feingold, who lost Senate races in 2010 and 2016.

Barnes is undeterred by the precedent. 

“There’s a lot of history that would suggest I wouldn’t ever become lieutenant governor,” Barnes said in answer to a question about Franklin’s second-change analysis. “There’s also, you know, in terms of historical precedent, I don’t know that there is a precedent that suggests anybody on the Democratic or Republican side has a better chance of winning.”

Barnes ran for the Democratic lieutenant governor nomination in 2018 in a two-person race, going on to win on the same ticket as Gov. Tony Evers. He was elected and served as the state’s youngest and first Black lieutenant governor from 2019 to 2023. 

Wisconsin’s gubernatorial race next year is wide open for the first time since 2010.

During the 2022 Senate race, Barnes became the Democratic nominee after other high-profile candidates dropped out weeks before the primary.

Barnes denied he helped push the other Democrats out of the race then. He also said primaries are good for democracy when asked whether he wants other candidates to coalesce around him.

“I think it should be a battle of ideas, whether it’s a large primary or not, but would never that’s never been my style to try to get anybody out of any race,” Barnes said. “As you know, from the way I got in, I showed up by challenging someone in a primary election, so it’d be very hypocritical of me to suggest anybody get out.”

Barnes previously served in the Wisconsin State Assembly for two terms from 2013 to 2017. He gave up his seat in the state Assembly in 2016 to challenge former State Sen. Lena Taylor (D-Milwaukee). He lost the primary by more than 11,000 votes.

Barnes said his campaign will be focused not just on unifying Democrats but on a “unifying message to defeat extremists and extremism.” 

“It does not matter what your favorite ideology might be, there’s a place for you in this campaign because it is about improving quality of life for everybody,” Barnes said. 

With about 10 months until the primary, Barnes said he’ll be focused on the Republican candidates in the race. U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany is the presumed frontrunner for the Republican nomination. 

“This is about pointing out flaws and failures, and Tom Tiffany as he stands as the front runner, his failures and leadership, his decisions to go lock-step with the president who has made things worse for Wisconsin,” Barnes said. “Tom Tiffany didn’t go to Washington to make things better for us, and we shouldn’t expect him to improve things for us as governor.” 

The primary election is scheduled for Aug. 11, 2026.

The Trump administration suddenly withdrew its federal policy change reducing funding for permanent supportive housing on Monday, Dec. 8, 2025. (Photo by Nadia Engenheiro, Half Street Group)

An hour before a scheduled court hearing on two federal lawsuits over recent changes to a key federal homelessness and housing funding program, the Trump administration withdrew the funding notice that prompted the litigation.

The move came as a surprise to the attorneys for plaintiffs who were initially scheduled to make their case for a temporary restraining order before Rhode Island Judge Mary S. McElroy. 

“It feels like intentional chaos,” McElroy said.

In a message to Continuum of Care networks, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced Monday afternoon that officials rescinded its Nov. 13 Notice of Funding Opportunity for federal fiscal 2025 grants to “make appropriate revisions.” The notice had set Jan. 14 as the deadline for applications for Continuum of Care funds, which address homelessness.

Rhode Island’s Continuum of Care gave the state’s homeless care a deadline of Dec. 12 to get their applications done to give to HUD, according to one of the lawsuits.

“We received notice first through our providers and [electronic filing], not through opposing counsel,” Zane Muller, assistant attorney general for the state of Washington, said during the 25-minute virtual hearing that began at 3:30 p.m.

HUD’s policy rescission too was news for McElroy, who called it a “haphazard approach to administrative law.” 

“There’s a process and procedure that’s laid out,” said McElroy, a first-term Trump appointee. “It’s not by tweets or by last-minute orders or last-minute withdrawals.”

Pardis Gheibi, a U.S. Department of Justice attorney representing HUD, told McElroy the notice was filed with the court as soon as it was published. She did not have the answer when McElroy wanted to know who at HUD made the decision to rescind the funding notice and when.

“We didn’t have the chance to confer with plaintiffs’ counsel — but the rescission happened this afternoon,” Gheibi said.

The Trump administration had planned to slash the amount of grant funds that can be spent on permanent housing — subsidized units that provide a stable residence for formerly homeless people, often those who have experienced mental illness or spent years on the streets — and instead focus on transitional housing.

Grant rules also would have eliminated funding for diversity and inclusion efforts, support of transgender clients and use of “harm reduction” strategies that seek to reduce overdose deaths by helping people in active addiction use drugs more safely.

HUD wrote in its update that it still intends to make changes to the policy for awarding funds for addressing homelessness.

A coalition of states co-led by Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha filed suit over HUD’s latest Notice of Funding Opportunity on Nov. 25. On Dec. 1, a group of cities and nonprofits led by the National Alliance to End Homelessness and the National Low Income Housing Coalition filed a separate 85-page lawsuit.

Both complaints had similar requests for the court to declare the new conditions unlawful and reinstate language from prior funding notices, which is why McElroy opted to combine them into one hearing.

But with the funding notice now withdrawn, Gheibi argued there was no need for immediate relief.

Kristin Bateman, an attorney representing local communities and nonprofits and a senior counsel with Democracy Forward, argued court action is still needed. She said HUD’s rescission still leaves a critical funding gap for homeless services starting early next year since most federal fiscal 2024 grants start to expire in January.

“Those gaps in funding mean that they will not have the money to continue supporting the permanent housing that they fund for people to live in,” Bateman said. “People are going to be displaced, put back into homelessness in the middle of winter and face all the harms that come with that.”

McElroy scheduled the next hearing for 10 a.m. Friday, Dec. 19. She also tasked HUD with producing the administrative record on the grant funding policy, ideally within a week — though Gheibi had asked if it could wait until after the holidays.

McElroy said if the administration could work quickly to rescind the funding notice, they can work quickly to give the court the documents she requested.

“People can work overtime if they need to,” McElroy said. “I do, they do, I’m sure you do.”

President Donald Trump participates in a roundtable discussion with farmers and lawmakers in the Cabinet Room of the White House on Dec. 8, 2025 in Washington, D.C. Left is Cordt Holub of Dysart, Iowa, and right is Meryl Kennedy of Monroe, Louisiana.(Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

The federal government will provide $12 billion to U.S. farmers who have been hurt by “unfair market disruption,” President Donald Trump said at a White House roundtable event Monday.

Trump said repeatedly the funding was available thanks to tariff revenues, framing his aggressive trade policy as a boon to farmers rather than a drag on their global market share as critics of the policy suggest. 

