Banners from the group Save the Portage County Health Care Center. The group opposes which opposes the privatization of the county facility. (Photo courtesy of Karlene Ferrante)

As counties across Wisconsin sell off publicly-owned nursing homes to private companies, communities worry that privatization will bring understaffing, declining quality of care, and more regulatory violations, driving many residents to fight back.

After Karlene Ferrante broke her femur, she underwent major surgery and was transferred to a skilled nursing facility to recover. She spent a little over two months at the county-owned Portage County Health Care Center in Stevens Point, Wisconsin.

“​​I lucked out and got sent to the Portage County Healthcare Center. They took wonderful care of me for that whole summer and until I was able to go home,” Ferrante said. “Because of that great care that I got, I am able to walk. I have my leg. I didn’t get an infection and I didn’t fall. They were adequately staffed and they provided really good care.”

There are only two skilled nursing facilities in Stevens Point. The publicly-owned Portage County Health Care Center, which has served the community for nearly a century and has a five-star rating from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), and the privately-owned Stevens Points Health Services, which has a one-star rating from CMS. Ferrante was relieved to get into the county-owned facility, but the relief faded when she returned home and learned that the county was considering selling Portage County Health Care Center to a private company.

“When I found out that they were trying to privatize it, I decided then that I’m going to work on this,” Ferrante said. “I’m not going to let that happen, because other people should be able to get the same kind of care that I got.”

Across Wisconsin, County Boards have been voting to sell their skilled nursing facilities as local communities fight the sales, especially in rural counties. In Portage County, retired professor Ferrante, a two-time patient at the Portage County Health Care Center, has joined the Save the Portage County Health Care Center group, which opposes the privatization of the county facility.

“We are the only five-star skilled nursing facility in Portage County,” said Nancy Roppe, a lifelong resident of Portage County and one of the group’s organizers. “The quality of care is stellar… people clamor to get their care here, because they know when they press the call button, somebody will respond.”

In 2018, Portage County residents approved a four-year, $5.6 million referendum to support the facility’s operations. Then, in 2022, they passed another measure authorizing tax increases to fund the construction of a new facility.

Roppe said the referendums signaled public strong support for Portage County Health Care Center, but Portage County is trying to sell the health care center to The Ensign Group, a private company which has purchased other nursing facilities in the state.

In Lincoln County, Wisconsin, the County Board voted over the summer to sell the county-owned Pine Crest Nursing Home, which had been serving the county for over 70 years, to Ensign. Just a few months after the transition from county to corporate ownership, members of the Lincoln County community have seen noticeable changes in the quality of care.

“We are already seeing the changes,” said Pastor Mike Southcombe, the senior pastor at St. Stephen’s United Church of Christ in Merrill, the county seat of Lincoln County. “The staffing is less than it was when the county ran it.”

Research consistently shows that publicly-owned facilities not only maintain higher staffing and care standards but also serve as essential safety nets for vulnerable populations, ensuring access to long-term care for residents who might otherwise be turned away by for-profit operators.

A 2022 report by the Center for Medicare Advocacy warned that privatizing county-owned nursing homes often led to lower staffing levels and diminished quality of care, as for-profit operators prioritized revenue over residents’ needs. The report found that promised cost savings rarely materialized, while accountability and public oversight were significantly reduced.

An academic study also found that privatizing county-owned nursing homes increased regulatory violations and reduced residents’ quality of care and quality of life, while failing to improve access for Medicaid recipients.

Working Class Storytelling reported that during a February town hall in Lincoln County, data presented by LeadingAge Wisconsin indicated that publicly-owned nursing homes in the state provide higher-quality care than private or nonprofit facilities.

While some Lincoln County officials said that the county did not have adequate funding to continue the operation of Pine Crest, Eileen Guthrie, a retired accountant who lives in Lincoln County and regularly volunteered at Pine Crest, crunched the numbers and found that Pine Crest was bringing in a profit.

“I started looking at all of the public records, whether they were from the finance committee or the county board, or online… I kept digging and digging,” said Guthrie, who was an active member with People for Pine Crest. When she looked through all the 2023 and 2024 financial statements, she found that Pine Crest had a positive balance upwards of $400,000 in 2023 and a positive balance above $550,000 in 2024. Guthrie said part of this positive balance was due to the state’s Medicaid reimbursement policies.

Lincoln County officials said the sale of Pine Crest would help relieve the county’s deficit, though they did not clarify what expenses were driving that deficit.

“I know not everybody’s happy about it. I understand that all of us, most of us, have people in Pine Crest, and I understand that, but I’m comfortable with Ensign, that they’ll be here and they’re going to serve the community properly,” said County Supervisor Greg Hartwig at a July County Board meeting, according to WXPR.

As the county pushed forward with the sale, many residents felt their voices were ignored. Among them was Scott Doerr, a Lincoln County resident who had worked in local factories for more than 30 years before retiring. Frustrated by the way local officials handled the Pine Crest sale, he filed paperwork to run for County Board Supervisor.

“I just felt that the county board wasn’t listening to the citizens,” Doerr said. “I’m probably going to be campaigning on giving the voice back to the people.”

The sale has raised deeper concerns about the future of the facility.

“Being county-owned was a comfort and now we have to wonder, year to year, if they’re going to sell it for profit and make things worse instead of better.” Doerr said.

That concern about the future of nursing care is shared by others who see the facility as more than just a business, but as a vital community resource.

“People have been paying taxes on [Pine Crest], volunteering at it, supporting it, all those years, with the expectation that it would be around for them when they needed it, or be around for family members when they needed it,” Southcombe said. “The population up here, as it is everywhere, is aging. The elementary schools are shrinking. The need for nursing homes in home care and just general health services is just going to increase. And we’re also going to need people to work at those places.”

For Guthrie, the sale of Pine Crest is not necessarily the end of the fight for better community services.

“The loss was significant, but there is a win in there,” Guthrie said. “All of these people worked together for the good of the community, for the good of the employees and the residents. And maybe that’ll be enough to say, okay, yeah, we lost, but there are other things that we can do, so I’m hoping that there will be more to come.”

As the Save the Portage County Health Care Center group has watched other sales, like those in Lincoln County, happen, they are working to get creative about spreading the word across the county ahead of deciding votes. They have started sharing information in newspaper ads, billboards, and online videos.

“We’ve had to go and reinvent the wheel. We’ve come up with new ways to reach the public. And how does the public react when they know? They are angry,” Ferrante said. “They’re surprised. After voting twice to support the referendums and paying the taxes to have the nursing home continue and be rebuilt, people have been shocked to learn that the current administration in the county is just selling it.”

With the county’s vote looming this week, local community advocates said the stakes feel like a matter of life and death, and they aren’t slowing down.

“Where do we find the energy to fight [for Portage County Health Care Center]? For me, I feel like I owe them,” Ferrante said. “They kind of saved my life.”

This article first appeared on The Daily Yonder and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Protesters gather outside of the Federal Building in Milwaukee to denounce the arrest of Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

Attorneys at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Wisconsin are pushing for the release of Jaciel Cirrus Rojas, who has been held in immigration detention since June. Rojas, a Mexican-born man who has lived in the U.S. since 2018, has no criminal record, Urban Milwaukee reported, and was arrested by immigration officers despite not being the target of their operation. 

An immigration judge ordered  Cirrus Rojas  released on  bond in July. But the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appealed his release and Cirrus Rojas remains in the Dodge County Jail. 

The judge’s order was vacated by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), followed by the denial of a federal court petition challenging the legality of Cirrus Rojas’ detention. Cirrus Rojas has had no contact with his wife and infant daughter for the 200 days during  which he has been detained. 

ACLU attorneys working for his release, say  Cirrus Rojas has a pending asylum claim and is  at risk of being tortured if deported to his home country. The hearing for Cirrus Rojas’ asylum claim has been rescheduled. Earlier this month, ACLU attorney Jennifer Bizzotto filed an emergency motion in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals pushing to overturn previous denials to release Rojas. 

“We have seen hundreds of cases nationwide in which federal judges have ruled that [immigration enforcement] cannot hold people in Cirrus Rojas’ position without bond hearings, and that has not deterred [immigration enforcement] from continuing to lock up people while flagrantly violating the law,” ACLU staff attorney Hannah Schwarz said in a statement.

An ever larger portion of ICE arrests involve people like Cirrus Rojas  who have no   criminal record 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Members of the Texas National Guard are seen at the Elwood Army Reserve Training Center on Oct. 7, 2025 in Elwood, Illinois. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

President Donald Trump for now has not met the requirements to send National Guard troops to Chicago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday afternoon in a major setback for the president.

The court’s majority rejected the Trump administration’s request to stay, or halt, a lower court’s order barring federalization of National Guard troops to assist federal immigration enforcement officers in Chicago. 

The president is only empowered to federalize National Guard units when the troops are enforcing laws that regular military forces are legally allowed to enforce, the court said in a ruling from its emergency docket that will apply while the merits of the case are argued.

The Posse Comitatus Act, passed in 1878, generally prevents the military from participating in civilian law enforcement.

The decision on the eve of a five-day holiday weekend for the federal government appeared to be 6-3, with three conservative justices, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, dissenting. The ruling represented the first time the high court has weighed in on Trump’s use of the guard in several cities, though other legal fights continue.

The administration had not shown why the situation in Chicago, in which residents have protested aggressive immigration enforcement, should present an exception to the law, the court majority said.

“At this preliminary stage, the Government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois,” the majority opinion said.

In an emailed statement, White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said the ruling would not detract from Trump’s “core agenda.”

“The President promised the American people he would work tirelessly to enforce our immigration laws and protect federal personnel from violent rioters,” Jackson wrote. “He activated the National Guard to protect federal law enforcement officers, and to ensure rioters did not destroy federal buildings and property.”

Protecting federal officers

In a concurring opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, whom Trump appointed during his first term, wrote that he agreed with the decision to deny the motion for a stay, but would have done so on narrower grounds.

The majority opinion was overly restrictive and would block the president from using National Guard forces to protect federal property and personnel, Kavanaugh said.

Alito wrote in a dissent, joined by Thomas, that their interpretation of the majority’s order could have far-reaching consequences that undermine the traditional role of the guard.

It would free National Guard members to enforce immigration law, but not to provide protection to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers who are assigned that function, Alito wrote. 

“Whatever one may think about the current administration’s enforcement of the immigration laws or the way ICE has conducted its operations, the protection of federal officers from potentially lethal attacks should not be thwarted,” Alito wrote. “I therefore respectfully dissent.”

Implications for other cities

The ruling is only in effect while the case, in which Illinois is challenging the administration’s deployment there, proceeds. 

But it marks a rebuke, including from a Trump appointee, of the administration’s strategy of deploying National Guard troops to assist in its aggressive immigration enforcement.

Trump has ordered troops to Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Memphis, Tennessee, and Portland, Oregon, to either counter crime generally or assist federal immigration officials. Governors of Democratic-led states have strenuously pushed back against those deployments. Republican attorneys general have argued their states are harmed by the protests in Chicago and other cities that impede federal ICE officers from doing their jobs.

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzer in a statement praised the ruling. “Today is a big win for Illinois and American democracy,” he said. “I am glad the Supreme Court has ruled that Donald Trump did not have the authority to deploy the federalized guard in Illinois. This is an important step in curbing the Trump Administration’s consistent abuse of power and slowing Trump’s march toward authoritarianism.”

The U.S. Education Department said it will start garnishing wages from student borrowers in default. (Catherine Lane/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s administration will start garnishing the wages of student loan borrowers in default beginning early next year, the U.S. Education Department said Tuesday. 

In an email, the department said it expects the first notices to be sent to roughly 1,000 borrowers in default the first full week of January and that the number of notices would increase each month. Wages could be garnished as early as 30 days after borrowers receive notice.

The agency noted that collections activities would be conducted only after borrowers were given sufficient notice and the opportunity to pay back their loans.

Persis Yu, deputy executive director and managing counsel for the advocacy group Protect Borrowers, blasted the decision as “cruel, unnecessary, and irresponsible” in a Tuesday statement. 

“As millions of borrowers sit on the precipice of default, this Administration is using its self-inflicted limited resources to seize borrowers’ wages instead of defending borrowers’ right to affordable payments,” Yu added. 

The agency resumed collections for defaulted federal student loans in May, following a pause that started during the early weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

As a consequence of defaulting on one’s student loans, a borrower can have their wages garnished, and the “loan holder can order your employer to withhold up to 15% of your disposable pay to collect your defaulted debt” without being taken to court, according to Federal Student Aid, an office of the Education Department. 

With wage garnishment, borrowers have the right to “be sent a notice that explains ED’s intention to garnish your wages in 30 days, the nature and amount of your debt, your opportunity to inspect and copy records relating to your debt, your right to object to garnishment, and your option to avoid garnishment by voluntary repayments,” according to FSA.

A photograph of President Donald Trump and late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein is displayed after being unofficially installed in a bus shelter. (Leon Neal/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Justice early Tuesday released thousands more files related to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, with several referencing President Donald Trump. 

The latest trove — which features nearly 30,000 more pages of documents related to Epstein — includes a note implicating Trump purportedly written by Epstein that the department later declared to be fake and an email from a prosecutor claiming Trump flew on Epstein’s private jet more times than previously reported.

In a social media post announcing the Tuesday release, the department issued a blanket denial that Trump was involved in Epstein’s crimes, saying the evidence included in the files was discredited.

“Some of these documents contain untrue and sensationalist claims made against President Trump that were submitted to the FBI right before the 2020 election,” the post said.

The agency added “the claims are unfounded and false, and if they had a shred of credibility, they certainly would have been weaponized against President Trump already.”

The department has faced backlash for its piecemeal rollout of the files beginning Dec. 19, despite a legal mandate to release the full set on that date. 

Trump had a well-documented friendship with Epstein, but has maintained he had a falling out with the disgraced financier and was never involved in any alleged crimes. 

Flights

A 2020 email from an assistant U.S. attorney in New York says flight records indicate that Trump “traveled on Epstein’s private jet many more times than previously has been reported.” 

The email notes that Trump was “listed as a passenger on at least eight flights between 1993 and 1996” and that this includes “at least four flights” on which Epstein’s accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell “was also present.” 

The files also include a letter that Epstein appeared to have sent to convicted serial sex offender Larry Nassar in 2019 but that the Justice Department declared to be “fake,” pointing to several discrepancies. 

The Justice Department said the handwriting did not match Epstein’s, noted it was postmarked after his death in Northern Virginia, not New York, and did not include Epstein’s jail name or inmate number — a requirement for outgoing mail. 

The department said the “fake letter serves as a reminder that just because a document is released by the Department of Justice does not make the allegations or claims within the document factual.” 

The letter, which appeared to have been sent from Epstein to Nassar, a disgraced former USA Gymnastics and Michigan State University doctor, said Trump shared their interest in young girls.

The letter was postmarked Aug. 13, 2019, just three days after Epstein died in his jail cell at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York City. 

Another email in the Tuesday release references more potential co-conspirators, according to U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

Schumer called on the Justice Department to release more information on a note he said indicates the DOJ “was looking into at least ten potential Jeffrey Epstein co-conspirators.”  

The New York Democrat said the department “needs to shed more light on who was on the list, how they were involved, and why they chose not to prosecute.” 

He added: “Protecting possible co-conspirators is not the transparency the American people and Congress are demanding.”

DOJ takes heat 

The Justice Department has faced heat for opting to release the files in batches instead of adhering to the congressionally mandated full release of the files by mid-December. 

The requirement comes from a bill Trump signed into law in November, which requires the agency to make publicly available “all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials in DOJ’s possession that relate to the investigation and prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein,” including materials related to Maxwell.

The measure — co-sponsored by GOP Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California — gave the department 30 days after the bill was enacted into law to release the files, or Dec. 19. 

Under a settlement in a federal lawsuits a northern Wisconsin town has agreed to make voting machines available that can help people with disabilities cast a ballot. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

A Rusk County community that more than two years ago rejected the use of electronic voting machines has agreed to provide them so people with disabilities can vote in federal elections.

The agreement, signed in federal court in Madison earlier this month, ends a lingering legal dispute over voter access in the northern Wisconsin town of Thornapple that prompted a federal investigation.

The case underscores the importance of provisions in the federal Help America Vote Act, enacted in 2002, which includes voting rights guarantees for people with disabilities, according to Lisa Hasenstab, public policy manager for Disability Rights Wisconsin.

“Access to accessible voting is something that is not always a top priority in the mix of everything that has to happen for elections,” Hasenstab told the Wisconsin Examiner on Tuesday. “But it is the law. It’s federal law. and state law as well, that accessible means of voting be provided at every polling place. If at even one polling place that option is not provided, that is a violation of voters’ rights.”

Hasenstab said a variety of voting machine systems include provisions tailored to people with disabilities who have difficulty marking paper ballots. Systems also include headphones for voters who can’t see, so they can  listen to the names of candidates on their ballots.

The Help America Vote Act requires every polling place to include such machines for people who need them, and any voter is able to use them, Hasenstab said.

Thornapple Town Chairman Tom Zelm declined to tell the Wisconsin Examiner in a phone conversation Tuesday why the town had stopped using voting machines and said he would have no comment on the settlement that the town and the U.S. Department of Justice signed in federal court on Dec. 12.

According to a May 13, 2024, report in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the  Thornapple town board voted in June 2023 to stop using electronic voting machines and use only paper ballots.

That same summer, Douglas Frank — profiled in the Los Angeles Times as a purveyor of “baseless claims about suspicious voting trends and secret algorithms used to steal elections” — visited the area, giving talks that stoked conspiracy theories about voting machines, according to several published reports.

After the April 2024 Wisconsin presidential preference primary, a local Democratic Party activist called another town board member to complain about the absence of voting machines that could be used by some people with disabilities. She recorded the call, in which the board member repeated false claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Donald Trump and blamed voting machines. The activist then posted the recording on YouTube.

DOJ lawyers wrote to the town’s chief election officer on May 7, 2024, referring to reports received by the department that the town board “may have voted to remove all electronic voting machines in all elections,” including presidential primary.

The DOJ letter stated that some voters with disabilities had reported their requests to use accessible voting machines in the primary election were not granted. It quoted the Help America Vote Act’s requirement for all polling places to include systems that enable voters with disabilities to cast their ballots.

The Lawrence Town Board in Brown County also passed a measure in 2023 to stop using voting machines. Lawrence reversed its decision Sept. 9, 2024, according to DOJ, and signed an agreement with the feds to comply with HAVA.

Thornapple did not reverse its voting machine ban, and DOJ sued the town. That October a federal judge issued an injunction, requiring the town to use accessible voting machines in the November 2024 election.

Separately, the Wisconsin Elections Commission ordered the town and its elections clerk to “take affirmative steps” and comply with Wisconsin’s law that also requires accessible electronic voting equipment at polling places to accommodate people with disabilities.

The town appealed the federal court injunction, losing before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in July.

Under the Dec. 12 settlement, Thornapple and the town’s election officials “will ensure their voting systems are accessible to people with disabilities as required by HAVA.” The deal requires the town to use an electronic voting system “or other voting system equipped for individuals with disabilities at each polling place in the state, for each election for federal office.”

Town officials are also required to be trained on how to implement accessible voting systems that comply with HAVA, to keep the equipment in working order and provide all software and other updates. The deal also requires them to certify after every federal primary and general election that they have complied with the agreement.

Because the cases was originally pursued by the DOJ in the last year of President Joe Biden’s term, Hasenstab acknowledged that voting rights advocates watched the progress of the case with some concern after President Donald Trump took office and began reversing many Biden administration policies.

“We did have some nervousness that they wouldn’t pursue a final resolution to the case,” Hasenstab said Tuesday. “We’re pleasantly surprised that an agreement ended up being reached and that the Department of Justice stuck with that case.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Clockwise from top left, New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin, Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser and California Attorney General Rob Bonta speak to reporters about a lawsuit against the Trump administration over its attempts to defund the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau at a virtual press conference on Dec. 22, 2025. (Screenshot from Zoom)

The Democratic attorneys general of 21 states and Washington, D.C., are suing the Trump administration for its attempts to defund the Obama-era federal agency created to protect Americans from consumer fraud and discriminatory lending.

After the U.S. mortgage market crashed in 2008 and millions of Americans lost their jobs, savings, retirements and homes, Congress in 2010 established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to become the country’s first financial regulatory agency with a goal to protect consumers. The agency has since returned more than $21 billion improperly taken from more than 205 million Americans, according to the Oregon Department of Justice.

Acting director Russell T. Vought has attempted to terminate the agency’s operations by firing hundreds of staff, denying states access to the agency’s resources and requesting $0 to fund the agency’s operations, according to the complaint. 

The coalition of states, led by Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, is asking the court to prevent the Trump administration from requesting $0 in funds for its operations and to order it to request money from the Federal Reserve to fulfill its duties as required by the law. 

Rayfield filed the lawsuit Monday in U.S. District Court in Eugene. 

“This is the same agency that stopped Wells Fargo when they were taking advantage of consumers without their consent and opening millions of accounts without consent,” Rayfield told reporters at a virtual press conference Monday afternoon. “This is the same agency that stopped Navient from taking advantage of student loan borrowers. This is the same agency that protects people who have credit cards, payday lending and mortgages. This is the agency that’s looking out on behalf of all of us.”

The coalition argues defunding the agency will have devastating impacts on consumers and disrupt states’ consumer protection abilities, which rely on consumer complaints and data from the agency.

In 2024, the federal bureau received 3 million consumer complaints, of which 8,800 were from Oregonians. That year, companies provided more than $700,000 in direct relief to Oregon consumers after those consumers made complaints through the bureau’s portal. 

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser said the lawsuit is his 48th lawsuit against the Trump administration this term, a surge from the 11 lawsuits he was a part of during the two years he served as attorney general during Trump’s first term. 

“My standard hasn’t changed,” he said. “The behavior of this administration has changed. They’re lawless again and again. They’re bullying. They’re reckless. They’re dangerous.” 

The states involved in the lawsuit with Oregon include Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia.

Complaint - as filed

Senate President Mary Felzkowski (R-Tomahawk) said she hopes her "fellow assemblymen continue to put pressure on their leadership" to pass postpartum Medicaid expansion. Felzkowski spoke at a Republican press conference about postpartum Medicaid expansion in April. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Senate President Mary Felzkowski (R-Tomahawk) said in a year-end interview with the Wisconsin Examiner that the year has been one of “very steady growth” and top priorities for her in the remaining legislative session include passing legislation to help bring down the cost of health care, advancing medical cannabis legislation and passing additional tax cuts. 

Felzkowski pointed to the state budget in which lawmakers and Gov. Tony Evers increased funding for roads and transportation costs, cut taxes including for retirees, increased special education funding and dedicated funding to mental health initiatives. She was one of four Senate Republicans to vote against the state budget, a vote she said she took because of her opposition to increasing the state’s hospital assessment without health care reforms. 

A slimmed down, 18-member Republican majority in the Senate this session and several GOP senators who took a stand against a compromise budget deal gave Senate Democrats an opening to come to the budget negotiating table, and to win compromises on school funding as well as stop cuts to the University of Wisconsin system.

Felzkowski said the slimmer margins this year have been normal. 

“If you look back for the last 30 years, when the Republicans are in control, we are normally at 18-15 margin in the Senate,” Felzkowski said. “When we were up to like 22, that was kind of a gift, so we are a very strong Republican majority right now.”

Felzskowski said working on health care affordability will be her top priority when lawmakers return in January. This includes working on health care price transparency and working to advance her legislation that would make changes to the regulation of pharmacy benefit managers — third-party companies that manage prescription drug benefits between health plans, employers and government programs.

Health care and prescription drugs

Felzkowski’s bill would allow patients to use any licensed pharmacy in the state without facing penalties and require benefit managers to pay pharmacy claims within 30 days. 

“Our neighbors to the south in Illinois just passed their version of PBM reform,” Felzkowski said, adding that her bill has passed out of committee and lawmakers are now discussing whether it will receive a full Senate vote. 

Felzkowski’s health care price transparency legislation would require hospitals to make publicly available to consumers the standard costs of “shoppable services,” which would be defined as those that can be scheduled in advance such as x-rays, MRIs and knee replacements. 

“What is one thing that you buy that you have no idea what it’s going to cost? It’s health care. That’s absolutely ridiculous,” Felzkowski said. “Other states have passed it. They’re starting to see the fruition of it and it does work. There’s a reason we have the fifth highest health care costs. It’s because our Legislature has not done anything to help bring those costs down and it’s time that we actually start doing that.” 

Felzkowski, who has been a longtime advocate for legalizing medical cannabis, said the Senate is “closer than ever” to having a vote on the floor on a proposal to do so, but she believes the chances of the Assembly advancing legislation remain “slim.”