“I’m delighted to announce this afternoon that the United States will be taking a small portion of the hundreds of billions of dollars we receive in tariffs…  and we’re going to be giving and providing it to the farmers in economic assistance,” Trump said.

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, though, told reporters following the event that the money came from the department’s Commodity Credit Corporation, which is funded through regular appropriations from Congress, according to a White House pool report.

The money, which the administration officials described as “bridge payments,” would be in farmers’ hands by the end of February, Rollins said. 

While not officially marketed as a part of a series of Trump events spotlighting affordability issues, the president said several times he was addressing an affordability crisis he “inherited” from President Joe Biden, a Democrat.

“The Democrats cause the affordability problem,” Trump said. “And we’re the ones that are fixing it.” 

The bulk of the funding, $11 billion, would go to row crop farmers who grow barley, chickpeas, corn, cotton, lentils, oats, peanuts, peas, rice, sorghum, soybeans, wheat, canola, crambe, flax, mustard, rapeseed, safflower, sesame and sunflower, according to a USDA statement. The department was planning to reserve $1 billion for unnamed specialty crops, Rollins said.

Payments to arrive before GOP law kicks in

Trump, Rollins and other Cabinet-level officials said the payments were to be used as a “bridge” before policies enacted in Republicans’ massive spending and tax cuts law this year are implemented.

“This bridge is absolutely necessary based on where we are right now,” Rollins said.

They blamed the Biden administration for a more negative outlook for farmers. Biden failed to close trade deals and a focus on environmental policy led to increased costs for the agriculture industry, they said.

The package limits payments to $155,000 per recipient, USDA Undersecretary for Farm Production and Conservation Richard Fordyce told reporters on a conference call late Monday afternoon.

Iowa farmer Cordt Holub spoke at the White House event, where he thanked Trump for the package.

“I want to say thank you for this bridge payment,” he said. “It’s Christmas early for farmers.”

Louisiana rice farmer Meryl Kennedy said the industry was struggling, but thanked Trump for the aid funding and changes to reference prices in the Republican megabill. 

“Our farmers can feed this nation and many nations abroad, but we need fair trade, not free trade,” she said. 

Tariff impact ignored

But they did not mention the effects of tariffs, which critics of the president have said are responsible for diminishing agricultural exports and hurting farmers’ bottom lines.

House Agriculture Committee ranking Democrat Angie Craig of Minnesota said in a statement the package “picks winners and losers in the farm economy,” and would not provide certainty to farmers or reduce high operational costs.

“It will not bring U.S. agricultural exports back to pre-trade war levels,” she said. “It also ignores (the) fact that the president’s tariffs are responsible for the immense financial strain felt not just by America’s farmers, but also working people, manufacturers, retailers and small businesses. All Americans are tired of the affordability crisis created by this administration and congressional Republicans. We will be right back here a year from now unless the administration changes its policies.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, also slammed the program.

“The reason farmers need relief at all is largely because Donald Trump betrayed them and decimated their businesses with his disastrous tariffs,” Schumer said in a floor speech Monday. “Now, Donald Trump is patting himself on the back, acting like a hero to farmers while using taxpayer dollars to clean up the mess he created. It’s textbook Donald Trump incompetence.”

Another round?

Asked by a reporter during the roundtable if he would be open to another round of relief for farmers, Trump said it would depend on how international trade develops and said farmers would not want further aid.

“It depends on where we go,” he said. “China is buying a lot. Other countries are buying a lot. And you know, the interesting thing about the farmers, they don’t want aid. They want to just have a level playing field.”

He later indicated it would be unnecessary.

“We’re going to make the farmers so strong — and I’m not even talking about financially, because they just want to be able to produce what they can produce,” he said. “We’re going to make them so strong that it will be, indeed, a golden age for farmers.”

Rollins told reporters following the event that Trump was “open to more.”

Nurse practitioner Carol Biocic treats a Marine Corps veteran at a podiatry clinic for veterans in 2023 in Chicago. New professional student loan caps might make it more difficult for people to pursue advanced nursing degrees. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Zoe Clarke became a hospital registered nurse two and a half years ago, following in the footsteps of her mother and grandmother.

Clarke, an ICU nurse in Asheville, North Carolina, wants to get her master’s degree to become a nurse practitioner or a certified registered nurse anesthetist — occupations in high demand — and eventually work toward a doctoral degree.

But new borrowing limits on federal student loans may hinder her from reaching that goal.

A provision in the federal One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the tax and spending law enacted this summer, overhauls the federal student loan program for graduate students in an effort to simplify the loan process and discourage colleges from raising tuition.

To comply with the new law, the U.S. Department of Education recently issued a draft rule that would impose limits on how much graduate students can borrow — up to $20,500 per year and $100,000 in total for most students, but up to $50,000 a year and $200,000 in total for students in a new “professional” category. The category includes people studying to be medical doctors, dentists, veterinarians, pharmacists and lawyers.

Students pursuing advanced nursing degrees, however, are not included in the professional category.

Advanced practice nurses, hospital associations and other health groups say the rule will make it unaffordable for many nurses to advance their careers — disproportionately affecting communities, especially rural ones, that rely on them amid physician shortages.

Advanced nurses can provide primary care, deliver babies as nurse midwives and anesthetize surgery patients where there aren’t enough physicians to go around. They can also write some prescriptions. Advanced practice nurses also serve as college faculty in community colleges and nursing schools.

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates the nation will employ an additional 134,000 nurse practitioners, nurse midwives and nurse anesthetists in the next decade, 35% more than there are now. In high demand, nurse practitioners are one of the fastest-growing occupations in the nation, the bureau says.

“We depend heavily on nurse practitioners,” said Sandy Reding, a president of the California Nurses Association and vice president of National Nurses United. “But if they don’t have access to getting further education, we’re not going to see additional nurse practitioners come into the field.”

Tuition, combined with living expenses, can far exceed $50,000 a year for many post-bachelor’s nursing programs.

“Potentially, this could devastate a whole generation of nurses getting their advanced practice degrees,” Clarke said.

Some education advocates fear that losing a pipeline of advanced nursing practitioners to serve as college faculty also could lead to fewer registered and advanced nurses and other caregivers with two- and four-year degrees, because there would be fewer people to teach them.

Many advanced-degree nursing faculty are retiring. Nursing schools reported more than 2,100 full-time faculty vacancies in 2022, according to the American Nurses Association — leading to roughly 80,000 students being turned away.

States are already grappling with workforce shortfalls caused by exhausting work conditions that have led many nurses to burn out and leave the field, or leave bedside care to teach, nurses told Stateline.

In response to an uproar from nursing associations and others in health care, the Department of Education released a rebuttal last week defending its proposal, saying it is not a “value judgement about the importance of programs.”