Felzskowski said she hopes legislation to extend Medicaid coverage for postpartum women from 60 days after giving birth to one year isn’t dead this session. Wisconsin is one of two states in the U.S. that haven’t accepted the federal extension.

“I hope that my fellow assemblymen continue to put pressure on their leadership… Deep red states, blue states as well as purple states across the nation have postpartum care for 12 months and they’ve done it because it’s the return on investments for taxpayers as well as being the right thing to do,” Felzskowski said. “We see baby thrive, we see mom thrive, and it actually lowers the cost down the road.”

Fate of WisconsinEye

Felzkowski said Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu and Assembly Speaker Robin Vos are having discussions about solutions to the shutdown of WisconsinEye, the nonprofit service that provides video coverage of legislative hearings, floor sessions and Wisconsin state government business. WisconsinEye halted its livestream and pulled down its video archive last week due to a lack of funding.

“Even if we do something temporary to get us through a session… just get through until April and then do a really deep dive on what should be the next step,” Felzkowski said, adding that that includes looking at how other states cover their state government.

“The transparency is important,” she said, adding they want to ensure people still have access to government proceedings and a record is still being kept of it all.

Felzkowski said she hopes Republicans can get one more tax cut done before the end of the legislative session next year. 

New tax cuts in the works

A few of the ideas legislators are considering include eliminating taxes on tips and overtime. 

“Anytime we can return money to our citizens is a good thing,” Felzkowski said, adding that state Republicans would like to align Wisconsin tax cuts with federal policy. The federal megabill approved in July included a tax deduction on tips and overtime that will be available from 2025 through 2028.

This December, Wisconsin residents are experiencing the highest property tax hikes since 2018, according to a recent Wisconsin Policy Forum report. The report explained that state budget decisions including Evers’ veto that allows school districts an annual $325 per pupil increase for the next 400 years as well as lawmakers’ decision to not provide any increase to state general aid this year have led to the hikes. 

Asked whether lawmakers will look to solutions for lowering property taxes, Felzkowski said it would take a new governor. 

“We have given [Evers] numerous chances to reverse that 400-year veto and he keeps vetoing the bill, so it’s on the governor’s plate right now,” Felzkowski said. “Until we get a different governor in the East Wing and we can start seriously addressing education and all the things that are wrong with it, I don’t know what to say.” 

Felzkowski said that even with the state budget surplus there wasn’t enough state money for the general aid increase.

“There were a lot of mouths to feed on that budget,” Felzkowski said. “With increasing revenues all over, there was not enough money out there to backfill that $325… We would have had to have raised taxes dramatically to do that. The dollars didn’t exist.”

Felzkowski said on education that she hopes Wisconsin will opt into the new federal education tax credit program. The program would provide a dollar-to-dollar tax credit of up to $1,700 to people who donate to a qualifying “scholarship granting program” to support taxpayer-financed private-school vouchers. Evers would need to opt the state into the program by Jan. 1, 2027, but so far has said he won’t. 

Confident GOP will hold Senate in 2026 

Wisconsin Republicans have held control of the state Assembly and Senate since 2010, and next year will test the strength of that majority when the state’s 17 odd-numbered Senate seats will be up for election for the first time under new legislative maps adopted in 2024. 

Last year when the maps were in place for the 16 even-numbered seats, Democrats were able to flip four seats. In 2026, Republicans will need to make sure Democrats cannot flip two additional Senate seats to hold control of the body.

Felzkowski expressed confidence that they will do so. 

“We will come back with a strong Republican majority. We have better policies, we have better ideas and we run great candidates,” Felzkowski said.

There will be several key, competitive districts in 2026 including Senate District 5, which is currently held by Sen. Rob Hutton (R-Brookfield), Senate District 17, which is currently held by Sen. Howard Marklein (R-Spring Green) and Senate District 31, currently represented by incumbent Sen. Jeff Smith (D-Brunswick) who will face a challenge from Sen. Jesse James (R-Thorp). 

“We’re going to run on the same policies we’ve always run on: lower taxes, strong freedoms, strong economies, strong education and government getting out of your way so that you can live the American dream,” Felzkowski said. “The Democrats are going to run on an anti-Donald Trump policy, more government, more influence in your life. It’s all they’ve ever run for.”

Some Democrats have taken election results in 2025 as a sign that people are unhappy with the Trump administration and are ready to elect Democrats. 

Felzkowski said she didn’t think that 2025 election results in other states were going to be applicable in Wisconsin, though she said the new maps could be challenging for Republican candidates. 

“Wisconsin is kind of a unique state. We’re a very purple state,” Felzkowski said. “We knew those candidates in Virginia were going to win, I mean, it’s a blue state so I mean you can’t really base us on what happened in Virginia and New Jersey… We’re going to be running in Democratic-gerrymandered seats, so we’re going to have to work very hard, but we will win.”

Wisconsin also has an open race for governor on the ballot next year. U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, who is considered the frontrunner in the GOP primary, and Washington County Executive Josh Schoemann, are the current Republican hopefuls.

Felzkowski said she probably won’t endorse in the Republican primary for governor, but she is looking for a candidate who is a “conservative reformer who’s willing to take on the tough issues from health care, education, and corrections, lowering taxes” as well as someone who will do “a deep dive into our agencies,” adding that she hopes they’ll work to root out “waste, fraud and abuse.” 

The Democratic field of candidates is much larger including Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez, state Sen. Kelda Roys (D-Madison), state Rep. Francesca Hong (D-Madison), Milwaukee County Exec. David Crowley, former Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation CEO Missy Hughes, former Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes, former Department of Administration Secretary Joel Brennan and former state Rep. Brett Hulsey.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, an attorney for Kilmar Abrego Garcia, speaks following a hearing in federal court in Greenbelt, Maryland, on Dec. 22, 2025. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

GREENBELT, Md. — U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis will retain an order keeping the wrongly deported El Salvador national Kilmar Abrego Garcia out of federal custody for the rest of the year, the judge said at a Monday hearing.

In the first hearing that Abrego Garcia was present for after his release last week, Xinis pressed U.S. Department of Justice attorneys to say by Friday how they planned to proceed, including whether they would seek a new warrant to arrest Abrego Garcia. Attorneys for Abrego Garcia would then be able to respond to the government next week, with a decision coming in the new year. 

Xinis expressed frustration with the Trump administration Monday, as she has throughout the monthslong case that has highlighted the nationwide crackdown on immigration.

She said she would “happily” consider a lawful request from the administration to detain Abrego Garcia under a different section of law than the one she has already rejected. But the government has not given her the assurance that they would pursue a different authority to detain him again.

“But the problem is, you want me to lift the (temporary restraining order) so that we don’t know what’s going to happen,” she said. “Why should I give the respondents the benefit of the doubt in this case? Why should I do that here? Show your work. That’s all.”

DOJ lawyer Ernesto Molina objected to a restriction on the government’s ability to detain Abrego Garcia.

“There’s no period during which an alien cannot be detained under the appropriate circumstances,” he said.

Move to Costa Rica?

Abrego Garcia’s lawyer, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, told reporters following the hearing that Abrego Garcia, who is married to and the father of U.S. citizens, would be with his family for the holidays.

“As of right now, Mr. Abrego Garcia is going to return to his home with his wife and his children and his family members in Maryland,” Sandoval-Moshenberg said. “And he will be at home through Christmas and New Year.”

Sandoval-Moshenberg also blamed the federal government for keeping Abrego Garcia in the country, rather than allowing him to self-deport to Costa Rica.

Costa Rica has agreed to accept Abrego Garcia, who entered the United States without legal authorization in 2011. The Trump administration has rejected deportation to the Central American country, instead proposing he be removed to several African nations to which he has no relationship.

Abrego Garcia “remains willing” to move to Costa Rica, Sandoval-Moshenberg told Xinis. If not for the government’s actions to pursue criminal charges in Tennessee and to reserve the right for future immigration enforcement in Maryland, Abrego Garcia would now be out of the country, Sandoval-Moshenberg said.

“It’s the government that’s preventing him from doing so,” he said. “He’s literally in a double bind. …. He’s got two ankle bracelets.”

Abrego Garcia after his deportation was imprisoned in a brutal prison in El Salvador and returned to the United States to face criminal charges in Tennessee stemming from a 2022 traffic stop. After he was ordered released from U.S. marshals’ custody by a federal judge, Immigration and Customs Enforcement detained him again at an appointment at the Baltimore, Maryland, ICE field office.

In mid-December, he was released from the Moshannon Valley Processing Center in Pennsylvania. He had remained there since September. 

An accounting error at the Wisconsin Department of Transportation that erroneously increased the paper value of state infrastructure assets has been corrected, according to the Legislative Audit Bureau. (Getty Images)

An accounting error led the Wisconsin Department of Transportation to erroneously increase the value on paper of the state’s infrastructure assets by nearly $900 million, legislative auditors said in a new analysis.

WisDOT corrected the error after the Legislative Audit Bureau drew it to the attention of the department, and the erroneous information was not included in the state’s 2024-25 fiscal year financial statements.

WisDOT had initially added $896 million to the value of the state’s capital infrastructure assets. It took that step after a previous audit report recommended a change in some of the department’s accounting procedures. In the process, however, WisDOT overlooked other accounting principles and procedures, which if followed would not have led to the error, according to the audit bureau’s report on the Wisconsin’s 2024-25 financial statements

WisDOT officials agreed with the new audit finding and said they would follow through on the audit bureau’s recommendations to update their procedures.

WisDOT was one of two state agencies that the Legislative Audit Bureau spotlighted in the financial statement audit report. The report was released Friday, Dec. 19, and highlighted Monday by the co-chairs of the Legislature’s Joint Audit Committee.

The audit report also said the state Department of Administration hasn’t adequately addressed security concerns relating to the state’s information technology systems that have been raised in previous audits.

“These audit findings have been found for numerous years, with no corrections taken by DOA,” stated a press release from the audit committee’s Republican co-chairs, Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Oconto) and Rep. Robert Wittke (R-Caledonia).

Corrections are underway, however, according to Kathy Blumenfeld, DOA secretary-designee.

In a letter responding to the audit, Blumenfeld wrote that while the audit bureau’s findings were “repeated from previous years,” the department “has in the last year implemented certain corrective actions consistent with the auditors’ recommendations.”

Those changes will require “sustained multiyear execution,” she wrote, given the nature of the audit findings. She also wrote that lawmakers have declined to increase DOA funding for cybersecurity, adding that more state funding “will be imperative to ensure the long-term security needs of the state.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Wind turbines generate electricity at the Block Island Wind Farm on July 7, 2022, near Block Island, Rhode Island. The first commercial offshore wind farm in the United States is located in the Atlantic Ocean 3.8 miles from Block Island, Rhode Island. The five-turbine, 30 MW project was developed by Deepwater Wind and began operations in December, 2016. (Photo by John Moore/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s administration said Monday it’s halting leases for five large-scale offshore wind projects under construction along the East Coast due to national security risks.

The Interior Department paused the projects — off the coasts of Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Virginia and New York — due to analysis from reports that have “long found that the movement of massive turbine blades and the highly reflective towers create radar interference,” which poses a national security risk, according to a department release.

“Today’s action addresses emerging national security risks, including the rapid evolution of the relevant adversary technologies, and the vulnerabilities created by large-scale offshore wind projects with proximity near our east coast population centers,” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in a statement alongside the announcement. 

The Interior Department said “the clutter caused by offshore wind projects obscures legitimate moving targets and generates false targets in the vicinity of the wind projects.” 

The department said leases for Vineyard Wind 1, off Massachusetts; Revolution Wind, off Rhode Island and Connecticut; Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind; along with Sunrise Wind and Empire Wind 1, off New York, have been paused “effective immediately.” 

The department noted that the pause would give it, the Defense Department and other agencies “time to work with leaseholders and state partners to assess the possibility of mitigating the national security risks posed by these projects.” 

The moves are part of the administration’s continued attacks against the renewable energy source, which have spilled into courts. A federal judge found this month that Trump’s January order halting permits for offshore wind projects was unlawful. 

‘Desperate rerun’ 

The action drew swift backlash from major environmental advocacy groups and Democratic officials. 

Ted Kelly, director and lead counsel for U.S. clean energy at Environmental Defense Fund, said in a Monday statement the administration is “again unlawfully blocking clean, affordable energy.”

The administration has “baselessly and unlawfully attacked wind energy with delays, freezes and cancellations, while propping up aging, expensive coal plants that barely work and pollute our air,” Kelly added.

Kate Sinding Daly, senior vice president for law and policy at the Conservation Law Foundation, described the move as a “desperate rerun of the Trump administration’s failed attempt to kill offshore wind — an effort the courts have already rejected.” 

She added that many of the projects had already won approvals through “rigorous review” and court challenges.

“Trying again to halt these projects tramples on the rule of law, threatens jobs, and deliberately sabotages a critical industry that strengthens, not weakens, America’s energy security,” she said. 

U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer also weighed in, saying in a Monday social media post Trump was “trying AGAIN to kill thousands of good-paying union jobs and raise your electricity bill.”  

The New York Democrat said he’s “been fighting Trump’s war against offshore wind — a war that threatens American jobs and American energy” and vowed to continue fighting “to make sure these projects, the thousands of jobs they create, and the energy they provide can continue.” 

Rhode Island lawmakers slam pause 

Lawmakers in Rhode Island were also quick to blast the administration’s effort, which affects the Revolution Wind project off its own coast. 

Rep. Seth Magaziner said that “at a time when working people in Rhode Island are struggling with high costs on everything, Trump should not be canceling energy projects that are nearly ready to deliver reliable power to the grid at below-market rates and help lower costs.” 

The Rhode Island Democrat rebuked the administration’s claims that Revolution Wind and the other offshore wind projects present national security concerns as “unfounded,” noting that “the Department of Defense thoroughly reviewed and signed off on this project during the permitting and approval process.” 

Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse said in a statement Monday that Revolution Wind “was long ago thoroughly vetted and fully permitted by the federal government, and that review included any potential national security questions.” 

Whitehouse, the ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said the move “looks more like the kind of vindictive harassment we have come to expect from the Trump administration than anything legitimate.” 

“This is President Donald ‘Stop Work’ Trump trying to keep affordable, clean energy off the grid, without a care about how many working people have to lose their jobs to keep his fossil fuel billionaires happy,” he said. 

In a statement Monday, Sen. Jack Reed noted that amid an increase in energy prices, policymakers should be promoting new energy sources.

“Trump’s repeated attacks on offshore wind are holding our nation back, increasing energy bills, and hurting our economy,” the Rhode Island Democrat said. 

Chequamegon Family Restaurant, also known as the Ashland Family Restaurant, where two workers were arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents on Monday, Dec. 15. (Photo by Frank Zufall/Wisconsin Examiner)

Federal U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents arrested two individuals at the Chequamegon Family Restaurant (also known as the Ashland Family Restaurant) Monday, Dec. 15 in the city of Ashland in far northern Wisconsin on the shores of Lake Superior.

This is the second arrest ICE agents have made in the Ashland/Bayfield area since July when an individual was arrested at Washburn Iron Works in the city of Washburn.

The Ashland City Police Department issued a statement Friday, Dec. 19 saying that ICE and U.S. Border Patrol officers had informed the police department that federal officers had a federal warrant for two individuals at the “Ashland Family Restaurant.”

The police department noted the federal officers had “picked up” one employee in the morning, and then returned after requesting that a city police officer be present because “the restaurant staff was very upset with them the first time they were there.”

A Dec. 15 police dispatch report notes that Officer Mark Campry was requested at 12:04 p.m. to the restaurant. 

According to the police statement, when the federal officers returned with the local police officer there was a request to open the doors and a second person was taken into custody.

The police did not say what type of warrant ICE had to make the arrest. ICE has not yet responded to a request for that information.

Alexandra Guevara of Voces de la Frontera, an immigrant workers’ rights organization, says there is an important difference between judicial warrants, signed by judges in cases where individuals are wanted for a crime, and ICE administrative warrants, which lack the same force.

“Nobody should open their doors for an ICE warrant. It’s an illegal instrument,” Guevara said.  “When we do our Know Your Rights trainings, it’s the first thing we tell people — you have to be able to get a warrant that is actually signed by a judge, that includes your address, that includes your name, your official name, and you have the ability to get that warrant, send it to a lawyer, send a picture to a lawyer, and ask, ‘Should I open the door or not?’”

Reporters for the Ashland Daily Press said they also were told by an employee of Deltco, a plastics manufacturer, that an employee at the plant was taken in custody by the federal officers Monday. Deltco management did not return calls from the Wisconsin Examiner attempting to verify whether an employee had been arrested.

Voces de la Frontera has identified one of the restaurant employees, a cook, as Luis Davids Coatzeozon Gomes, but has not been able to find out where he is being held.

“One of the things that happens with some of these detentions is that they’re detained and immediately sent somewhere else,” said Guevara, “so they don’t need to report them. And I mean, that creates a lot of confusion, that makes it impossible for their families to find them. It also makes it very difficult for lawyers to represent them, because they need to be in one place to be represented by a lawyer who can have access to them.”

She added, “We know that the ACLU has been dealing with that, talking all over the nation about how difficult it is now to trace where people are being taken because they’re being moved every two to three days, sometimes crossing state borders, like even being sent to places as far as Florida from here. And that makes it very, very difficult to know exactly how many people have been detained because they’re not being reported here.”

Guevara said most ICE detainees in Wisconsin are held, at least temporarily, in the Dodge County Jail. However, nearby Douglas County also has an agreement to hold ICE detainees. The ACLU reported in September that the Douglas County Sheriff’s Office had billed ICE for detaining 111 persons since the beginning of 2025.

State Rep. Angela Stroud, (D-Ashland) questioned why a city police officer accompanied the federal officers making an immigration arrest.

“My view on this is, if there’s probable cause that someone committed a crime, then you know, that’s a reasonable thing for the police to be involved in, because clearly, fighting crime is part of what we want to happen in our communities,” she said.

In answer to a question about the police involvement in the arrest, Ashland City Police Chief Bill Hagstrom sent the Ashland Daily Press a citation from the city’s police manual, 416.6 “Federal Request for Assistance” that states: “requests by federal immigration officials for assistance from this department should be directed to a supervisor. The Department may provide available support services, such as traffic control or peacekeeping efforts.”

Rep. Stroud also expressed concern about taking workers from employers struggling to maintain adequate staffing during a labor shortage in a city of fewer than 8,000 people.

“We have problems finding people to work generally around here,” she said, “and you know, we have an aging population. We have a lot of workforce shortages. What is the big picture goal here, and how does it help our community? How does this help our community?  I would like someone to explain that. And I recognize people need to, you know, follow immigration laws, but we’re seeing more and more that even people who do follow the law are being deported. And it’s just irrational. I don’t understand the big picture goal, except maybe to terrorize communities, and that’s, needless to say, is completely unethical.”

She added, “Unfortunately, we’re seeing these large raids and sweeps of people who are working and, you know, sometimes we’re even finding people who are American citizens getting caught up in that. So I recognize that people have a lot of strong feelings on this topic.” 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

An empty high school classroom. (Dan Forer | Getty Images)

Wisconsin property taxpayers are expected to see the largest increases in local government levies on their December bills since 2018, according to a recent report from the Wisconsin Policy Forum. 

Much of that increase is driven by levies from K-12 schools, which are estimated to increase by 7.8%. Preliminary data from the state Department of Revenue (DOR) shows the property tax levies for K-12 school districts are expected to rise by about $476.1 million to $6.58 billion on December tax bills. 

County property taxes are set to rise 3.1% — an increase more in line with recent years. 

According to the report, the increase in school levies is the result of decisions made in the last two state budgets, including increases to school revenue limits while keeping state general aid flat, as well as voter approval of school district referendum requests. 

During the 2023-25 state budget, lawmakers included a $325 increase to schools districts’ revenue limits in each year along with two years of funding for the increase. Gov. Tony Evers’ partial veto allowed school districts to raise the additional $325 per pupil annually for the next 400 years, but did not include the funding.

Evers and Democratic lawmakers advocated for the state to provide additional state aid, but Republicans, who hold the majority, rejected those calls.

“Typically, a portion of the per pupil revenue limit increase is covered by rising state general school aids,” the report states. “This time, state leaders instead kept the funding for these payments flat, leaving property taxes as the sole means by which school districts collectively could access the allowed $325 per student increase.”

State leaders did provide additional funding to schools for their special education costs, though initial estimates show that the state money set aside will not be enough to bring the reimbursement rate to 42% of special ed costs as leaders promised in the budget.

The report notes that state leaders decided to use the state budget surplus to cut income taxes instead of  providing school funding to limit property tax increases. It said that is in line with “a trend since 2011 in Wisconsin of falling spending on K-12 education as a share of personal income” and “means that the responsibility for paying for local government services, especially schools, is shifting more heavily to property taxpayers this year than it otherwise might have.”

School districts get to make a choice about whether they take advantage of additional school revenue authority by taxing the maximum amount.

“Rising pressure on both revenues and expenditures, however, appears to have prompted many districts to levy at or near the maximum amount,” the report states. “These pressures include rising teacher salaries and inflation, revenue limit increases in recent years that lagged the rate of inflation, and decreased funding associated with declining student enrollment and the expiration of federal pandemic relief funds.”

According to the report, 28.7% of school districts have a levy increase of more than 10% in 2025. This includes some communities that have levy increases of more than 30% including Wauwatosa, a large suburban district, and Bruce and Markesan, which are small rural school districts.

One example highlighted in the report is the Beloit School District, whose levy tripled in 2025 from $5.6 million to $16.2 million.

The school district lost $9.8 million in state general school aids this year. The Department of Public Instruction reported in October that 71% of public school districts would receive less general school aid this year, which was in part because general state aid remained flat. Schools that lose state aid are able to make up for the reduction by increasing their levy.

The report notes that the “sharp rise in property taxes therefore does not represent a correspondingly sharp increase in core district revenue, which still only rose by the allowable increase under the revenue limit.”

School referendum requests are also making up part of the increase as school districts continue to turn to voters to help meet costs in lieu of state funding increases.

Wisconsin had the largest amount of school referendum requests passed in state history in November 2024, raising property taxes by over $3.4 billion that year. In 2025, Wisconsin voters also approved the largest number of school referendums in an off year since 2015. 

Madison Metropolitan school district’s levy increased by $81.1 million from the large referendum it passed in 2024. It also lost $11.9 million in state general aid, allowing it to increase property taxes to make up for that loss. The report notes that Madison’s increases alone make up 17% of the overall K-12 levy increase, though “without Madison’s increase, statewide tax levies would have increased by 6.9%, which would have been the third highest rate in the last 25 years.”

The report warns that property taxpayers could see similar increases to their property taxes in coming years.

“State law will provide another $325 per pupil revenue increase [next year] but again no increase in state general school aids or property tax credits. The increase in special education aid will also be smaller than this year,” the report states. “Absent some special action by the state Legislature and governor early next year, property taxpayers will likely see more of the same in December 2026.”

Some lawmakers want to get rid of revenue increase, others propose overhauling system

As property taxpayers receive their December bills, lawmakers have been proposing ways to prevent further hikes and cut property taxes, though it’s unclear whether the proposals will lead to concrete changes before the close of the legislative session next year.

Republican lawmakers are still seeking the elimination of the annual school revenue increases. 

A bill coauthored by Rep. Dave Maxey (R-New Berlin) and Sen. Chris Kapenga (R-Delafield) would stop the $325 annual increases for school districts starting in the 2027-28 school year. It received a public hearing last week.

A memo from the Legislative Fiscal Bureau found that 58 school districts levied less than the amount they could — meaning that 363 of Wisconsin’s 421 school districts levied the maximum amount in 2025.

“To those who think districts aren’t going to automatically increase revenue limits each year, you are believing a lie,” Maxey said in written testimony. “The 400-year veto is going to be extremely destructive to almost every homeowner in the years to come.”

Maxey said the bill would “restore balance and accountability” by giving control to lawmakers and taxpayers.

“Decisions about raising property taxes should be made by the people who pay them, not imposed by executive action,” Maxey said.

Evers has stood by his partial veto, making it unlikely he would sign the bill.

Rep. Ryan Clancy (D-Milwaukee) is less bothered with the 400-year increase, calling it a “parlor trick” that “just provided the additional capacity for local governments to lean more on property taxes to fund education, which is inequitable.” Last week, he proposed a package of bills meant to overhaul the way Wisconsin K-12 schools and local governments bring in revenue as a way to cut property taxes. 

“I’m less inclined to demonize a $325 a year potential increase than to attack the actual problem, which is this over reliance on property taxes to fund K-12 education,” Clancy said. “The problem is distinctly Republican. The state has been starving schools of resources. It’s been starving local government of resources. When you do those things then schools and local governments have to ask for money in the way of property taxes, because that’s the only mechanism available to them.”