It also said it may make changes in response to public comments. The new limits would take effect July 1, 2026.

Rural and underserved communities

Advanced practice registered nurses, known as APRNs, fill gaps in rural communities where there aren’t enough clinicians. For example, nurses needed for surgeries — nurse anesthetists, or CRNAs — make up 80% of anesthesia providers in rural counties. About a fifth of APRNs nationwide worked in rural areas in 2022, according to one survey of more than 18,800 APRNs.

“The nurse practitioners, APRNs, are a needed lifeline to help fill those gaps,” said Heidi Lucas, executive director of the Missouri Rural Health Association and former director of the state’s nurses association. “Putting barriers in the way to keep [nurses] from getting degrees — that’s just going to exacerbate the problems that we already have.”

She said Missouri will be short about 2,000 physicians next year.

The new rule cutting options for federal student loans would only worsen staffing shortages amid tenuous rural hospital budgets, said state-level observers. Hospitals already are grappling with millions of dollars in looming Medicaid cuts over the next 10 years, said Rich Rasmussen, president of the Oklahoma Hospital Association.

Nurse practitioners often serve as primary care providers, writing prescriptions and managing patient care. About 80% of them see Medicaid and Medicare patients, according to the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, citing federal data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

The proposal to deny advanced practice nurse practitioners the more generous loan options ignores the nation’s needs, said nurse practitioner Valerie Fuller, president of the association.

“At a time when America needs more health care providers, we can’t afford to put more obstacles in place for nurse practitioner students who want to go on and further their education and take care of the patients that need care,” said Fuller, former president of the Maine Nurse Practitioner Association. “We know it’s going to harm our workforce.”

‘Clipping the wings’

Rasmussen, of the Oklahoma Hospital Association, said he is concerned about the effect the rule will have on the pipeline for certified nurse midwives and the state’s already dwindling rural maternal health care options.

“We are clipping the wings of rural [obstetrics] to be able to blossom in our state if we’re going to put these types of restrictions on the borrowing capability of nurses who want to pursue obstetrical services in nursing as well,” he said. He added that the rules will force nurses to seek private sector loans — which don’t qualify for federal loan forgiveness programs that encourage clinicians to come work in rural areas.

Teshieka Curtis-Pugh, executive director of the South Carolina Nurses Association, is also concerned about nurse midwives. South Carolina is expected to see a shortage of 3,200 physicians by 2030.

“We also live in a state that has very poor maternal outcomes, especially for women of color. So think about, how does that impact them?” she said. “That means we don’t get the certified nurse midwives who are masters prepared, some of them are doctorally prepared, who are able to fill that gap for birth in that area.”

Diversity and opportunity for students from marginalized groups could also take a hit, said Curtis-Pugh, a registered nurse with a master’s of science in nursing. And for those going back to school while juggling parenting, federal loan dollars can help beyond tuition, she noted.

“They help that mom be able to supplement child care for their child, so that they can have child care while they go to school,” she said. “There’s tuition, there’s books, there’s keeping the lights on. They’re feeding the family they’re getting to and from.”

The exclusion from the higher, “professional” category of student loan options is especially galling after nurses’ work during the COVID-19 pandemic, said Reding, of National Nurses United.

“We were all heroes in 2020. Now, what are we?” Reding asked. “It’s a slap in the face to the nurses that go to work every day doing our very best to care for our patients, even under very adverse conditions and even facing deadly viruses.”

Clarke, the registered nurse considering a post-bachelor’s degree, said nurses’ pandemic-era devotion influenced her own career path.

“When I saw the nurses and the health care workers really working hard for their communities and sacrificing a lot, I was really inspired by that,” Clarke said. “And that’s why I went to school.”

Stateline reporter Nada Hassanein can be reached at nhassanein@stateline.org.

The Lyndon Baines Johnson Department of Education Building on Nov. 25, 2024. (Photo by Shauneen Miranda/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Education Department is bringing back hundreds of employees in its Office for Civil Rights who were placed on paid administrative leave earlier this year, according to a Dec. 5 email to those employees obtained by States Newsroom. 

The effort came as the Office for Civil Rights, or OCR — which is tasked with investigating civil rights complaints from students and families — has seen a growth in its massive backlog of those complaints. 

A spokesperson for the department confirmed the effort and said the staffers would resume work starting Dec. 15.

Dismantling of department

More than 200 OCR employees targeted as part of a larger Reduction in Force, or RIF, effort at the Education Department in March were placed on administrative leave amid legal challenges against President Donald Trump’s administration.

Since taking office in January, Trump has sought to dismantle the 46-year-old agency in his quest to move education “back to the states.” He tapped Education Secretary Linda McMahon to fulfill that mission. 

“The Department will continue to appeal the persistent and unceasing litigation disputes concerning the Reductions in Force, but in the meantime, it will utilize all employees currently being compensated by American taxpayers,” Julie Hartman, a spokesperson for the department, said in a statement shared with States Newsroom.

In the email to employees, the department said “it is important to refocus OCR’s work and utilize all OCR staff to prioritize OCR’s existing complaint caseload.” 

“In order for OCR to pursue its mission with all available resources, all those individuals currently being compensated by the Department need to meet their employee performance expectations and contribute to the enforcement of existing civil rights complaints,” the email notes.

The agency did not respond to States Newsroom’s separate requests to confirm the text of the email. It is unclear how many of the more than 200 will return, or if some have taken other jobs.

Union says millions of dollars wasted

Rachel Gittleman, president of American Federation of Government Employees Local 252, which represents Education Department workers, said that “for more than nine months, hundreds of employees at the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) have been sidelined from the critical work of protecting our nation’s most vulnerable students and families.”

“Instead of following court orders and federal law, the Trump Administration chose to keep these civil rights professionals on paid administrative leave — a decision that has already wasted more than $40 million in taxpayer funds — rather than letting them do their jobs,” she said. 

Gittleman pointed to “severe” consequences, noting that “by blocking OCR staff from doing their jobs, Department leadership allowed a massive backlog of civil rights complaints to grow, and now expects these same employees to clean up a crisis entirely of the Department’s own making.” 

Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter participates in a privacy roundtable at CES 2020 at the Las Vegas Convention Center on Jan. 7, 2020 in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Photo by David Becker/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court appeared ready to expand presidential power after hearing a case Monday on whether President Donald Trump can hire and fire members of independent federal agencies without cause.

The high court’s decision, expected by the end of the term in late June, could heighten presidential influence over agencies created by Congress that oversee monetary policy, nuclear safety, consumer advocacy and trade, among other major policy areas.