Clancy told the Examiner that he sees the state’s reliance on property taxes to fund schools “inherently inequitable” as it determines funding based on the size and costs of houses nearby.

“In Wisconsin, we have an extremely ridiculous and complex funding formula that tries to provide a little bit more aid to make up that gap, but it doesn’t fit the bill, and it’s really been kind of a terrible system,” Clancy said.

Clancy said that he’s heard from community members, especially from older adults on fixed incomes that they want to chip in to help with schools, but it’s getting to where they “cannot afford to live in this community anymore.”

“We’ve been talking to folks who have left Milwaukee and sometimes left the state because they cannot afford the property taxes on their homes that they worked their whole lives to afford, and in some cases, they’ve lived in these homes for generations, and yet, the property tax burden from our very regressive property taxes is just too much for a lot of people around the market,” Clancy said. “We can change that, and we should.”

Clancy’s package of bills aim to bring down property taxes by eliminating school districts’ reliance on property taxes by increasing income taxes on the state’s wealthier residents.

Clancy said the bill would lead to on average a 44% cut to people’s property taxes.

“Generally, if you look at the median across the state, 44% of your property tax bill goes to K-12 education. That percentage is actually a little bit higher in Milwaukee, so Milwaukee residents will see a greater savings from this,” Clancy said.

According to a draft, which is still being finalized, the bill would increase the tax rate for Wisconsin’s fourth income tax bracket to 8.85% by taxable year 2026. It would also create a new fifth tax bracket with a rate of 17.7% by taxable year 2026 on those making at least $750,000 for single taxpayers and $1 million for married couples filing jointly. The revenue from the income tax hikes would be used to pay for education costs including boosting the special education reimbursement rate to 90%.

“The problem of inequity in education is a massive structural problem. We’re not going to fix that by nibbling around the edges of it… We could do half measures. We could say, you know, a 5% reduction in property taxes,” Clancy said. “Ultimately, that doesn’t fix the problem.”

Clancy is also proposing allowing local governments the option to implement a local income tax and reimplementing the estate tax in Wisconsin, which would tax transfers of property that take place upon a person’s death.

Clancy said the proposal would address the ways “Wisconsin has been starving our municipalities and counties of their own share revenue for a long time now.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Oak Bluff Natural Area in Door County, which was protected by the Door County Land Trust using Knowles-Nelson Stewardship funds in 2023. (Photo by Kay McKinley)

At a Wisconsin Assembly committee meeting in November to consider a proposal to extend the widely popular Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Grant program, Rep. Rob Swearingen (R-Rhinelander) complained that too much land in his district has been conserved through the program.

That sentiment has become increasingly common among a subset of Republicans in the Wisconsin Legislature, most of them representing the far northern reaches of the state. The complaint they often make is that Knowles-Nelson has taken too much land off local property tax rolls, depriving already struggling local governments of important revenue. 

These complaints also go hand-in-hand with laments that the Wisconsin Supreme Court undermined the Legislature’s authority to conduct oversight of the grant program by ruling the Republican-controlled Joint Committee on Finance was unconstitutionally blocking stewardship grant projects proposed by the Department of Natural Resources. These Republicans say that their districts have borne the burden of Wisconsin’s land conservation goals for too long and some of that work should shift to southern parts of the state.

Because of this group’s objections in the Republican legislative caucus, the stewardship program is facing its demise next year.

Popular program hits roadblocks 

The Knowles-Nelson program was started in 1989 to fund land conservation in the state. Grants from the program to local governments and non-profits help 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. Polls have shown an overwhelming majority of Wisconsinites support the program. 

Despite that support, it is set to expire next summer and, so far, legislative efforts to extend the program have failed. 

In his initial 2025-27 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.

Separately, Rep. Shae Sortwell (R-Two Rivers) has introduced a proposed constitutional amendment that would require the full Legislature to approve any state spending on land conservation.

Data contradicts lawmakers’ complaints 

The complaints that Knowles-Nelson has conserved too much Northwoods land may prove fatal to the program in a Legislature that has been unable to find common ground on environmental issues. 

But an analysis of public lands data shows that the Knowles-Nelson program plays a comparatively small role in Wisconsin’s conserved land portfolio. Despite the claims of critics, the program’s land purchases have been made in all corners of the state. 

knowles nelson by assembly district

“Knowles-Nelson becomes like sort of the straw man argument,” says Charles Carlin, director of strategic initiatives at the land conservation non-profit Gathering Waters. “If legislators stood up and said, ‘I don’t think that we should have public land in the way that we do, we should reduce our public land portfolio,’ that would be a terribly unpopular position.”

The program has widespread support, he says.

“Public lands are the prized heritage of Americans, right?” Carlin says. “It’s one of the only things that we just largely agree on as a country, is that we are really proud of our public lands. And this is part of our national identity, and I think it’s certainly part of our Wisconsin identity.” 

Swearingen’s 34th district, which covers north central Wisconsin from Rhinelander up to the Michigan border, has more land conserved by the DNR than any other district in the state — almost 335,000 acres, nearly 24% of the district. That includes land set aside for state parks, natural areas, forests and similar uses. 

But only 4.7% of the district is conserved through Knowles-Nelson. Another 4.6% of his district is conserved by the federal government, and 8.6% is conserved county forest land. 

Despite the claims that Knowles-Nelson has devoured valuable land across the state, no Assembly district has had more than 5.1% of its land conserved through the program, data shows. The average amount of Knowles-Nelson conserved land across all 99 Assembly districts is 1.13%. 

Many small purchases

Ron Eckstein, a board member of Wisconsin Green Fire, says Knowles-Nelson is best equipped to help the state purchase smaller tracts to connect already conserved land across the southern part of the state. 

“Many state fish and wildlife areas, state parks, and state natural areas across the southern two-thirds of Wisconsin have private land inholdings within their property boundaries,” he said in an email. 

“It is very important to continue to purchase these inholdings so these state properties can meet their intended purpose: fish and wildlife habitat, rare species, game species, public access, recreation and recreational trails,” Eckstein said. “This means continuing the long-term, slow process of purchasing a 20-acre tract here and an 80-acre tract there to complete these state-owned areas and fulfill their public purpose.”

state land by assembly district

Other DNR land and federal land take up hundreds of thousands more acres across the state. 

The 74th District, represented by Rep. Chanz Green and Sen. Romaine Quinn has the most Knowles-Nelson land at 5.1%. Nearly 11% of the district is other DNR land while 14.5% is federal land and 23.8% is county land.

Twenty Assembly districts have more general DNR conserved land than the 74th has Knowles-Nelson land. 

Across the five Assembly districts with the most federal land, 1,596,129 acres have been conserved. Across the five districts with the most Knowles-Nelson land, 413,453 acres have been conserved. 

The data also contradicts Republican claims that the northern parts of the state unfairly get too much land conservation attention. 

The Dane County districts represented by Reps. Mike Bare (D-Verona), Alex Joers (D-Waunakee) and Shelia Stubbs (D-Madison) are all among the 10 districts with the highest percentage of land conserved through Knowles-Nelson. Rep. Karen DeSanto’s Baraboo-area district, Rep. Chuck Wichgers’ suburban Waukesha County district and Rep. Scott Krug’s district south of Stevens Point are also in the top 10.

When divided by dollar amount, Knowles-Nelson is similarly disbursed. Since its inception, $1.2 billion has been given out through the program to all but one of the Assembly districts; the Milwaukee district of Rep. Supreme Moore-Omukunde (D-Milwaukee) is the only district to not receive any money. 

The 36th district, represented by Rep. Jeff Mursau (R-Crivitz), has gotten the most of that money — $102 million, which amounts to 7% of the total Knowles-Nelson purchases over the program’s lifetime. But districts have received an average of $13 million through the program.

federal land by assembly district

“While we’ve done some really cool things with Knowles-Nelson, it’s largely been a drop in the bucket of our sort of overall public lands portfolio,” Carlin says. While some critics complain about the state’s total public land portfolio, he adds,  “Knowles Nelson investments are really targeted and strategic, and cumulatively not actually that big.”

Republicans defend focusing on Knowles-Nelson because they have limited control over the land conserved by the federal and county governments.  Legislators have authority over the program through the biennial budget process and the confirmation of members of the Natural Resources Board, but despite that, have put the stewardship program in the crosshairs. 

In the last several years, Republicans on the Legislature’s Joint Finance Committee began using passive review — an anonymous veto system — to selectively block some Knowles-Nelson projects, to the wide condemnation of members of the public and conservation groups. A 2024 state Supreme Court ruling, in a lawsuit filed by Gov. Tony Evers against the committee’s co-chair, Sen. Howard Marklein, found that the “legislative veto” was unconstitutional. 

“Until the Evers v. Marklein decision by the liberal Wisconsin Supreme Court, there was a good process in place for new stewardship land purchases,” Sen. Mary Felzkowski (R-Tomahawk) told the Wisconsin Examiner in a statement. “Those checks and balances between the executive branch and the Legislature ensured that it was a collective decision, and that the state did not overpay for stewardship land. Unfortunately, since this process was destroyed, the Legislature is forced to put even more scrutiny on the stewardship program.”

County Forest by Assembly District

Carlin says the program has played an important role in helping local governments in more rural parts of the state invest in projects that help the local economy in the long term. Dane County’s recently passed 2026 budget includes $20 million for land conservation, which is not an expense most counties can afford. 

“But if collectively, we choose as a state to say this is an important priority, we’re all going to work on this together, then we can make meaningful investments in rural communities that wouldn’t otherwise be able to do it themselves,” Carlin says. 

“At a time when there is such incredible inequality of wealth and opportunity,” he adds, “what the data tells us is that Knowles-Nelson has been a really good democratizer of investments in conservation and recreation.”

State and federal proposals to regulate and restrict medication abortion are expected to continue in 2026 as abortion opponents claim, without strong evidence, that abortion medication is dangerous to patients and the environment. (Getty Images)

Going into the fourth year without federal abortion rights protections, groups that helped overturn Roe v. Wade are focused on cutting off access to abortion pills. As multiple lawsuits over the abortion drug mifepristone unfold, state and federal proposals to regulate and restrict medication abortion are expected to continue in 2026. Abortion opponents argue that medication abortion, despite its strong safety record, is dangerous to patients and the environment.

Abortion bans are largely unpopular, but heading into a midterm election year, some lawmakers in states with strict abortion bans have already prefiled bills to add new restrictions. Here’s a look at early legislative trends emerging in abortion-related bills recently introduced or prefiled ahead of the new year.

Proposals to restrict abortion pill or study environmental effects

Over the last few years, the national anti-abortion group Students for Life of America has spread unfounded claims that mifepristone pollutes U.S. waterways and drinking water, drafted model legislation to regulate the disposal of medication abortions, and requested environmental studies at the federal and state level. 

In 2025, lawmakers in at least seven states introduced bills to create environmental restrictions for the abortion drug mifepristone or order environmental studies. Bills introduced this year in Texas, Wisconsin and Wyoming would have required testing community water systems for traces of mifepristone. 

Bills in Maine, Montana, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming would have required providers to give patients medical waste kits to collect and return the tissue following a medication abortion. Women commonly flush the tissue associated with medication abortion and miscarriages, which typically occur during the first trimester. 

These bills, except Pennsylvania’s, would have also mandated in-person dispensing of the medication and follow-ups, effectively banning telehealth abortion. 

None of these proposals passed, but they are likely to be reintroduced in 2026 as abortion opponents continue to push for environmental regulation of abortion pills, including at the federal level. 

In June, 25 congressional Republicans sent the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency a letter inquiring about potential avenues for regulating mifepristone, as the New York Times reported. And as Politico recently reported, Students For Life lobbied the agency to add mifepristone to its recently updated list of contaminants that utilities will have to track in drinking water. It’s too late to include a new drug on the list, which is updated every five years. 

But according to Politico, EPA staffers advised anti-abortion activists to use an upcoming public comment period to drum up requests that the agency include active metabolites in mifepristone. The EPA collects nationwide data on the chemicals on this list, which could be used to set future federal limits.  

Fetal wrongful death bills 

In Florida, where abortion is banned at six weeks’ gestation, lawmakers recently advanced HB 289 ahead of the 2026 session, which would allow parents to file wrongful death lawsuits for the loss of a developing fetus and to claim damages for mental pain and loss of support. Its companion bill, SB 164, filed for the third year in a row by Republican Sen. Erin Grall, faces an uphill battle in the Florida Senate, reported the Florida Phoenix, which noted that jurors could be asked to consider the salary the fetus could have earned over its life as part of damages to which parents could be entitled. 

Groups opposing the legislation as far-reaching and likely to increase liability exposure for OB-GYNs who specialize in high-risk pregnancies include the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, the Florida Justice Reform Institute and the Doctors Company, the nation’s largest physician-owned medical malpractice carrier.

One of the bill’s leading champions, Andrew Shirvell, founder and executive director of Florida Voice for the Unborn, told state House Judiciary Committee members they should continue expanding “civil remedies afforded under Florida law to hold accountable those who continue to take the lives of unborn children illegally in our state.”

Another bill, HB 663, would allow a family member to sue someone for providing or attempting to provide an abortion up to two years after the fact with up to $100,000 in damages, even if the woman consented or if the abortion was performed in another state or country where the procedure is legal.

Attempts to overturn or skirt abortion rights ballot measures 

Even though Missouri voters in 2024 approved an amendment to protect abortion rights in the state constitution, broad access has not returned to the state. Between January and October, there were only 80 in-clinic abortion procedures in Missouri, according to state data, with an additional 79 abortions in hospitals and identified as medical emergencies.

A trial in January could determine whether Missouri’s anti-abortion laws violate the voter-approved amendment. Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers have put a new constitutional amendment on the 2026 ballot that would ban nearly all abortions in the state with limited exceptions.   

In 2023, Ohio voters approved a constitutional amendment protecting abortion rights through fetal viability, and prohibiting the state from interfering with or penalizing someone for exercising that right. But Republicans have been advancing anti-abortion bills to create restrictions that make accessing abortion more difficult without directly flouting the amendment. 

During this legislative session, which ends Dec. 31, state Sen. Kyle Koehler introduced SB 309, which could add steps to accessing medication abortion and would require doctors to deliver a state-mandated script about the dangers of mifepristone. It would also allow patients, their parents if they’re underage, or the father of the fetus  to sue if they feel the patient was uninformed when taking the pill.

In November, the Ohio House passed HB 485, which would require students in fifth through 12th grade to watch either a “Meet Baby Oliva” fetal development video created by the national anti-abortion group Live Action, or a similar video. Live Action’s video has been criticized by reproductive health advocates for not being fully medically accurate or comprehensive. Similar bills have been introduced in dozens of states this year, and have been enacted in Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, North Dakota and Tennessee. 

Abortion records privacy

Privacy concerns around reproductive health in the post-Roe era persist nationally. Lawmakers in states that protect abortion rights continue to try to shore up medical and data privacy protections for abortion, which is almost completely illegal in more than a dozen states. 

In Indiana, where the legislative session began in December, Sen. La Keisha Jackson introduced SB 109. Under the measure, a health care provider’s report about an abortion submitted to the Indiana health department as a medical record would be confidential and not subject to disclosure as a public record. In a state lawsuit brought by two OB-GYNs from Indianapolis, an appeals court in December upheld the privacy of these records, known as terminated pregnancy reports.

In Washington state, Democratic lawmakers are still drafting legislation that would regulate license plate readers following reports that authorities in Texas searched thousands of cameras, as far as Washington and Illinois, to find a woman they believed had a self-administered medication abortion. 

Calling for forced vasectomies for convicted rapists

State abortion restrictions typically hold health providers liable, but women have been jailed or prosecuted for their pregnancy outcomes. One Democratic lawmaker in Alabama, where abortion is banned throughout pregnancy except to save the pregnant person’s life, has introduced legislation that comes with steep penalties for men convicted of rape or incest that resulted in pregnancy. 

Democratic Rep. Juandalynn Givan’s prefiled HB 46 would authorize abortion to preserve the health of the mother or if the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. It would also require men convicted of rape or incest to pay for the abortion, and undergo either vasectomy or castration, as determined by the court. As the Alabama Reflector reported, the bill is unlikely to be considered, but for Givan it’s really about starting a broader conversation of bodily autonomy. 

“We have already set a double standard,” Givan said. “Have you seen a bill crafted that tells a man what he cannot … do with his body? You have not, outside of the standard laws that speaks to rape and incest, and we already know that that is definitely a crime.”

Anticipated federal policy decisions during Trump’s second year 

In his first year back in office, President Donald Trump rescinded many of the Biden-era policies intended to expand abortion access, including the previous administration’s interpretation that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act covers abortions necessary to save a pregnant person’s life even in a state that has banned abortion.

More major federal policy decisions around abortion are anticipated in 2026. The Food and Drug Administration agreed to review mifepristone’s safety, but abortion opponents recently called for FDA Commissioner Martin Makary to be fired, accusing him of slow-walking the review until after the midterm elections in November. 

Just a few months before that, in July, a controversial Medicaid policy effectively defunding Planned Parenthood clinics and other nonprofit clinics that provide abortions, is slated to expire. Whether Republicans will renew the funding restriction or let it lapse — allowing the nation’s largest network of reproductive health clinics to continue serving Medicaid patients for services unrelated to abortion — remains to be seen.

The former site of the We Energies Power Plant on Nov. 13, 2025, in Pleasant Prairie, Wis. (Photo by Joe Timmerman/Wisconsin Watch)

By some measures, the Pleasant Prairie Power Plant, once regarded locally as an “iconic industrial landmark,” had a good run.

Opened in 1980 near Lake Michigan in Kenosha County, it became Wisconsin’s largest generating plant, burning enough Wyoming coal, some 13,000 tons a day, to provide electricity for up to 1 million homes.

But over time, the plant became too expensive to operate. The owner, We Energies, shut it down after 38 years, in 2018.

We Energies customers, however, are still on the hook.

A portion of their monthly bills will continue to pay for Pleasant Prairie until 2039 — 21 years after the plant stopped producing electricity.

In fact, residential and business utility customers throughout Wisconsin owe nearly $1 billion on “stranded assets” — power plants like Pleasant Prairie that have been or will soon be shut down, a Wisconsin Watch investigation found.

That total will likely grow over the next five years with additional coal plants scheduled to cease operations.

Customers must pay not only for the debt taken on to build and upgrade the plants themselves, but also an essentially guaranteed rate of return for their utility company owners, long after the plants stop generating revenue themselves.

“We really have a hard time with utilities profiting off of dead power plants for decades,” said Todd Stuart, executive director of the Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group.

The $1 billion tab looms as Wisconsin utility companies aim to generate unprecedented amounts of electricity for at least seven major high-tech data centers that are proposed, approved or under construction. By one estimate, just two of the data centers, which are being built to support the growth of artificial intelligence, would use more electricity than all Wisconsin homes combined.

All of which raises an important question in Wisconsin, where electricity rates have exceeded the Midwest average for 20 years.

What happens to residents and other ratepayers if AI and data centers don’t pan out as planned, creating a new generation of stranded assets?

How much do Wisconsin ratepayers owe on stranded assets?

Of the five major investor-owned utilities operating in Wisconsin, two — We Energies and Wisconsin Public Service Corp. — have stranded assets on the books. Both companies are subsidiaries of Milwaukee-based WEC Energy Group.

As of December 2024, when the company released its most recent annual report, We Energies estimated a remaining value of more than $700 million across three power plants with recently retired units: Pleasant Prairie, Oak Creek and Presque Isle, a plant on Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.

Wisconsin Public Service Corp.’s December 2024 report listed roughly $30 million in remaining value on recently retired units at two power plants.

In total, utilities owned by WEC Energy Group will likely have over $1 billion in recently retired assets by the end of 2026.

The company also noted a remaining value of just under $250 million for its share of units at Columbia Generating Station slated to retire in 2029, alongside a remaining value of roughly $650 million for units at Oak Creek scheduled to retire next year.

Its customers will pay off that total, plus a rate of return, for years to come.

The company estimates that closing the Pleasant Prairie plant alone saved $2.5 billion, largely by avoiding future operating and maintenance costs and additional capital investments.

Both Wisconsin Power and Light and Madison Gas and Electric also own portions of the Columbia Energy Center, and Wisconsin Power and Light also operates a unit at the Edgewater Generating Station scheduled for retirement before the end of the decade. Neither company provided estimates of the values of those facilities at time of retirement. Andrew Stoddard, a spokesman for Alliant Energy, Wisconsin Power and Light’s parent company, argued against treating plants scheduled for retirement with value on the books as future stranded assets.

How stranded assets occurred: overcommitting to coal

In 1907, Wisconsin became one of the first states to regulate public utilities. The idea was that having competing companies installing separate gas or electric lines was inefficient, but giving companies regional monopolies would require regulation.

Utility companies get permission to build or expand power plants and to raise rates from the three-member state Public Service Commission. The commissioners, appointed by the governor, are charged with protecting ratepayers as well as utility company investors.

Stranded assets have occurred across the nation, partly because of the cost of complying with pollution control regulations. But another factor is that, while other utilities around the country moved to alternative sources of energy, Wisconsin utilities and, in turn, the PSC overbet on how long coal-fired plants would operate efficiently:

• In the years before We Energies pulled the plug on Pleasant Prairie, the plant had mostly gone dark in spring and fall. Not only had coal become more expensive than natural gas and renewables, but energy consumption stayed flat. By 2016, two years before Pleasant Prairie’s closure, natural gas eclipsed coal for electricity generation nationally.

• In 2011, We Energies invested nearly $1 billion into its coal-fired Oak Creek plant south of Milwaukee to keep it running for 30 more years. The plant, which began operating in 1965 and later became one of the largest in the country, is now scheduled to completely retire in 2026 — with $650 million on the books still owed. That will cost individual ratepayers nearly $30 per year for the next 17 years, according to RMI, a think tank specializing in clean energy policy. The majority of the debt tied to those units stems from “environmental controls we were required to install to meet federal and state rules,” WEC Energy Group spokesperson Brendan Conway said.

• In 2013, to settle pollution violations, Alliant Energy announced an investment of more than $800 million in the Columbia Energy Center plant in Portage, north of Madison. But by 2021, Alliant announced plans to begin closing the plant, though now it is expected to operate until at least 2029.

Various factors encourage construction and upgrades of power plants.

Building a plant can create upwards of 1,000 construction jobs, popular with politicians. Moreover, the Public Service Commission, being a quasi-judicial body, is governed by precedent. For example, if the PSC determined it was prudent to allow construction of a utility plant, that finding would argue in favor of approving a later expansion of that plant.

The PSC allowed utility companies “to overbuild the system,” said Tom Content, executive director of the Wisconsin Citizens Utility Board, a nonprofit advocate for utility customers. “I think the mistake was that we allowed so much investment, and continuing to double down on coal when it was becoming less economic.”

Utilities “profit off of everything they build or acquire,” Stuart said, “and so there is a strong motivation to put steel in the ground and perhaps to even overbuild.”

Conway, the WEC Energy Group spokesperson, argued that the utilities’ plans to retire plants amount to a net positive for customers.

“We began our power generation reshaping plan about a decade ago,” he wrote in an email. “That includes closing older, less-efficient power plants and building new renewable energy facilities and clean, efficient natural gas plants. This plan reduces emissions and is expected to provide customers significant savings — hundreds of millions of dollars — over the life of the plan.”

Guaranteed profits add to ratepayer burden

The built-in profits that utility companies enjoy, typically 9.8%, add to the stranded assets tab.

When the Public Service Commission approves construction of a new power plant, it allows the utility company to levy electricity rates high enough to recover its investment plus the specified rate of return — even after a plant becomes a stranded asset.

“We give them this license to have a monopoly, but the challenge is there’s no incentive for them to do the least-cost option,” Content said. “So, in terms of building new plants, there’s an incentive to build more … and there’s incentive to build too much.”

When the Pleasant Prairie plant was shut down in 2018, the PSC ruled that ratepayers would continue to pay We Energies to cover the cost of the plant itself, plus the nearly 10% profit. The plant’s remaining value, initially pegged at nearly $1 billion, remained at roughly $500 million as of December 2024.

Eliminating profits on closed plants would save ratepayers $300 million on debt payments due to be made into the early 2040s, according to Content’s group.

New ‘stranded assets’ threat: data centers

As artificial intelligence pervades society, it’s hard to fathom how much more electricity will have to be generated to power all of the data centers under construction or being proposed in Wisconsin.

We Energies alone wants to add enough energy to power more than 2 million homes. That effort is largely to serve one Microsoft data center under construction in Mount Pleasant, between Milwaukee and Racine, and a data center approved north of Milwaukee in Port Washington to serve OpenAI and Oracle AI programs. Microsoft calls the Mount Pleasant facility “the world’s most powerful data center.”