The court’s conservative supermajority speculated that Congress could wield more and more power over the executive branch regarding how independent multimember agencies are structured, for example establishing term limits for commissioners.

Oral arguments centered on a 90-year-old Supreme Court precedent protecting the five-member panel atop the Federal Trade Commission from being fired for reasons other than “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance.” 

The 1935 decision, referred to by its short title Humphrey’s executor, upheld the Federal Trade Commission Act’s removal protection provision after President Franklin D. Roosevelt fired FTC Commissioner William Humphrey before his seven-year term ended. He died shortly after, and his executor sued and won.

Slaughter fired in March

Monday’s case stems from Trump’s March firing of Rebecca Slaughter, an FTC commissioner since 2018, when she was named during Trump’s first term. President Joe Biden reappointed her and the Senate unanimously confirmed her for a second term in 2023.

Trump fired Slaughter on March 28 in an email that said her “continued service on the FTC is inconsistent with my administration’s priorities.” Slaughter sued and won in federal district court and at the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer argued to the justices Monday that Congress is “shaving away from the president’s control.”

The conservative justices homed in on Sauer’s argument.

In an exchange between Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Slaughter’s counsel, Amit Agarwal, Barrett said, “If we decide this case in your favor, we don’t know what a Congress in 15 or 20 or 30 years might do.”

Agarwal responded, “We haven’t seen this problem materializing at all.”

“The real world danger that is imminent right now, that we know will happen, and that is that if petitioners get their way, everything is on the chopping block,” he said.

A few minutes later, Justice Brett Kavanaugh challenged Agarwal’s argument that if the president wants a structural change to an independent agency, he or she can work with Congress.

“You’ve mentioned many times, you can just go to Congress to fix this. Well, once the power is taken away from the president, it’s very hard to get it back in the legislative process,” Kavanaugh said.

Agarwal disagreed and argued that “exactly the opposite” has happened, in that Congress has ceded power to the executive branch over time.

Debate over stability in agencies

Kavanaugh also took issue with Agarwal’s argument that statutory guardrails baked into laws that govern independent agencies provide stability across administrations.

Agarwal pressed back, calling it “a problem on steroids” if independent agencies were completely shaken up every time a presidential administration changes and staggered terms were ignored.

“The whole point of this structure is to guarantee a modicum of stability that private, regulated entities can depend upon, and that is jeopardized by at-will presidential removal,” Agarwal said.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, one of three liberal justices, said the administration’s appeal to justices could “open the door for the president to come in, each new president, and clean house in terms of all of the individuals who are running that agency.”

“Notwithstanding their expertise and knowledge and experience and the things that they are doing to promote the mission of the agency,” Jackson said. “And presumably the president could install whoever he wanted in those positions.”

Argawal responded: “Think about it in terms of commissions like the Federal Elections Commission. Would anyone want those sensitive election-related determinations to be under the plenary control of a political actor? 

“Think about the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Can’t Congress and the president come together and say those types of technical determinations that could have massive implications for the public in all kinds of ways, should be made by a multimember body of experts?” he continued.

But during his rebuttal, Sauer warned of a scenario where “Congress could reconstruct virtually the entire executive branch outside the president’s control.”

Fed firing up next

The arguments lasted two-and-a-half hours and could be a preview of oral arguments in January that will center on Trump’s firing of Federal Reserve Board governor Lisa Cook.

The seven-member board governing the central bank sets U.S. policy, including interest rates. Trump has slammed Federal Reserve leadership for months for not lowering interest rates at a faster pace.

The case comes on the heels of a federal appeals court decision Friday that Trump “permissibly removed” members earlier this year from the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board.

The FTC was established in 1914 under President Woodrow Wilson to protect consumers from unfair business practices.

Sauer, formerly the Missouri solicitor general, was previously the president’s own defense lawyer and argued on Trump’s behalf before the Supreme Court last year on the question of presidential immunity. 

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development headquarters. (Photo by HUD Office of Public Affairs)

Update: On Monday, Dec. 8, the federal government withdrew the funding notice cutting Continuum of Care funds.

A proposed budget from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that cuts funds which have meant the difference between shelter and homelessness for about 170,000 people nationwide has left communities scrambling. In Wisconsin, the cuts are projected to cause the loss of permanent housing for 2,379 people according to a report by the National Alliance to End Homelessness. The loss of funds would hit early in the new year, leaving local governments to absorb the fallout in the middle of winter. 

Korey Lundin, senior staff attorney at the National Housing Law Project and former staff attorney with Legal Action of Wisconsin, told the Wisconsin Examiner that the grants that HUD cut —  known as Continuum of Care (CoC) funds — “help thousands of people. That includes folks who have been recently unhoused.” In Wisconsin, 52% of permanent housing funding is covered by the CoC program. 

The people the CoC program serves, Ludin said, include “families, children, seniors, veterans, those who are survivors of domestic violence,” and others who are “not just the stereotypical image that people get when they think of a homeless person.”

In Milwaukee County, over $12 million in CoC funds covers direct rent payments to help provide housing for vulnerable county residents. The investments help support thousands of people across more than 20 housing programs. 

CoC funding in Milwaukee County supports housing for:

• over 770 children;
• 154 young adults between 18 and 24 years old, 
• 560 working-age residents from 25 to 44 years old, 
• 590 people between the ages of 45 to 64,
• 826 people with no income at all, 
• 347 who earn only $500-$1000 a month,
• 1,049 people diagnosed with mental health disorders,
• 321 people with physical disabilities,
• 123 with co-occurring substance use disorders,
• 549 people who’ve remained in housing for over five years,
• and 610 people who’ve maintained housing for 1 to 2 years. 

HUD has also proposed capping permanent housing support at 30%. In Milwaukee County 89% of CoC funds are dedicated to permanent housing beds. The picture isn’t much different for Dane County (where 78% of CoC funding goes to permanent beds), or Racine County (where 80% of CoC funding supports permanent beds). 

HUD announced the cuts saying they will help fulfill President Donald Trump’s “Ending Crime and Disorder on America’s Streets” executive order. HUD claimed that cutting support for permanent housing beds across the country will restore “accountability to homelessness programs” while promoting “self-sufficiency among vulnerable Americans.” 

The Trump administration has been criticized for policies that essentially criminalize homelessness, jailing and displacing unhoused people in an effort to beautify cities. Lundin sees the HUD cuts as part of that effort. He told the Wisconsin Examiner, “They want to round up and warehouse the unhoused. They want to incarcerate the unhoused. The solutions they’re talking about are solutions that exacerbate homelessness.”

HUD Secretary Scott Turner has said that restricting and cutting permanent bed funding is “ending the status quo that perpetuated homelessness through a self-sustaining slush fund.” In a press release announcing the cuts, HUD criticized “the failed ‘Housing First’ ideology, which encourages dependence on endless government handouts while neglecting to address the root causes of homelessness, including illicit drugs and mental illnesses.”

Housing First is an approach to addressing homelessness that prioritizes placing individuals in permanent and stable housing. One 2022 study — which noted that chronic homelessness in the U.S. costs up to $3.4 billion — found that the economic benefits of implementing Housing First programs outweigh the costs of the programs. In 2023, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs published a research brief highlighting that “strong evidence exists that the Housing First model leads to quicker exits from homelessness and greater housing stability over time compared with treatment as usual.” It also stated that studies on the Housing First Model — four of which were reviewed to compile the research brief — show that the model “results in greater improvements in housing outcomes for homeless adult populations in North America.” 

Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, who credits the county’s Housing First approach for a sharp reduction in homelessness, told the Examiner, “I am deeply concerned about the Trump administration’s move to slash permanent housing funding. This decision will destabilize housing for people across the country and it threatens the real progress we have made in Milwaukee County through our Housing First program.” Crowley noted that Milwaukee County has been recognized for having the lowest number of unsheltered homeless residents count per capita in the country, “and we are looked at as a national leader in this space. As someone who knows what housing insecurity feels like, I will pull every lever I can to protect working families and expand access to permanent housing so we can keep our state moving forward.” 

Especially in the winter, the HUD cuts could have troubling consequences. “We don’t have any state protection that prohibits people from being evicted in winter,” said Lundin, who lives in Wisconsin. “If this goes through it would be happening in the worst time here in Wisconsin in the middle of the winter.” 

Lawsuits are already being filed by cities, states and nonprofits. Lundin also said that Congress could intervene by appropriating funding for the HUD programs the administration plans to cut in 2026. In a statement to the Examiner, U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Milwaukee) called CoC funding and homeless programs “vital to many organizations in Wisconsin and in Milwaukee who help the unhoused and keep people housed.” 

Moore said in the statement, “as per usual with this administration, it is the most vulnerable, like domestic violence survivors and LGBTQ youth, who would be hit the hardest. The Trump Administration’s proposal disregards Congress’s intent and would be catastrophic, putting 170,000 Americans at risk of homelessness. I am pleased to have joined my colleagues on several letters opposing these changes. House and Senate Members on both sides of the aisle have also pushed back because they recognize what it would do: Move us backward in the fight to end homelessness.”

Advocates are urging members of Congress to support a final HUD spending bill that increases funding for housing vouchers and protects CoC funds for permanent housing. The House and Senate version of a bill to fund HUD’s affordable housing, community development, and homelessness services programs differ by billions of dollars as the two chambers work to hammer out a year-end spending deal. 

A homeless man sits in his tent in Washington, D.C., this summer. New rules from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development will sharply restrict how $3 billion in homelessness aid will be spent, allowing no more than 30% of federal grants to be used for permanent housing. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

As the housing shortage pushes more Americans into homelessness for the first time, the Trump administration wants to focus federal housing aid on mental health treatment and enforcement against street homelessness, rather than on finding people permanent homes as quickly as possible.

The administration’s new plan to tie federal housing aid to work requirements and drug treatment could be a boon to states such as Alabama, Florida and Wyoming that already are pursuing that strategy. But for many other states — and nonprofit providers across the country — the rules represent a sudden pivot from past expectations. In California, the new federal funding priorities face a direct conflict with state law.

Under new rules announced last month, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development will place new restrictions on $3 billion in homelessness aid, allowing no more than 30% of federal grants to be used for permanent housing. That approach, known as Housing First, prioritizes getting people into safe, stable housing ahead of other treatment and enforcement, and had been a key focus for the federal government’s Continuum of Care Program for homelessness.

Now, HUD’s new rules — a shift to Treatment First policies — could result in a major reprioritization of who gets funding and for what purpose. Backlash from many nonprofits and homelessness service providers across the country has been swift, and 20 states and Washington, D.C., have filed suit to stop the rules, arguing they violate federal law. Several cities and counties across the country also have joined a lawsuit against the department.

While service providers point to success stories from permanent supportive housing, the Trump administration points to rising homelessness — and a perception of violent crime — as a reason to shift funding away from the long-standing approach.

But Martha Are, CEO of the Homeless Services Network of Central Florida, said the Trump administration is putting the onus on  nonprofits and service providers to fix a homelessness crisis that is propelled by a lack of housing that people can afford.

“If homelessness numbers go up, some assume the homeless-response system doesn’t work. But the real driver is the housing market, not the interventions,” Are said. “HUD is penalizing communities for following the rules they set in previous years. I’ve never seen them say, ‘You complied with our guidance, and now you lose points for it.’”

Easy transition for some states

An analysis of publicly available federal data by the National Alliance to End Homelessness found that 88% of federal Continuum of Care dollars flow to permanent supportive housing and rapid rehousing, the models with the strongest evidence of reducing chronic homelessness. The new HUD rules would force cuts large enough to cause roughly 170,000 people to lose that housing, according to the advocacy group’s projections.

But a handful of Continuum of Care programs already devote far less to permanent housing. According to the National Alliance to End Homelessness, that includes that includes certain county or state programs in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, West Virginia and Wyoming.

These programs operate closer to HUD’s new funding requirements and are unlikely to face major disruption. Some even may become more competitive for federal funding, especially in states where policymakers have already adopted enforcement-heavy approaches to homelessness.

Such states — including Florida, Georgia, Missouri, Tennessee and Texas — may be better positioned under HUD’s new grant-funding criteria, which prioritize jurisdictions that criminalize public camping, expand law enforcement involvement or restrict low-barrier shelters, which may have more flexible policies than traditional shelters.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s City of Grants Pass v. Johnson ruling in June 2024 allowing localities to ban outdoor camping even if there is no homeless shelter space available, roughly 150 cities in 32 states have passed or strengthened such ordinances.

The annual point-in-time count of people sleeping outside reported that homelessness reached an all-time high in 2024, the most recent data available from HUD. The count, taken during the last 10 days of January 2024, found that 771,480 people were experiencing homelessness, an 18% increase over the previous year and the largest one-year jump in the history of the count.

HUD told Stateline the administration is shifting its approach to emphasize “long-term self-sufficiency and recovery” rather than the number of housing units funded or filled.

The agency rejected advocates’ claims that the new rules will increase homelessness, arguing instead that “failed” Housing First policies have contributed to rising numbers. HUD said it hopes communities will convert many permanent supportive housing programs into transitional housing with stronger requirements around addiction and mental-health services.

Skepticism about Housing First

The impact of these cuts won’t be evenly distributed.

Some areas with the deepest investments in the Housing First approach — including Cleveland, Ohio; Los Angeles; and New York City — stand to lose thousands of units that currently serve older adults, those leaving domestic violence situations, people with disabilities, veterans and families.

Those in favor of HUD’s funding shift argue that long-standing as it may be, Housing First has failed to reduce homelessness.

HUD’s annual counts show national homelessness rising for most of the past decade, and the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service notes that while Housing First stabilizes individuals, it has not reduced the number of people experiencing homelessness.

A 2021 Harvard University study found that while most people in permanent supportive housing remained housed in the first year, retention dropped sharply over time — with only about 12% still housed after 10 years.

Conservative think tanks such as the Cicero Institute, American Enterprise Institute and the Manhattan Institute suggest that Housing First undervalues mental health and substance use treatment. They point to Oregon’s homelessness struggles after drug decriminalization as evidence that voluntary services alone cannot stabilize the most vulnerable residents.

They further argue that permanent housing grants crowd out shelter, detox and transitional programs, and that many nonprofits defending the model are financially invested in maintaining the status quo.

At a moment when tight housing markets are pushing record numbers of people into first-time homelessness, local providers, who stand to lose grants, warn that HUD’s policy reversal will function more like a mass eviction than a funding shift — sending tens of thousands of people back into shelters, onto waiting lists, or directly onto the streets.

Losing trust in the system

In Orlando, Florida, many residents are experiencing homelessness for the first time. Shelters are full and a recent law in Florida allows police to arrest people for sleeping outdoors.

Are, of the Homeless Services Network of Central Florida, said the proposed HUD changes would eliminate more than 500 permanent housing subsidies that her organization offers in the Orlando area alone.

For providers, these subsidies cover the rent for units where people already live. If HUD defunds them, tenants would lose support, landlords would stop receiving payments and people would be evicted unless local governments backfill the funds, she said. And most local governments can’t afford to, she added.

Central Florida has built a system that uses data to focus on high-need individuals and keep them housed — in long-term rental units paired with voluntary support services — at a lower cost than mandated hospitalizations or treatment, Are said. HUD’s abrupt policy reversal would unravel years of progress and leave communities with “no place to put people.”

“Our permanent supportive housing costs about one-twentieth of what inpatient institutional programs cost in this region, and the outcomes are far better,” she said.

Nashville, Tennessee, had expected stable homelessness funding until HUD overhauled the rules “out of [the] blue” and at a time when it would be hard for providers to plan for sudden changes, said Wally Dietz, legal director for the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County.

When Congress approved a two-year cycle for fiscal years 2024 and 2025, localities were told they wouldn’t have to reapply for money, he said. That changed this fall.

“Nashville was given 60 days, spanning Thanksgiving and Christmas, to rewrite and resubmit its entire homelessness funding application, which is something the city typically prepares for a full year,” Dietz said.

If the changes to Nashville’s funding go through, not only will people lose their housing, he said, but a 20-year infrastructure will crumble and the164 landlords who partnered with the city will lose faith once rent aid stops flowing.

“Once evicted, people will not reengage with the system, and trust will be impossible to rebuild,” Dietz said.

Nashville is among a handful of localities, including Boston, San Francisco and Tucson, Arizona, that filed a joint lawsuit Monday to block the rule changes, accusing HUD of bypassing Congress. The suit, whose plaintiffs also include the National Alliance to End Homelessness and the National Low Income Housing Coalition, was filed in U.S. District Court in Rhode Island.

“If the administration wants to overhaul homelessness policy, it has to go through Congress,” Dietz said. “That gives cities time to prepare, to testify, to budget. But we didn’t get that chance.”

Stateline reporter Robbie Sequeira can be reached at rsequeira@stateline.org.

Getty Images

As a practicing OB-GYN in Wisconsin, I see firsthand how many of my patients rely on contraception to protect their health, manage painful conditions, and plan their futures. When a woman sits across from me in the exam room, she’s not thinking about politics. She’s thinking about how to survive her work day without severe cramps, how to manage her bleeding so she can attend class without mishap, or how to avoid threatening her life with another high-risk pregnancy. 

These situations are only a few of the reasons why the news about abandoned U.S.–funded contraceptives overseas is so alarming. This action blatantly reflects the same disregard for women’s health that now shapes national policy. And that disregard lands directly on women’s bodies. 

Under the Trump administration, the U.S. government ordered the destruction of nearly $10 million worth of U.S.–funded contraceptives, based on the false claim that birth control is an “abortifacient.” This claim is absolutely nonsensical. Contraception doesn’t end a pregnancy — it prevents one. Unfortunately, ideology, and not medicine, guided that decision, leaving lifesaving, taxpayer‑funded medicine stalled in warehouses instead of reaching women who need it. 

The full picture is even more disturbing. Several days ago, a new report found that the Trump administration left 20 of 24 U.S.–funded contraceptive shipments to waste away in Belgian warehouses. These were fully paid-for, taxpayer-funded supplies — IUDs, implants, pills, and other reproductive health essentials — intended for women in 13 countries. This is simply appalling. 

And if you think that kind of extremism stops at the water’s edge, think again. 

Back home, I see the fallout of the same ideology driving national attacks on contraception and women. 

Already, there are over 300,000 women of reproductive age in Wisconsin in need of contraception, and attacks are making this gap even worse. 

And these gaps carry real health risks, because contraception does more than prevent pregnancy — it treats endometriosis, PCOS, severe bleeding and anemia, and it reduces the risk of reproductive cancers. 

Rural clinics that once offered contraception and family-planning visits have declined in number, a trend worsened by federal policy shifts that weaken the reproductive-health safety net and leave too many women without reliable nearby options for care.

And now, with health-insurance costs already skyrocketing for many families — and monthly bills set to jump even higher if those tax credits expire — the ACA’s no-cost contraception guarantee slips further out of reach. Road block after road block after road block. 

Fortunately, Wisconsin has leaders who understand the stakes. 

Sen. Tammy Baldwin’s leadership on the “Right to Contraception Act” reflects a truth every OB‑GYN knows: contraception saves lives. Contraception reduces maternal deaths, prevents unintended pregnancies, treats reproductive-health conditions, and empowers women to build stable lives. Baldwin fights to protect contraception — what Wisconsin women rely on every day — not because it’s politically convenient, but because she understands it’s a medical necessity. 

U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan co-sponsored the “Saving Lives and Taxpayer Dollars Act” — legislation designed to stop exactly what we’re seeing in Belgium. The bill requires that U.S.–funded food and medical supplies – like the contraception sitting in Brussels at this moment – reach the people they were purchased for, instead of being left to rot or destroyed for ideological reasons. In Washington, where too many have decided contraception is a cultural wedge rather than essential health care, Pocan’s voice matters. 

The women I see in my exam room aren’t looking for a political fight. They’re looking for care that lets them stay healthy, stay safe, and stay in control of their lives — something contraception makes possible every day. 

Jeopardizing contraception — whether through wasteful negligence abroad or political interference here at home — is harmful, cruel and simply unjust. 

We in Wisconsin cannot afford to look the other way. We need leaders who will defend the right to contraception, not undermine it. 

The stakes are simple: either we protect access to basic health care, or we allow ideology to decide who gets care — and who doesn’t. 

For the women in my clinic — and for women everywhere — contraception is essential care that strengthens their health and safeguards their freedom.

U.S. Rep. Adelita Grijalva, D-Arizona, speaks to the media during a primary election-night party at El Casino Ballroom in South Tucson on July 15, 2025. Grijalva claims she was pepper-sprayed during an ICE raid in Tucson on Dec. 5, 2025, but the Department of Homeland Security denies it. (Photo by Rebecca Noble/Getty Images)

Arizona’s U.S. Rep. Adelita Grijalva was involved in a clash with federal agents during a protest of immigration raids in west Tucson Friday, during which she claims she was hit with pepper spray. 

According to a spokesman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency partnered with the Internal Revenue Service to carry out as many as 16 warrants in southern Arizona in a “years-long investigation into immigration and tax violations.” In videos posted to social media by community advocates, several masked federal agents in tactical gear can be seen near the westside location of popular Mexican seafood and grill restaurant Taco Giro. 

The raids prompted a protest and federal agents deployed tear gas and pepper spray against the crowd. The Arizona Daily Star reported that multiple employees who live near the west Tucson restaurant were detained. At least one protester was among those taken into custody by federal agents. AZ Family reported that Taco Giro locations in north Tucson, Casa Grande and Vail were also targeted. ICE spokesman Fernando Burgos-Ortiz confirmed to the Arizona Mirror that multiple people were arrested, but didn’t clarify how many or confirm claims that agents had pepper-sprayed a sitting U.S. Congresswoman.

Tricia McLaughlin, the spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security, dismissed Grijalva’s account. McLaughlin accused Grijalva of hindering the work of federal agents and appeared to question Grijalva’s claim that she was pepper-sprayed by highlighting her lack of visible physical reaction in the video. 

“If her claims were true, this would be a medical marvel,” McLaughlin wrote. “But they’re not true. She wasn’t pepper sprayed. She was in the vicinity of someone who *was* pepper sprayed as they were obstructing and assaulting law enforcement. In fact, 2 law enforcement officers were seriously injured by this mob that (Grijalva) joined. Presenting one’s self as a ‘Member of Congress’ doesn’t give you the right to obstruct law enforcement.”

Tucson Sentinel reporter Paul Ingram, who was on-the-ground covering the ICE raid and protest, reported that federal agents shot pepper spray into his face and eye, even though he was clearly identified as a member of the press.

A video from Univision reporter Óscar Gómez shows federal agents shooting pepper spray directly into the faces of protesters, with Grijalva in close proximity. An agent is then seen coming after Gómez directly, covering his camera with pepper spray, even as Gómez appeared to be backing away.

The large-scale raid of several Taco Giros in Southern Arizona is the second time this year a restaurant chain was the subject of an investigation by Homeland Security Investigations, a division within ICE, that ensnared multiple employees who lack legal immigration status. 

In July, federal agents raided Colt Grill BBQ and Spirits locations in Northern Arizona. The operation was the culmination of a multi-year investigation into a money laundering and labor exploitation scheme. Along with the husband-and-wife owners of the Northern Arizona restaurants, and two undocumented immigrants who were involved in recruiting and exploiting other immigrant workers, several more undocumented employees were also arrested. 

In a video posted to her X account, Grijalva described as many as 40 agents gathered at the westside location she visited with her staff for lunch, and said that she was treated with hostility even after identifying herself as a member of Congress. 

“I was here, this is like the restaurant I come to literally once a week, and was sprayed in the face by a very aggressive agent, pushed around by others when I literally was not being aggressive,” she said. “I was asking for clarification which is my right as a member of Congress.” 

A video of the incident posted to Grijalva’s social media accounts shows a federal agent spraying several bursts of pepper spray directly at demonstrators in the street, close to where Grijalva is standing. Grijalva’s staffer jumps in front of her. Coughing can be heard offscreen. Later in the video, a pepper ball appears to explode inches from Grijalva’s feet as she walks away.

Grijalva, Arizona’s first Latina congresswoman, has been a fierce critic of immigration enforcement activity in her district. Earlier this week, she publicly condemned a Border Patrol raid of a humanitarian group’s migrant aid station in the desert on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, criticizing it as an example of President Donald Trump’s “cruel (and) unconstitutional” mass deportation agenda. 

 In a statement issued shortly after she said she was pepper-sprayed, Grijalva said her office was working to get more information on Friday’s immigration arrests.

“Our residents deserve to know whether these raids are targeting genuine public safety threats – or law-abiding neighbors who have called our communities home for decades,” she wrote. “ICE has become a lawless agency under this Administration – operating with no transparency, no accountability, and open disregard for basic due process.”

While Trump administration officials have time and again emphasized their intent to detain the “worst of the worst”, many of the immigrants that ICE has arrested during Trump’s second term have no criminal record. A June survey of people in immigration detainment facilities at the time found that nearly half, 47%, lacked any criminal history and fewer than 30% of them had been convicted of crimes.

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, the state’s top legal officer, denounced the incident on social media. In a post on X, the Democrat, who has long criticized Trump’s immigration enforcement tactics, called the incident “unacceptable and outrageous.”

“Enforcing the rule of law does not mean pepper spraying a member of Congress for simply asking questions,” Mayes wrote. “Effective law enforcement requires restraint and accountability, not unchecked aggression.”

Grijalva voiced concern for how federal officials interact with people who don’t have her authority, in light of how she was mistreated on Friday.

“While I am fine, if that is the way they treat me, how are they treating other community members who do not have the same privileges and protections that I do?” she questioned, in her written statement. 

***UPDATE: This story has been updated with eyewitness reporting from the Tucson Sentinel and Univision. 

Wisconsin State Capitol (Wisconsin Examiner photo)

Gov. Tony Evers vetoed nine bills Friday including a Republican bill that would have barred local and state funds from being used for immigrants without legal status.

Wisconsin already doesn’t allow immigrants without legal status to access BadgerCare, which Evers noted in his veto message. Republicans lawmakers acknowledged that fact as they advocated for AB 308, saying the bill was intended to block future use of health care benefits by immigrants. The bill would have prohibited state, county, village, long-term care district and federal funds from being used to subsidize, reimburse or provide compensation for any health care services for a person not lawfully in the U.S.

“As this bill’s Republican co-author in the Wisconsin State Assembly plainly stated in the public hearing on this proposal, ‘Wisconsin currently doesn’t allow undocumented immigrants to enroll in BadgerCare,’” Evers wrote in his veto message. 

“I object to Republican lawmakers passing legislation they acknowledge is unnecessary to prevent problems they admit do not exist, all for the sake of trying to push polarizing political rhetoric,” Evers added. 

Evers said the bill was “more about being inflammatory, stoking fear, and sowing division than it was about accomplishing any significant policy outcome or being prudent stewards of taxpayer dollars.” 

U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, one of two Republican candidates for governor, criticized the veto in a statement, saying Evers was putting the interests of “illegal aliens” ahead of Wisconsin taxpayers and sought to tie Evers’ action to next year’s high-profile gubernatorial election. Evers is not running for reelection, and there is a crowded Democratic field that is still taking shape.

“If Democrats take the governor’s office in 2026, you can count on them to hand out driver’s licenses, in-state tuition and taxpayer-funded health care to illegal aliens. I will not let that happen,” Tiffany said.

No new cigar bars

Evers also vetoed a bill that would have allowed for more tobacco bars in Wisconsin. 

Wisconsin first enacted its smoke-free air law in 2010 — prohibiting smoking cigars, cigarettes, pipes and other products in public spaces. The law included an exclusion for cigar bars that were in existence before June 4, 2009.

AB 211 would have allowed for more exemptions for tobacco bars if they came into existence on or after June 4, 2009 provided that they allowed only the smoking of cigars and pipes and were not part of a retail food establishment.

Evers, a former smoker and an esophageal cancer survivor, said he objected due to the harm that the bill could have on Wisconsinites public health.

“Secondhand smoke, a known carcinogen, causes serious health problems and is responsible for thousands of deaths on an annual basis,” Evers stated. He said the state’s smoke-free air law was “a critically important step forward for keeping kids, families, and communities healthier and safer, improving public health and, most importantly, saving thousands of lives… I cannot in good conscience reverse course on that important step for public health, safety, and well-being by restoring indoor smoking in certain public spaces.”

Bill to ban guaranteed income

Evers also vetoed AB 165, which would have banned local governments from using tax money to create guaranteed income programs without a work or training requirement. 

Evers wrote in his veto message that he objects to lawmakers’ “continued efforts to arbitrarily restrict and preempt local governments across our state.” He said they should instead focus on finding ways to support local communities and ensure they have the resources they need to “meet basic and unique needs alike.”

Building code delay

Evers vetoed AB 450, which would have put off the effective date of Wisconsin’s updated commercial building code until April 1, 2026, saying he objected to “further unnecessary delay in implementing new building standards that will benefit Wisconsin communities.” 

The new building codes were originally blocked by lawmakers on the Joint Committee on the Review of Administrative Rules for years, but they were reinstated this year by the the Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) after a state Supreme Court decision. Justices ruled in July that state laws allowing the Legislature to block executive branch administrative rules indefinitely were unconstitutional.

The current effective date for the building codes is Nov. 1, 2025.

Republican lawmakers claimed the delay to next year was needed to provide clarity to builders who had been planning projects under the previous code. 

Evers wrote in his veto message that the bill would do the opposite. 

“This bill would not only create confusion for developers with current building projects under review but would also further delay the implementation of new safety and energy efficiency standards that have been already widely adopted,” Evers said. “The department has and will continue to work with building professionals throughout the state to ensure proper understanding and compliance with the new building commercial code.” 

Education bills rejected

A handful of Republican education-related bills were rejected by Evers. 

Currently, teacher preparation programs are required to have a full semester of student teaching during the school year. SB 424 would have allowed for programs to use student teaching during a summer session as an alternative to a full school-year semester.

Lawmakers had said the bill would help with recruitment by allowing for more flexibility to students seeking to become teachers. However, Evers said that the bill would potentially reduce the rigor of the current training that students are required to have, especially given that summer sessions can be shorter than a typical school term and may not allow students to experience the same opportunities available during the school year such as parent-teacher conferences.

“Reducing training, qualifications, experience, and work ages are not real solutions for solving Wisconsin’s generational workforce shortages,” Evers said in his veto message. “Wisconsin’s challenges recruiting, training, and retaining exceptional educators will not be aided by making education professionals less trained, less qualified, and less experienced — nor will our kids.”

Evers also vetoed AB 166, which would have required UW system institutions, technical colleges and private nonprofit colleges to report cost and student outcome data and required the information be provided to high school juniors and seniors in academic and career planning services. 

Evers said in his veto message that he didn’t want to burden the state’s higher education institutions with more administrative requirements, especially without “necessary resources.” He noted that the UW system says that the requirements in the bill “overlap substantially” with existing information that is already available. 

The University of Wisconsin system keeps a public dashboard with some of the information that the bill would have required, including for financial aid, retention and graduation, and time and credits to degree.

Evers also vetoed SB 10, which would have mandated that Wisconsin public school districts provide military recruiters with access to common areas in high schools and access during the school day and during school-sanctioned events. He said that while he supports the troops, he doesn’t support lawmakers’ attempts to “usurp” local control of decisions on when and where military recruiters are given access to schools. 

Bill that would have eliminated requirement for Elections Commission appeal

Voters currently can file a complaint to the Wisconsin Election Commission if they allege an election official serving the voter’s jurisdiction has failed to comply with certain election laws or has abused his or her discretion with respect to the administration of such election laws. A voter who doesn’t agree with a WEC decision can appeal to a court, though currently courts are only allowed to take up an appeal if voters have suffered an injury to a legally recognized interest as a result. That requirement was established in a 2025 state Supreme Court decision.

SB 270 would have eliminated that requirement, and Evers said he objected because it “would open the floodgates to frivolous lawsuits that not only burden our courts, but our election systems as well.” 

Penalties for those who falsely claim a service animal

AB 366, which would have allowed housing providers to require documentation for service animals and created penalties for misrepresentation of an animal. Evers said he objects to “the creation of unnecessary barriers for individuals with legitimate disability-related needs.”