Data centers are also proposed for Beaver Dam, Dane County, Janesville, Kenosha and Menomonie.

The energy demand raises the risk of more stranded assets, should the data centers turn out to be a bubble rather than boom.

“The great fear is, you build all these power plants and transmission lines and then one of these data centers only is there for a couple years, or isn’t as big as promised, and then everybody’s left holding the bag,” Stuart said.

In an October Marquette Law School poll, 55% of those surveyed said the costs of data centers outweigh the benefits. Environmental groups have called for a pause on all data center approvals. Democratic and Republican leaders are calling for data centers to pay their own way and not rely on utility ratepayers or taxpayers to pay for their electricity needs.

Opposition in one community led nearly 10,000 people to become members of the Stop the Menomonie Data Center group on Facebook. In Janesville, voters are trying to require referendums for data centers. In Port Washington, opposition to the data center there led to three arrests during a city council meeting.

Utilities are scheduled in early 2026 to request permission from the Public Service Commission to build new power plants or expand existing plants to accommodate data centers.

Some states, such as Minnesota, have adopted laws prohibiting the costs of stranded assets from data centers being passed onto ratepayers.

Wisconsin has no such laws.

Shifting cost burden to utility companies

Currently, ratepayers are on the hook for paying off the full debt of stranded assets — unless a financial tool called securitization reduces the burden on ratepayers.

Securitization is similar to refinancing a mortgage. With the state’s permission, utilities can convert a stranded asset — which isn’t typically a tradeable financial product — into a specialized bond.

Utility customers must still pay back the bond. But the interest rate on the bond is lower than the utility’s standard profit margin, meaning customers save money.

A 2024 National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners report noted that utilities’ shareholders may prefer a “status quo” scenario in which customers pay stranded asset debts and the standard rate of return. Persuading utilities to agree to securitization can require incentives from regulators or lawmakers, the report added.

In some states, utilities can securitize the remaining value of an entire power plant. Michigan utility Consumers Energy, for instance, securitized two coal generating units retired in 2023, saving its customers more than $120 million.

In Wisconsin, however, utilities can securitize only the cost of pollution control equipment on power plants — added to older coal plants during the Obama administration, when utilities opted to retrofit existing plants rather than switching to new power sources.

In 2023, two Republican state senators, Robert Cowles of Green Bay and Duey Stroebel of Saukville, introduced legislation to allow the Public Service Commission to order securitization and allow securitization to be used to refinance all debt on stranded assets. The bill attracted some Democratic cosponsors, but was opposed by the Wisconsin Utilities Association and did not get a hearing.

Democratic Gov. Tony Evers proposed additional securitization in his 2025-27 budget, but the Legislature’s Republican-controlled Joint Finance Committee later scrapped the provision.

Even Wisconsin’s narrow approach to securitization is optional, however, and most utilities have chosen not to use it.

We Energies was the first Wisconsin utility to do so, opting in 2020 to securitize the costs of pollution control equipment at the Pleasant Prairie plant. Wisconsin’s Public Service Commission approved the request, saving an estimated $40 million. “We will continue to explore that option in the future,” Conway said.

But the PSC expressed “disappointment” in 2024 when We Energies “was not willing to pursue securitization” to save customers $117.5 million on its soon-to-retire Oak Creek coal plant. The utility noted state law doesn’t require securitization.

Stuart said that if utilities won’t agree to more securitization, they should accept a lower profit rate once an asset becomes stranded.

“It would be nice to ease that burden,” he said. “Just to say, hey, consumers got to suck it up and deal with it, that doesn’t sound right. The issue of stranded assets, like cost overruns, is certainly ripe for investigation.”

Comprehensive planning required elsewhere — but not Wisconsin

Avoiding future stranded assets could require a level of planning impossible under Wisconsin’s current regulatory structure.

When the state’s utilities propose new power plants, PSC rules require the commission to consider each new plant alone, rather than in the context of other proposed new plants and the state’s future energy needs. Operating without what is known as an integrated resource plan, or IRP, opened the PSC to overbuilding and creating more stranded assets. IRPs are touted as an orderly way to plan for future energy needs.

“There’s no real comprehensive look in Wisconsin,” Stuart said. “We’re one of the few regulated states that really doesn’t have a comprehensive plan for our utilities.

”We’ve been doing some of these projects kind of piecemeal, without looking at the bigger picture.”

Structured planning tools like IRPs date back to the 1980s, when concerns about cost overruns, fuel price volatility and overbuilding prompted regulators to step in. Minnesota and Michigan require utilities to file IRPs, as do a majority of states nationwide.

Evers proposed IRPs in his 2025-27 state budget, but Republican lawmakers removed that provision because it was a nonfiscal policy issue.

Northern States Power Company, which operates in Wisconsin and four other Midwestern states, is required by both Michigan and Minnesota to develop IRPs. “Because of these rules, we create a multi-state IRP every few years,” said Chris Ouellette, a spokesperson for Xcel Energy, the utility’s parent company.

Madison Gas and Electric, which only operates in Wisconsin, argued that its current planning process is superior to the IRP requirements in neighboring states. “A formal IRP mandate would add process without improving outcomes,” spokesperson Steve Schultz said. “Wisconsin’s current framework allows us to move quickly, maintain industry-leading reliability and protect customer costs during a period of rapid change.”

How to influence decisions relating to stranded assets

The devil will be in the details on whether the Public Service Commission adopts strong policies to prevent the expected wave of new power plant capacity from becoming stranded assets, consumer advocates say.

The current members, all appointed by Evers, are: chairperson Summer Strand, Kristy Nieto and Marcus Hawkins.

The public can comment on pending cases before the PSC via its website, by mail or at a public hearing. The commission posts notices of its public hearings, which can be streamed via YouTube.

Among the upcoming hearings on requests by utilities to generate more electricity for data centers:

Feb. 12: We Energies’ request to service data centers in Mount Pleasant and Port Washington. We Energies says the fees it proposes, known as tariffs, will prevent costs from being shifted from the data centers to other customers. The “party” hearing is not for public comment, but for interaction between PSC staff and parties in the case, such as We Energies and public interest groups.

Feb. 26: Another party hearing for a case in which Alliant Energy also said its proposed tariffs won’t benefit the data center in Beaver Dam at the expense of other customers.

To keep abreast of case developments, the PSC offers email notifications for document filings and meetings of the commission.

The PSC would not provide an official to be interviewed for this article. It issued a statement noting that utilities can opt to do securitization to ease the financial burden on ratepayers, adding:

“Beyond that, the commission has a limited set of tools provided under state law to protect customers from costs that arise from early power plant retirements. It would be up to the state Legislature to make changes to state law that would provide the commission with additional tools.”

On Nov. 6, state Sen. Jodi Habush Sinykin, D-Whitefish Bay, and Rep. Angela Stroud, D-Ashland, announced wide-ranging data center legislation. One provision of their proposal aims to ensure that data centers don’t push electricity costs onto other ratepayers.

But there is no provision on stranded assets.

This article first appeared on Wisconsin Watch and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. To republish, go to the original and consult the Wisconsin Watch republishing guidelines.

Judge Hannah Dugan leaves court in her federal trial, where she was convicted of a felony for obstructing immigration officers. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

According to the Eastern District of Wisconsin’s Interim U.S. Attorney Brad Schimel, freshly appointed to his position by President Donald Trump, the federal trial of Milwaukee Judge Hannah Dugan had nothing to do with politics. “There’s not a political aspect to it,” Schimel told reporters after Dugan’s felony conviction on charges she obstructed U.S. immigration agents as they tried to make an arrest inside the Milwaukee courthouse. “We weren’t trying to make an example out of anyone,” Schimel said. “This was necessary to hold Judge Dugan accountable because of the actions she took.”

Schimel didn’t say whether Dugan’s very public arrest and perp walk through the courthouse was also necessary, along with the social media posts by Trump’s FBI director Kash Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi, crowing about the arrest and sharing photos of Dugan in handcuffs. 

There is no doubt that the Dugan case was highly political from the start. 

As a coalition of democracy and civic organizations in Wisconsin declared in a statement after the verdict, Dugan’s prosecution threatens the integrity of our justice system and “sends a troubling message about the consequences faced by judges who act to protect due process in their courtrooms.”

But Schimel is right about one thing: Dugan’s trial this week was mainly about “a single day — a single bad day — in a public courthouse.”

That narrow focus helped the prosecution win a conviction in a confusing mixed verdict. The jury found Dugan not guilty of a misdemeanor offense for concealing Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, the defendant she led out a side door while immigration agents waited near the main door of her courtroom to arrest him. At the same time, the jury found Dugan guilty of the more serious charge of obstructing the agents in their effort to make the arrest. The two charges are based on some of the same elements, and Dugan’s defense attorneys are now asking that her conviction be overturned on that basis.

An observer watching the trial from afar with no inside knowledge of the defense strategy might wonder why Dugan’s defense team didn’t enter a guilty plea on the misdemeanor charge and then strongly contest the felony obstruction charge as an outrageous overreach in a heavily politicized prosecution. That might have led to a more favorable mixed verdict, in which the jury found that Dugan was probably guilty of something, but that it did not rise to the level of a felony with a potential penalty of five years in prison.

I’m no expert, but daily reports from the trial this week gave me the strong impression that things weren’t going well for Dugan as long as witnesses and lawyers focused on a blow-by-blow account of the events of April 18. Witness testimony described an agitated Dugan, whose colleague, Judge Kristela Cervera, testified — damagingly —  that she was uncomfortable with how Dugan managed the federal agents she was outraged to find hanging around outside her courtroom. 

It’s not surprising that the jury agreed with the prosecution that Dugan was not cooperative and that she wanted to get Flores-Ruiz out of her courtroom in a way that made an end-run around the unprecedented meddling of federal immigration enforcement inside the courthouse. Like other judges and courthouse staff, she was upset about the disruption caused by ICE agents stalking people who showed up to court.

But, as Dean Strang, a law professor at Loyola University Chicago School of Law and a long-time Wisconsin criminal defense lawyer, told me in April just before he joined the defense team and stopped talking about the case to the press, “Whatever you think of the actual conduct the complaint alleges, there is a real question about whether there’s even arguably any federal crime here.” 

The government’s behavior was “extraordinarily atypical” for a nonviolent, non-drug charge involving someone who is not a flight risk, Strang added.

The handcuffs, the public arrest at Dugan’s workplace, the media circus — none of it was normal, or justified. When Bondi and Patel began posting pictures of Dugan in handcuffs on social media to brag about it, “what is it they are trying to do?” Strang asked. His conclusion: “Humiliate and terrify, not just her but every other judge in the country.”

The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, Voces de la Frontera, and Common Cause-Wisconsin agree with that assessment, writing in their statement reacting to the conviction that Dugan’s felony conviction threatens the integrity of our justice system as a whole, and undermines the functioning of the courts by scaring away defendants, witnesses and plaintiffs who are afraid they might be arrested if they show up to participate in legal proceedings.

But that big picture perspective was not a major feature of the defense’s closing arguments, which relied heavily on raising reasonable doubt about Dugan’s intentions and her actions during a stressful and chaotic day.

That’s frustrating because, contrary to Schimel’s assertions, the big picture, not the events of “a single bad day” is what was actually at stake in this case.

One of the most distressing aspects of the Dugan trial was the prosecution’s through-the-looking-glass invocation of the rule of law and the integrity of the courts.

The federal agents called to the stand, the prosecutors in the courtroom, and Schimel, in his summary of the case, made a big point about the “safety” of law enforcement officers. 

Repeatedly, we heard that immigration agents prefer to make arrests inside courthouses because they provide a “safe” environment in which to operate. 

In his comments on the verdict, Schimel emphasized that Dugan jeopardized the safety of federal officers by causing them to arrest Flores-Ruiz on the street instead of inside the courthouse: “The defendant’s actions provided an opportunity for a wanted subject to flee outside of that secure courthouse environment,” Schimel said.

This upside-down view of safety has become a regular MAGA talking point, with Republicans claiming that when citizens demand that masked agents identify themselves or make videos of ICE dragging people out of their cars, they are jeopardizing the safety of law enforcement officers — as opposed to trying to protect their neighbors’ safety in the face of violent attacks by anonymous thugs. 

Churches, day care centers and peaceful suburban neighborhoods are also “safe” environments for armed, masked federal agents. But their activities there are making our communities less safe. 

Assistant U.S. Attorney Kelly Brown Watzka, delivering the prosecution’s closing argument, told the jury it must draw a line against judges interfering with law enforcement, or else “there is only chaos,” and that “chaos is what the rule of law is intended to prevent.”

But chaos is what we have now, with federal agents terrorizing communities, dragging people out of courthouses and private residences, deporting them without due process and punishing those who stand in their way in an attempt to defend civil society.

The real questions raised by Dugan’s case are whether we believe the “safety” of the agents making those dubious arrests matters more than the safety of our communities, and whether we want the courts to be able to regulate the conduct in their own courthouses as a check on the government’s exercise of raw power.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Former President Bill Clinton, rock star Mick Jagger and the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein are seated at a table in this undated photo released as part of the Epstein files on Friday, Dec. 19, 2025, by the Department of Justice. Clinton has denied any connection to Epstein's alleged crimes. (Photo from Department of Justice)

WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice began releasing thousands of records Friday related to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, but questions remained over whether officials will meet the requirements of a law overwhelmingly backed by both Republicans and Democrats and signed by President Donald Trump.

The department posted four data sets of images and documents just after 4 p.m. Eastern.

The trove reviewed by States Newsroom reporters contains numerous images of Epstein with celebrities, including the late pop star Michael Jackson, rock legend Mick Jagger, illusionist David Copperfield and former President Bill Clinton. Many other faces in photos are redacted. The photos were released without dates or context. 

A reproduction of Epstein’s contact list included entries for Trump, his late former wife, Ivana Trump, and his daughter, Ivanka Trump.

An array of photos of Trump with several women appeared amongst the files, according to a preliminary scan by the New York Times. But the Times also said most of the images already had been made public. 

Trump, who is prolific on social media, had not yet commented in the hours after the files were released. During an earlier press conference on prescription drugs Friday, the president declined to take any questions.

Trump had a well documented friendship with Epstein, a hedge fund manager who enjoyed a circle of wealthy and influential friends — though Trump maintains he had a falling out with Epstein and was never involved in any alleged crimes.

Since July, when Justice officials announced no further files would be released, Trump had resisted loud protests, even from his base, that all investigative material in the government’s possession should be made public. Trump repeatedly called the files a “Democrat hoax,” despite the investigation occurring during his first administration.

Files in the first dataset include images of lavishly furnished rooms, including one that appears to have a taxidermied tiger, as well as bathrooms with framed photographs of women whose faces have been redacted.

Photos in the second data set reveal Epstein seated at a table with Jagger, and another of Clinton lying in a hot tub or spa with the top of his chest visible. Another photo was of Clinton with the late pop star Michael Jackson.

Clinton was also photographed with a woman, whose face is redacted, seated on his lap and with his arm around her. In another, Clinton and Epstein stand side by side, smiling at something off camera and dressed in shiny party shirts.

A spokesperson for Clinton posted on social media that the former president was unaware of Epstein’s illegal activities and cut the financier off socially before allegations were public. The spokesperson, Angel Ureña, also redirected attention back to Trump.

“This is about shielding themselves from what comes next, or from what they’ll try and hide forever,” he wrote about the Trump White House. “So they can release as many grainy 20-plus-year-old photos as they want, but this isn’t about Bill Clinton. Never has, never will be.”

In a Dec. 10 letter from Clinton’s lawyer obtained by the New York Times, the former president denies being connected to any alleged crimes Epstein committed. 

Photos in the third dataset document Epstein’s travels to Europe, desert locations and island locales. Most photos of people other than Epstein, his accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell and Clinton are redacted.

The last dataset also included a completely redacted 119-page grand jury file from New York federal court. Both Epstein and Maxwell were prosecuted in New York, and the Justice Department requested the sealed records be made public.

Maxwell was convicted and sentenced for her role in the scheme to traffic teenage girls for sex.

The fourth trove of files appeared to relate to law enforcement and attorneys’ investigation into potential sex abusers, such as coordinating interviews and crafting timelines. A portion of the documents related to a 2019 grand jury were completely blacked out. 

Following the Justice Department’s release Friday afternoon, both Rep. Tom Massie, R-Ky., and Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., who co-sponsored the Epstein Files Transparency Act, released scathing statements.

“Unfortunately, today’s document release by @AGPamBondi and @DAGToddBlanche grossly fails to comply with both the spirit and the letter of the law that @realDonaldTrump signed just 30 days ago,” Massie posted on X.

Document release to continue

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche told Fox News Friday morning the department will “release several hundred thousand documents today, and those documents will come in all different forms, photographs and other materials associated with, with all of the investigations into, into Mr. Epstein.” 

But Blanche also said the release will carry over into “the next couple of weeks,” which would be past the Friday deadline set in the law.

The law, unanimously supported by the Senate and approved by the House 427-1, requires the Justice Department to publicly disclose “all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials in its possession that relate to Epstein or Maxwell.” 

‘ALL the Epstein files’

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday slamming the department’s admission that it will not meet the law’s deadline. Trump signed the bill into law on Nov. 19.

“The law Congress passed and President Trump signed was clear as can be — the Trump administration had 30 days to release ALL the Epstein files, not just some. Failing to do so is breaking the law. This just shows the Department of Justice, Donald Trump, and Pam Bondi are hellbent on hiding the truth,” Schumer said, alleging a “cover up.”

“Senate Democrats are working closely with attorneys for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and with outside legal experts to assess what documents are being withheld and what is being covered up by Pam Bondi. We will not stop until the whole truth comes out,” the New York Democrat continued.

Schumer later criticized in a separate statement the late afternoon release as “just a fraction of the whole body of evidence.”

House Democrats Robert Garcia, D-Calif., and Jamie Raskin, D-Md., released a joint statement Friday stating they “are now examining all legal options in the face of this violation of federal law.” Garcia and Raskin are, respectively, the ranking members of the House Oversight and Government Reform and Judiciary committees. 

Massie, who pushed to bypass Republican leadership to pass the legislation, published a 14-minute video on social media Thursday night regarding how the public should interpret whether the Justice Department follows the statute.

“How will you know if they’ve released all the materials?” Massie said. “Well, one of the ways we’ll know is there are people who covered this case for years, and I’ve talked to them in private, then they know what some of the material is that’s back there.”

The Kentucky Republican said he’s been in contact with victims’ lawyers who claim federal investigators are in possession of names that should be contained in the files.

“If we get a large production on December 19, and it does not contain a single name of any male who’s accused of a sex crime or sex trafficking or rape, or any of these things, then we know they haven’t produced all the documents. It’s that simple,” Massie said.

In a press conference Tuesday led by several Senate Democrats, Schumer said the lawmakers have been “preparing for any scenario” and warned “there will be serious legal and political consequences” if the Trump administration withholds documents required by law to be released.

‘New information’ on Epstein cited  

The brief text of the law does not outline penalties if the deadline is not met.

Types of documents cited in the law include flight logs, plea agreements and immunity deals, and any internal DOJ communications about Epstein, who died in jail in 2019 awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges.

The law states documents cannot be delayed, redacted or withheld “on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary.”

Victims’ identities must be redacted, and written justification is required for any information withheld, according to the law.

Carve-outs also exist for any material relating to ongoing investigations. 

The department announced new investigations on Nov. 14 into Epstein’s ties to Clinton, former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, and prominent investor Reid Hoffman. 

Attorney General Pam Bondi said Nov. 19 during a press conference that “information has come forward, new information, additional information.”

House Democrats release more photos

Democrats on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform have been releasing a trickle of private files from Epstein’s estate that were handed over in response to a congressional subpoena. Committee Democrats disclosed dozens more images Thursday.

The public disclosure of the digital files, released via a cloud folder without context, follows the committee Democrats’ announcement Dec. 12 that it had received 95,000 more images from Epstein’s estate. 

Among those images was a photo of Trump surrounded by women whose faces had been redacted, and an image of apparent packaged condoms with Trump’s face on them and a sign reading “I’m HUUUUGE!” Another image, which featured an apparent “Bill Clinton” autograph, shows the former president posing with Epstein, Maxwell and others.

The latest batch of private records released included photos of Epstein with guests at meals and multiple photos of Epstein talking with former Trump strategist Steve Bannon across a sizable wooden desk in what appears to be an office with antique books and collectibles. Another photo shows Epstein dressed in traditional sheikh-style garments. 

A few images of the New York Times’ David Brooks surfaced in the latest batch as well. Epstein is not in the frame with Brooks, an opinion columnist. The Times released a statement to media outlets Thursday that “Mr. Brooks had no contact with (Epstein) before or after this single attendance at a widely-attended dinner” in 2011.

Other images feature former Microsoft CEO Bill Gates standing with a woman whose face has been redacted by the committee, and a solo photo of Google co-founder Sergey Brin.

“Oversight Democrats will continue to release photographs and documents from the Epstein estate to provide transparency for the American people,” Garcia said in a statement Thursday. “As we approach the deadline for the Epstein Files Transparency Act, these new images raise more questions about what exactly the Department of Justice has in its possession. We must end this White House cover-up, and the DOJ must release the Epstein files now.” 

Brown University President Christina Paxson speaks to reporters gathered at the Providence Public Safety Complex on Dec. 16, 2025. Gov. Dan McKee, far left, and Providence Mayor Brett Smiley are also pictured. (Photo by Christopher Shea/Rhode Island Current)

WASHINGTON — Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said late Thursday she was suspending applications for a diversity visa program because the man suspected of killing two Brown University students and a Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor this week obtained a green card through the program in 2017.

Noem said on social media she was “immediately directing (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) to pause the DV1 program to ensure no more Americans are harmed by this disastrous program.”  

Local authorities found the suspect, Portuguese national Claudio Manuel Neves Valente, dead in a New Hampshire storage unit late Thursday, five days after the shooting at Brown in Providence, Rhode Island, that wounded nine and killed two students. 

Two days after the Brown shooting, an MIT professor was found shot in his home and later died at the hospital. Authorities also linked that killing to Neves Valente.

Neves Valente, 48, attended Brown in the early 2000s.

Visa program

The diversity visa program, also known as DV1, grants up to 50,000 immigrant visas each year under a lottery system that aims to select individuals from countries with low rates of immigration to the U.S. 

Most lottery winners reside outside the United States and are processed by the State Department. Lottery winners who are within the U.S. are processed by USCIS. 

More than 14 million individuals applied for the program in 2021, the most recent year for which the State Department has data.

Noem said in her post she was acting on behalf of President Donald Trump, who tried to end the diversity visa program in his first term after an individual from Uzbekistan who came through the program carried out an attack in New York City that killed eight people.

It’s the latest effort by the Trump administration to curtail legal immigration after a tragedy. 

The administration paused asylum applications after an Afghan national who was granted asylum was charged with killing one National Guard member and wounding another in last month’s shooting in Washington, D.C.

Republican leaders in the state Legislature called Friday for Judge Hannah Dugan to resign or be impeached after a federal jury convicted her this week of a felony charge in connection with an immigration enforcement action in April at the Milwaukee County Courthouse. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

Republican leaders in the Wisconsin Legislature called Friday for Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan to either resign or face impeachment after her conviction Thursday on a federal felony obstruction charge during an immigration enforcement action in the Milwaukee County courthouse in April.

“If Judge Dugan does not resign from her office immediately, the Assembly will begin impeachment proceedings,” Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) and Assembly Majority Leader Tyler August (R-Walworth) said in a joint statement issued Friday.  “Wisconsinites deserve to know that their judiciary is impartial and that justice is blind. Judge Hannah Dugan is neither, and her privilege of serving the people of Wisconsin has come to an end.” 

They noted that the last time that a Wisconsin judge was impeached was in 1853. Republican lawmakers have also introduced a bill that would withhold pay for suspended judges. 

After a four-day trial, a federal court jury convicted Dugan of felony obstruction for allowing a man who was in the country without legal authorization to exit her courtroom using a non-public hallway in April. Prosecutors argued that Dugan was trying to help the man avoid plainclothes  federal immigration agents who were waiting in the public hallway outside her court. 

Judge Dugan found guilty of felony obstruction in federal trial 

The jury found Dugan not guilty on a second charge of concealing the man, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, from federal agents. Dugan was suspended with pay by the Wisconsin Supreme Court after her arrest by FBI agents in April. 

In closing arguments, prosecutors cast Dugan as being angry due to the influx of ICE agents in the courthouse and said no one should second-guess law enforcement, including immigration officers. Defense attorneys told jurors that courthouse immigration arrests had created an environment of unease and that the federal government was trying to make an example of Dugan.

No sentencing date has been set for Dugan. Attorney Steven Biskupic, who helped represent Dugan, has said that his team plans to appeal the conviction.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE