WASHINGTON — New Hampshire’s Republican governor, frustrated with little information about the Department of Homeland Security’s plan to put a new detention facility in her state, joined local Democrats to oppose the move and disclosed DHS plans to retrofit warehouses across the nation to expand immigrant detention.

Two Republican members of the U.S. Senate, one who chairs the Armed Services Committee and another running for governor, personally lobbied DHS to find other locations for planned large-scale detention centers in rural Byhalia, Mississippi, and Lebanon, Tennessee. 

And a city manager for a small town in Georgia that overwhelmingly voted to put President Donald Trump back in the White House placed a lock on a meter to prevent water access to a newly purchased warehouse for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

At every turn, DHS has faced pushback from Republicans in its drive to quickly scale up immigrant detention to 92,600 people by September, a pillar of the president’s mass deportation plan as Trump aims to remove 1 million immigrants without legal status each year. Republicans warn that the move to convert warehouses into hulking detention sites in rural areas will strain local communities’ water, sewage, electricity, heat and health care. 

Yet Republicans also cheered Trump’s 2024 campaign rhetoric on deportation, voted to return him to the White House and in Congress last year, GOP lawmakers spearheaded $45 billion for ICE detention. 

Experts on detention say the growing burden on communities and the subsequent uproar should be no surprise to members of the GOP. 

“You cannot have a successful deportation agenda, which is the president’s obsession of wanting to have 1 million a year … unless you scale up detention,” said Muzaffar Chishti, Migration Policy Institute senior fellow and director of the MPI office at New York University School of Law. 

Billions for detention

Last year, congressional Republicans provided a separate funding pool of $175 billion for immigration enforcement through the massive tax cuts and spending package, with $45 billion set aside specifically for the detention of immigrants. 

Of that sum, the Trump administration plans to use $39 billion to overhaul its current detention model of using existing jails and prisons and instead consolidate 34 facilities owned by the federal government for detention. 

That would include eight mega-sites of refurbished warehouses to hold as many as 10,000 people each; 16 processing centers, also refurbished warehouses, to each hold 1,000 to 1,500 people; and 10 “turnkey” facilities, which would be the preexisting jails and prisons with ICE contracts. 

Those plans for DHS to expand immigrant detention became public after New Hampshire’s GOP Gov. Kelly Ayotte released documents about a now-canceled site planned for Merrimack, as well as sites across the rest of the country.

The eight large-scale sites would hold more people than the largest federal prison in the United States, which houses roughly 4,000 inmates.

“I think for a lot of people, it sounds and looks a lot like we’re building an infrastructure for concentration camps,” said Elliott Young, a professor of history at Lewis & Clark College.

The Trump administration’s rapid expansion of detention — as many as 68,000 immigrants, as of February — has proven deadly. In 2025, there were 31 known detainee deaths, the highest in 20 years. This year alone, more than a dozen immigrants already have died in detention, and advocates are concerned the plans to detain up to 10,000 immigrants in mega-sites will only lead to more deaths. 

This is not the kind of economic development many rural communities may have envisioned.

“Having such a big amount of people detained in one place comes with its own issues, but the second thing is that industrial warehouses are just not equipped, and they will never be equipped, to be able to detain that many folks,” said Luis Suarez, the senior field advocacy manager at Detention Watch Network.

“With the current facilities that ICE is managing, we have seen an unprecedented amount of inhumane conditions and deaths, and we feel that with this large-scale expansion that we’re going to continue to see it on a larger scale,” Suarez continued.

Public opinion on detention centers

The GOP pushback on warehouses in communities grew after two U.S. citizens, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, were killed by federal immigration agents in Minnesota, and public opinion ratings on ICE and the president’s agenda took a dive. 

“This is just coming off the heels of what happened in Minneapolis,” Suarez said. “I feel like for people it’s sending a signal that if these facilities open up, there might be increased enforcement, and they don’t want to continue to see the violence that DHS and ICE has been inflicting on communities.”

How the DHS push to acquire warehouses develops over the coming months could also be affected by the newly confirmed Homeland Security secretary, former Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne Mullin, who replaced Kristi Noem.

While NBC reported on March 31 that Homeland Security is pausing plans to buy more warehouses, quoting two senior DHS officials, the officials “stressed the decision may only be temporary.” 

During Mullin’s confirmation hearing, he agreed to work with local communities concerned with large detention centers after New Jersey Sen. Andy Kim raised the issue. 

Kim said in the town of Roxbury, New Jersey, which has a volunteer fire department and 42 police officers, DHS purchased a warehouse as a processing center to detain up to 1,500 people. 

Roxbury is in western Morris County, where Trump gained 50% of the presidential vote in 2024. City officials filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration to prevent the conversion of the warehouse. 

“Does that sound like the kind of town that has the resources to take on a warehouse of this magnitude?” Kim asked Mullin during his confirmation hearing.

Mullin pledged to personally visit the facility himself, if confirmed. 

Out west, red states object

In Mullin’s own Republican-led state, officials in Oklahoma City met with the owners of a warehouse that DHS was looking to purchase, and the owners eventually backed out of talks with the federal government.

Oklahomans were only made aware of the potential warehouse because of a local law requiring a mandatory disclosure that any property purchased will not impact the historic preservation of certain buildings. 

But not all officials have received warning. 

Utah’s Republican Gov. Spencer Cox, along with congressional lawmakers from both parties, were blindsided by the sale of a warehouse in Salt Lake City to the federal government.

“When the sale went through, we were not given any notice,” Cox told reporters during a press conference. “No members of our congressional delegation were given any notice. No locals were given any notice. That’s, I think, a little frustrating for everyone. We want to work closely together to get things right.”

In response, Salt Lake City officials have placed restrictions on how much water ICE can use.

So far, DHS has purchased 10 warehouses among the 34 planned. 

But communities and lawmakers have been able to end the bids of another 13 proposed detention centers, according to Project Salt Box, which is tracking the purchases of warehouses by the federal government.

In Social Circle, Georgia, and Schuylkill, Pennsylvania, located in counties that gave Trump more than 70% of the vote in the 2024 presidential election, local leaders are opposed to the government’s purchase of two large-scale warehouses.

Social Circle City Manager Eric Taylor said a lock would remain on the water meter at a recently purchased facility until ICE officials can demonstrate that the warehouse can operate without overburdening water and sewer services. DHS plans to use the warehouse as one of its mega-facilities to detain up to 10,000 immigrants, which is double the entire population of Social Circle.

The GOP lawmaker who represents that area, U.S. Rep. Mike Collins, also raised concerns about the huge detention center in Social Circle. He voted for the tax cuts and spending package that added billions for detention. 

“I’m all for helping DHS, and I’m behind that to make sure we get rid of these illegal criminals that have been throughout our country, but I also understand Social Circle’s concerns, from not just the infrastructure but the resources that may be needed,” Collins said in an interview with a local TV station. 

Collins also shepherded a bill through the House, now law, that requires mandatory detainment by DHS of immigrants charged with local theft, burglary or shoplifting. The bill was named after Georgia college student Laken Riley, whose murder by a Venezuelan immigrant conservatives blamed on the immigration policies of the Biden administration.

In Pennsylvania, Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro said he’s opposed to the detention center in Schuylkill and another proposed facility, and noted the pushback did not come from Democrats alone. 

“I’m going to do everything in my legal power and my regulatory power to see to it that these facilities are not sited here in Pennsylvania,” Shapiro said at a press conference. “After concluding this meeting here today, I’m even more determined … To hear from Republicans and Democrats alike expressing opposition to this, I think speaks volumes about how unwanted these facilities are in our communities.”

Rural America as a home for detention centers

It’s no surprise to Young, a professor of history at Lewis & Clark College, that the federal government is aiming to place detention centers in rural areas, which often lean Republican. 

“I think there’s a number of reasons for that,” he said. “One, these rural areas tend to be poorer areas where space is available cheaply, but it’s also areas where the local community might be lobbying for jobs that would come as a result of it. I think the other reason why they put them in these remote areas is it makes it very difficult for lawyers and advocates to access immigrants.”

Two Republican senators, Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee and Roger Wicker of Mississippi, petitioned DHS to halt its plans to acquire warehouses for the purpose of detaining thousands of immigrants. 

Wicker wrote a letter to then-Homeland Security Secretary Noem, asking that ICE look elsewhere for its proposed 8,500 bed-space detention center other than the rural town of Byhalia, which has a population of under 1,500.

“Existing medical and human services infrastructure in Byhalia is insufficient to support such a large detainee population,” Wicker said. “Establishing a detention center at this site would place significant strain on local resources.”

Blackburn also worked with DHS to end plans to build a mega-detention center to hold up to 16,000 immigrants. She told her residents that the planned facilities for detention in Lebanon “will not move forward.”

Additionally, Young said “there is some sort of early version of” the federal government trying to retrofit warehouses to detain immigrants.

“If you go back to the origins of immigrant detention, late 19th century, under Chinese exclusion, there was absolutely no infrastructure for detaining immigrants,” Young said. “And so the first immigrant, Chinese immigrants, were detained and jailed in dock warehouses in San Francisco.”

The most recent example of the federal government turning to quickly constructed detention facilities to detain thousands of immigrants is the mass deportation campaign of 1954.

Most recently was the 1980s, when Mariel Cubans were held on military bases. One of the bases in Arkansas held up to 20,000 Cubans, and a riot erupted. It was a disaster that nearly ended then Arkansas Democratic Gov. Bill Clinon’s political career, and the blunder continued to follow him to the White House.

Detention centers and communities

Deirdre Conlon, an associate professor of geography at the University of Leeds, and Nancy Hiemstra co-wrote a book about the web of financial relationships that detention centers have with local communities and private corporations.

“The people who are detained become commodities out of which revenue is generated, that not only the private provider makes money off, but then the county government becomes dependent on,” Conlon said.

When the federal government disinvests in some communities, filling in budget gaps tends to come from detention centers owned and operated by private companies, Hiemstra added. 

“But the warehouse model just axes that relationship,” she said.

Hiemstra, an associate professor at Stony Brook University in New York, points out that even though DHS is trying to pitch to these communities that the operation of a warehouse will create jobs, those skills needed to run a facility are unlikely to come from the local community. A majority of the daily operations of the facility comes from the migrants detained, who typically earn up to $1 a day in cleaning and cooking.

“For the size of some of these facilities and the skills that are required … they will have to pull people from the outside (of the community) in,” she said. “That is not going to benefit the existing community at all.”

Hiemstra said it’s no surprise that DHS is facing opposition to operate  large-scale detention facilities in communities. 

“It removes the economic benefit to local communities that is present with the existing model,” she said. “Not that we want that to continue, but this will just pull it out of local communities even more and make it a total corporate money grab.”

But the main concern, she added, is using a warehouse to detain thousands of people.

“If these come to pass and it seems normal to throw humans in warehouses that will further normalize the deaths that are occurring and this dehumanization of people,” Hiemstra said. 

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Monday declined to rule out bombing certain types of civilian infrastructure in Iran, including schools and hospitals, and said that any agreement to end the war must include free navigation through the Strait of Hormuz.

“We have to have a deal that’s acceptable to me,” he said during a 90-minute press conference. “And part of that deal is going to be, we want free traffic of oil and everything else.”

Trump said he hopes he doesn’t need to bomb non-military targets, like power plants and bridges, but that even if he did, he doesn’t believe it would constitute a war crime. International law, including the Geneva Conventions ban on destroying “objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population,” generally considers the targeting of civilian infrastructure a war crime.

Trump also reiterated a Tuesday evening deadline for Iranian leaders to make a deal to end the war.

“We’re giving them until tomorrow, eight o’clock Eastern time,” he said. “And after that, they’re going to have no bridges. They’re going to have no power plants. Stone ages, yeah. Stone ages.”

Negotiations to end the war that Trump and the Israeli government began in late February, have been slow going, in part, due to the destruction of Iran’s communications infrastructure.  

“We’re communicating like they used to communicate 2,000 years ago with children bringing a note back and forth,” Trump said. “They have no communication.”

Trump contended during the press conference that many Iranians have welcomed their country being bombed and that they get upset when the destruction halts. 

“They would be willing to suffer that in order to have freedom,” he said. “We’ve had numerous intercepts. ‘Please keep bombing.’ Bombs that are dropping near their homes. ‘Please keep bombing. Do it.’ And these are people that are living where the bombs are exploding. And when we leave and we’re not hitting those areas, they’re saying, ‘Please come back. Come back. Come back.'” 

Trump said that after the war ends, his administration “may even get involved with helping them rebuild their nation.”

“Right now, if we left today, it would take them 20 years to rebuild their country, and it would never be as good as it was,” he said. “And the only way they’re going to be able to rebuild their country is to utilize the genius of the United States of America.”

Prosecuting leak

Trump said a search had begun for whichever official or officials released information last week about a U.S. aircraft being shot down over Iran, leading to rescue operations for two servicemen. 

“So whoever that was, we think we’ll be able to find it out, because we’re going to go to the media company that released it, and we’re going to say, ‘National security, give it up or go to jail,’ he said. “And we know who, and you know who we’re talking about.” 

Numerous news organizations published the information on Friday and it wasn’t immediately clear which one Trump planned to pursue. 

Update: This story has been updated with new information. 

The University of Wisconsin system Board of Regents is planning to meet on Tuesday to consider terminating UW President Jay Rothman, who has refused to resign under pressure from regents.

In a statement on Monday provided by a UW spokesperson, Regent President Amy Bogost said the decision is “about the future.” She noted that the regent president is responsible for an annual performance review of the system president and over the last several months she met with UW stakeholders including, regents, chancellors and other members of UW communities. She said the results were shared with Rothman. 

“President Rothman was not without notice, nor was this process sudden. The Board has engaged with President Rothman in good-faith discussions over the past several months,” Bogost said. “At a time of profound change in higher education, this decision is about the future. The Universities of Wisconsin must be led with a clear vision that both protects and strengthens our flagship, supports our comprehensive universities and ensures we are meeting the evolving needs of our students, workforce and communities across all 72 counties.”

The Board of Regents plans to meet on April 7 at 5 p.m. to consider terminating Rothman, according to a meeting notice. The regents will first meet in closed session and may then reconvene in open session regarding matters taken up in closed session, including voting where applicable.

Bogost said they would be meeting “to consider next steps with that responsibility firmly in mind.”

Rothman wrote in letters, first reported by the Associated Press last week, that the regents had lost confidence in his leadership and were telling him he needed to resign or be fired. He said he hasn’t been given any clear reasons for why they are pushing him out, but just that “each Regent has his or her own perspective on the matter.”

The Board last met in closed session on April 1 to discuss “ongoing personnel matters.” In a statement, Bogost said the Board “is responsible for the leadership of the Universities of Wisconsin and is having discussions about its future” and that they “don’t comment on personnel matters.”

State leaders have responded to the news that the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents is seeking to oust Rothman. 

Gov. Tony Evers, who previously sat on the Board when he served as state schools superintendent, did not take a position Monday morning on whether Rothman should be ousted.

“[Rothman] works for the board and if the board is dissatisfied, they have the right to do this,” he told reporters. “It’s their call.” 

Republican lawmakers, meanwhile, have been critical of the lack of clarity around the effort.

Rep. Dave Murphy (R-Hortonville), who chairs the Assembly Colleges and Universities Committee, said in a statement on April 2 that he was troubled by the reports, saying that the “lack of transparency is unacceptable.”

“President Rothman deserves to know exactly why the Board has lost confidence in his leadership,” Murphy said. “I am concerned that the push to oust him may actually stem from his strong support for free speech and open inquiry on our campuses — core principles that must be defended in higher education. The Board owes Wisconsin taxpayers, students and families a full explanation. They should provide specific reasons or stand down from this effort.”

Sen. Rob Hutton (R-Brookfield) and Sen. Rachael Cabral-Guevera (R-Fox Crossing), who lead the Senate Universities and Technical Colleges committee, said in a statement on April 3 they were concerned the regents were trying to avoid public scrutiny and noted the news broke heading into the holiday weekend.

“If the Regents will not tell the public why they are making such a significant move, the public will be left to assume this is the latest example of backroom politics dictating how the Board of Regents is overseeing the UW System,” Hutton said. “Instead of secretive maneuvering, they should be focusing on reducing their bureaucracy, consolidating more of the struggling two-year campuses, instituting reforms that align with the needs of Wisconsin employers, and making higher education more affordable for all Wisconsin students.”

Rothman, who was an attorney in Milwaukee and CEO of the law firm Foley and Lardner, was selected by the UW Board of Regents in January 2022 to be president. He was chosen after the UW system did not have a permanent leader for two years. In the position, he is responsible for overseeing the vice presidents and chancellors who run the systems campuses, including flagship UW-Madison. 

While it’s unclear what prompted the push to pressure Rothman to resign, he has once floated the idea of resigning in 2023 while working on a deal with Republican lawmakers. 

Rothman agreed to an anti-diversity deal lawmakers demanded in exchange for releasing previously allocated funds for building projects and staff cost-of-living adjustments. Under the terms of the deal, the UW system schools changed their approach to diversity, equity and inclusion programs (DEI). Regents initially rejected the deal, then reversed their decision. 

During his tenure, Rothman has worked to secure funding from the state Legislature, which has often been hostile to the UW system, worked to bring pro-Palestinian protests on campuses to an end, implemented a direct admissions program for eligible in-state high school students and has overseen the closure of campuses and brought in third-party advisors to address financial pressures facing campuses as well as rebranding the system from the UW System to the Universities of Wisconsin.

Rothman argued in his letter that there are also to-do list items that make it a bad time for him to leave, including finding new chancellors for UW-Madison and UW-Eau Claire as well as establishing priorities for the next state budget.

“I understand that, as you indicated on Saturday, the Board may act to terminate my employment, which the Board is empowered to do,” Rothman wrote. “If, however, the full Board would like to discuss this matter with me in either an open or closed session, I would welcome the opportunity to participate in such a meeting.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

As the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments last week about the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship, Justice Sonia Sotomayor seemed skeptical.

The order as written applies only to babies born in the future, and the Trump administration has asked the court to exclude current citizens from any decision. Still, the court’s senior liberal justice wasn’t so sure it would work out like that.

“But the logic of your position, if accepted, is that this president or the next president or Congress or someone else could decide that it shouldn’t be prospective,” Sotomayor told U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, the government’s top advocate at the court. “There would be nothing limiting that, according to your theory.”

The birthright citizenship case, Trump v. Barbara, is forcing the Supreme Court to confront the prospect of the United States becoming a much different kind of nation — one where Americans risk losing their citizenship and babies could be born effectively stateless. It’s also a nation that would more closely resemble its past, when broad swaths of people were excluded from the coveted title of American.

A majority of the court, including several conservative justices, appeared unpersuaded by the Trump administration’s argument that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified during Reconstruction, doesn’t guarantee citizenship to nearly everyone born on American soil. The court may very well strike down the order, which has never taken effect, later this year.

But whatever the decision, the case has prompted a high-stakes debate over who is an American — and the consequences of that definition — that’s playing out in the courtroom, in court documents and on the steps of the Supreme Court.

“Birthright citizenship is not just a legal principle,” Norman Wong said at a demonstration outside the Supreme Court last week.

Wong is a grandchild of Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco but denied entry back into the country after visiting China more than a century ago. Officials at the time argued he wasn’t a citizen, but he took his case to the Supreme Court and, in a 1898 decision, the justices affirmed that virtually all children born in the United States were guaranteed citizenship.

“It’s a statement about who we are as a nation,” Wong said of birthright citizenship. “It affirms that America is not defined by bloodlines or exclusion, but shared values and equal rights.”

A different view

Trump and some Republicans view birthright citizenship differently. 

The 14th Amendment says “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” 

The Trump administration, which has worked to carry out mass deportations, contends that children born to parents in the country illegally or temporarily are not subject to the country’s jurisdiction. Most historians and legal scholars repudiate that position.

The executive order, signed on Trump’s first day back in office, calls citizenship a privilege — not a right — that’s a “priceless and profound gift.” 

During a recent Oval Office event, Trump told reporters that birthright citizenship was intended to extend citizenship to formerly enslaved people and their children following the Civil War. 

“The reason was it had to do with the babies of slaves,” Trump said.

Some Republicans have embraced a conception of the U.S. as a nation bound by a distinct cultural heritage — sometimes in language that celebrates European settlers — as opposed to a people brought together by the idea of America or a set of common principles. Like Trump, they advocate for a restrictive approach to immigration.

At a conference last fall on national conservatism — the name sometimes given to this perspective — U.S. Sen. Eric Schmitt, a Missouri Republican, called America a “a way of life that is ours, and only ours, and if we disappear, then America, too, will cease to exist.”

Schmitt filed a brief with the Supreme Court in January, along with Republican Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, in support of the executive order. 

“The Citizenship Clause applies only to those who have been allowed to adopt our country as their permanent and lawful home,” the brief says.

Revoking citizenship?

At the Supreme Court last week, Sotomayor pressed Sauer on a 1923 Supreme Court decision, U.S. vs. Thind. In that case, the justices ruled that a Sikh man from India, Bhagat Singh Thind, wasn’t eligible for citizenship. 

Thind argued that he was a “free white person,” a category of person allowed to naturalize under federal law at the time. The court found that Thind didn’t meet that definition under the common understanding of the phrase. The federal government revoked the citizenship of dozens of South Asian Americans following the decision.

Sauer reiterated that the Trump administration was only asking for “prospective relief,” prompting Sotomayor to interject.

“No, what I’m saying to you (is), yeah, that’s what you’re asking for relief right now,” Sotomayor said. “I’m asking whether the logic of your theory would permit what happened after the court’s decision in Thind, that the government could move to unnaturalize people who were born here of illegal residents.”

Sauer responded no, before concluding that “we are not asking for any retroactive relief.”

The exchange spotlighted the scenario that many advocates for immigrants fear if the Supreme Court strips away birthright citizenship. 

In a court brief, the Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality at the University of California, Irvine School of Law, which uses litigation to advance racial justice, and more than 70 other nonprofit groups warned that upholding the order would invite efforts to revoke the citizenship of countless Americans.

While the order is styled as only forward-looking, the groups said it threatens much deeper harms. To uphold Trump’s order, the Supreme Court would need to conclude that birth on U.S. soil doesn’t guarantee citizenship. Once that happens, they argue, “it is all too easy” to imagine the government retroactively removing citizenship.

“In that scenario, without further intervention from Congress, the affected individuals would become undocumented, with many or most becoming stateless,” the brief says.

American Civil Liberties Union national legal director Cecillia Wang, arguing against the order at the Supreme Court, said the 14th Amendment has provided a “fixed, bright-line rule” on citizenship that has contributed to the growth and thriving of the nation. 

She cautioned that the order would render whole swaths of American laws senseless.

“Thousands of American babies will immediately lose their citizenship,” Wang said. “And if you credit the government’s theory, the citizenship of millions of Americans — past, present and future — could be called into question.”

Ariana Figueroa contributed to this report. 

WASHINGTON — Congress will look considerably different next year, after dozens of its members move on to other political offices or retire, a number that’s likely to grow as some of those hoping to stay lose their reelection bids. 

A turnover of at least 13% will be the highest in more than three decades, bringing in a wave of new lawmakers, who will be looked to as a source of solutions for some of the country’s biggest problems. 

But the loss of institutional knowledge and negotiating expertise held by committee chairmen and seasoned lawmakers will not be easily replaced. 

Experts interviewed by States Newsroom said a surge of freshmen could lead to a further concentration of power in congressional leaders and heighten the influence of lobbyists, though they added there are benefits as well. 

“Serving in Congress is like any other job. It takes you some time to figure out how to be good at it,” said Molly Reynolds, vice president and director of Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution. “Even members who come in with state legislative experience, they will know some things about legislating, but they won’t know all the things about Congress.”

New lawmakers don’t often understand the more complicated procedures and practices, like budget reconciliation, which Republicans used last year to enact their “big, beautiful” law. 

“We ran the reconciliation process last year with lots of members who had never experienced a reconciliation bill before,” Reynolds said. “And one consequence of this kind of lack of experience is that that can stand to empower party leaders even more.” 

But, she added, there can be value in “having younger members, who have a different time horizon for thinking about some of the problems facing the country.” 

Generational change ahead

So far 57 House lawmakers, 21 Democrats and 36 Republicans, have opted to run for another political position or retire. In the Senate, four Democrats and seven Republicans are choosing to leave for one reason or another, according to data compiled by Ballotpedia. 

Jonathan K. Hanson, lecturer in public policy at the University of Michigan, said it can take a while for newer members to learn the policy landscape well enough to understand when to listen to outside influence and when not to. 

“A person doesn’t walk into Congress knowing how things work,” he said. “And the more that you have people who are fresh, kind of green, don’t know how to navigate the institution, the more power that special interests, lobbyists, so forth might have to influence the political process.”

Hanson also said that “some generational change is a good thing.”

Longing to be the chief executive

North Dakota Republican Sen. John Hoeven said many of his colleagues are opting to run for governor, which he believes is a superior role to the one he holds now. 

“I was governor for 10 years before I came here. It’s the best job you can have. It’s a better job than Senate,” Hoeven said. “I mean, it’s an honor to serve in the Senate, for sure. But you just can’t find a better job than being governor. So that’s totally understandable.”

More than a dozen lawmakers are running for governor, including Alabama Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville, Colorado Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet, Florida Republican Rep. Byron Donalds, Minnesota Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar and Tennessee Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn.

Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine said being a member of Congress can be difficult, leading some lawmakers to head for the exits and other opportunities.  

“This is not an easy job and people, you know, decide that they’ve had a good chapter and want to do something else,” Kaine said. “I can understand why people might make that call.”

South Dakota Republican Rep. Dusty Johnson, who is campaigning to be governor of his home state, said that every two years, the institution changes when more experienced members leave and newer ones are voted into Congress. 

“Every cycle, we always have plenty of retirements, certainly enough retirements to change the nature of the body,” Johnson said. “The bigger factor is, who replaces those who have left? And of course, we’re not going to know that until after the primaries and generals are wrapped up.”

Primary elections began in early March and will take place on different dates in each state through mid-September. 

Michigan Democratic Sen. Gary Peters, who is set to leave at the end of this year, said the impact of retirements will depend on which candidates Americans elect during November’s midterm elections.

“If you have people who are getting elected who are practical, common-sense problem solvers, that’ll be good,” Peters said. “If people are hyper-partisan, either left or right, that’s not going to be good.” 

Oklahoma Republican Rep. Tom Cole said the retirements from members of his own party could have an impact on the elections.

“Obviously, we’re losing some very good members. And it’s easier, as a rule, to defend an incumbent than it is to win an open seat, particularly in a challenging year,” Cole said. “But look, these things run in cycles. You just have to work your way through it.”

Travel, long hours, little satisfaction

Hanson from the University of Michigan said more Republicans have decided to retire or seek another office because their party is likely to lose at least one chamber of Congress. 

“They’re expecting to lose control of the House of Representatives, and it’s not very enticing for them to stay in the fight under those circumstances,” he said. 

The mounting challenges that come with being a member of Congress are part of the reason some lawmakers are planning to step aside from their current roles, Hanson said. 

“I do think that the job, while seeming glamorous from the outside, is not that glamorous from the inside,” he said. “There’s lots of travel. Even when you go home, you’re traveling around your district. It’s hard on family life. The hours can be very long in those late-night voting sessions. 

“And then that would be one thing if what you’re getting out of it is a positive sense of contributing to the broader good, to, you know, the idea of public service.”

But, Hanson added, there aren’t that many opportunities these days for lawmakers to pass legislation they believe is meaningful. 

“So I think it’s fair to say that while there are certain people who are attracted to being in the thick of this kind of scene, a lot of people find that it’s just not a very satisfying occupation,” he said. 

Zachary Peskowitz, a political science professor at Emory University in Georgia, said there are both pros and cons to more than 65 lawmakers leaving Congress at one time.  

“On the one hand, there are a lot of members who have a lot of seniority and have served for a long time and a lot of expertise but are in their 70s and 80s in some cases,” he said. “And there have been concerns about how engaged some of them are.”

Younger members, Peskowitz said, may “approach the job with more energy than you might get from somebody who’s been in Congress for decades.” Newer lawmakers will also likely come with different viewpoints and priorities, he said.

While the Wisconsin Supreme Court race draws most of the headlines — and, even this year with less national attention, most of the money — elections for six county circuit court seats across the state are contested. 

The Supreme Court weighs in on the state’s most hot button issues, but during its 2024-25 term issued only 22 decisions. The state’s circuit courts, on the other hand, are responsible for thousands of cases ranging from criminal prosecutions to civil lawsuits and family law disputes. 

More than 250 judges across the state are elected to six-year terms. The spring elections are Wisconsin voters’ only real chance at changing their local judges, yet the races often go uncontested. This year, 25 seats on the circuit court bench are up for election, and only six of those races are contested. 

Dane County

In Dane County’s first contested circuit court election since 2018, incumbent Ben Jones is up against immigration attorney Huma Ahsan. Jones was appointed to the court last year to fill the seat vacated by Susan Crawford’s election to the state Supreme Court. 

Before joining the bench, Jones spent almost a decade working as an attorney at the Department of Public Instruction. Jones told the Capital Times that he applied for his appointment because of his dedication to public service. 

“I bring … all of that experience, all of that training to me on the bench every day,” he said. “Not just experience with the practice of law, but the experience as a public servant and the mentality of serving the public, as opposed to my own ego.”

Ahsan works in private practice as an immigration attorney. Prior to starting her practice, she was a legislative attorney for the Ho-Chunk Nation and the deputy director of the Great Lakes Indigenous Law Center at the University of Wisconsin Law School. 

She told the Cap Times she’s running to help make Dane County welcoming for everyone. 

“That’s why I’m running, is to make sure that this community stays welcoming, open to all of us,” Ahsan, the daughter of immigrants, said. “Because it is a haven for all of us that have ever experienced something different.”

Jones has raised $126,000 for his campaign, which includes $52,000 of his own money. He’s also received $10,000 from Crawford, according to campaign finance reports filed with the Wisconsin Ethics Commission. He’s spent the largest portions of his campaign funds on mailings and consultant services. 

Ahsan has raised $93,000, nearly $19,000 of which came from her personally. She’s spent $26,000 of her funds on digital advertising. 

Florence and Forest counties 

Voters in Florence and Forest counties will be choosing someone to replace the retiring Judge Leon Stenz on their shared circuit court bench. Stenz has held the seat since 2008. 

The candidates in the race are Robert A. Kennedy Jr. and Alex Seifert.

Kennedy previously served one term as the Florence County District Attorney and one term on the Florence-Forest circuit court. He ran unsuccessfully against Stenz in 2014. 

Seifert is the Forest County district attorney. He was appointed to the role by Gov. Tony Evers in April 2024 before being elected to a full term in the 2024 November election. He ran as an independent in his one partisan race. 

Prior to his appointment to the DA’s office, Seifert worked in the Forest County Corporation Counsel’s office and for the Wisconsin State Public Defender. He also previously ran for and lost a race to be the Langlade County district attorney. 

Seifert hasn’t raised any money for the race while Kennedy has contributed $48,000 of his own money to the race — spending that largely on newspaper and radio ads and yard signs. 

Marathon County 

In Marathon County, Michael Hughes and Douglas Bauman are running to succeed Judge LaMont Jacobson. 

Hughes works in private practice in Wausau and serves as the president of the Marathon County Bar Association. Bauman is a Marathon County court commissioner and staff attorney at the circuit court. 

Bauman said in a Wisconsin Justice Initiative questionnaire that his election to the bench would allow him to play a fuller role in the county’s justice system. 

“Becoming a judge is the best way to continue and expand my service to the community,” he said. “It would also make my service more direct and comprehensive. In the position I hold now, I work on pieces of particular cases, but the ultimate decider is a judge. I want to become a judge in order to cut out the middleman. Becoming a judge would allow me to take the experience I’ve gained during my 28-year legal career, particularly the last 24 years at the circuit court, and apply it directly to the legal disputes that come before the court. It would also allow me to ensure that litigants have the opportunity to feel heard, and that they are treated with compassion and respect.” 

Hughes has touted endorsements he’s received from local officials on both sides of the political aisle, saying his broad experience as a private attorney has prepared him to work as a judge. 

“We must have a court system that is strong, fair, efficient, and which keeps our community safe,” he told WJI. “A key part of that system are judges. We need judges who are impartial and who will make decisions based on the law and the facts. We need judges who will treat everyone in the courtroom with respect. We need judges who are committed to serving with integrity.”

Bauman has raised $11,700, with $10,000 of that coming from his own money. He’s only spent $2,400 of those funds.

Hughes has raised $27,000 for his campaign, which includes $20,000 in his own money. 

Washburn County 

Washburn County District Attorney Aaron Marcoux is running to unseat incumbent Judge Angeline Winton-Roe. 

Marcoux was appointed DA by Evers in 2019 before being reelected in 2020 and 2024. He previously worked as an assistant district attorney in the county and for the state public defender’s office. 

Winton-Roe was appointed to her seat by Evers in 2019 before being elected to a full term in 2020. She was the county’s elected DA from 2017 until her appointment to the bench. 

Marcoux told WJI that his experience as both a prosecutor and public defender help him understand what is needed from a circuit court judge. 

“I also believe strongly that the court belongs to the people it serves, not the individual sitting on the bench,” he said. “A judge’s role is not about power or position, but about responsibility. The judge must apply the law fairly, listen carefully, and treat every person who enters the courtroom with dignity and respect.” 

Winton-Roe said on the questionnaire that she hopes her court is a place where the people of Washburn County don’t get overlooked. 

“A community court must also be a place where people feel welcome, even during some of the most difficult moments in their lives,” she said. “Many who come before the court are facing uncertainty, conflict, or hardship. Some arrive feeling overwhelmed, overlooked, or even forgotten. It is essential that the courtroom remain a place where every person, regardless of their circumstances, knows they will be treated fairly and respectfully, and that their voice is heard.” 

Marcoux has raised about $13,000 for his campaign, with nearly all of it coming from his own money. Most of his funds have been spent on digital, newspaper and billboard advertising. 

Winton-Roe has raised about $16,000, with $10,000 of that coming from her own money. Most of her money has been spent on digital advertising.

Washington County 

In Washington County, incumbent Judge Gordon Leech is being challenged by Grant Scaife. 

Leech was appointed to the court by Evers last July. He previously worked as a prosecutor in Fond du Lac County and as an attorney in the U.S. Marine Corps. Scaife is an assistant district attorney in the Washington County DA’s office. 

Scaife is running explicitly as a conservative judge. He has touted his desire to “maintain a tough on crime approach” from the bench and has been endorsed by former Republican Gov. Scott Walker. 

Leech told WJI that he believes his 35 years of legal experience have prepared him for the role as a judge. 

“I have been out in the community talking to people about my judicial philosophy, which is committed to keeping politics out of the courtroom, and everyone agrees that is important,” he said. “I don’t see the same commitment from others. So I believe I have something unique and critical to offer the citizens of the county: judicial independence from political parties and special interests that would like to influence the courts.”

Leech has raised about $10,000 for his campaign, contributing about $3,000 of his own money. He’s only spent about $1,100 of the funds. 

Scaife has raised $60,000, $28,000 of which are personal funds. He’s also received a $2,000 donation from conservative Court of Appeals candidate Anthony LoCoco. 

Wood County 

Incumbent Judge Emily Nolan-Plutchak is being challenged for her seat on the Wood County Circuit Court by Elizabeth Gebert, an assistant district attorney for Monroe County and Marathon County.

Nolan-Plutchak was appointed to the seat by Evers last year and was previously an attorney manager for the state public defender’s office in Wisconsin Rapids. Gebert has worked in seven county DA offices across the state since 2008, she’s also married to current Wood County Judge Timothy Gebert. 

Nolan-Plutchak told WJI her experience as a public defender has helped her to understand how much people can be assisted just by the judge slowing down the process to explain what’s going on, and the community’s need for judges to take a more proactive role in addressing problems such as addiction and mental illness. 

“Knowing the difference this approach can make in an individual’s life inspires me to serve,” she said. 

Gebert touted her experience as a prosecutor as preparing her to be a judge. 

“I know that I have the ethical grounding necessary to issue decisions that reflect the values of the people of Wood County,” she told WJI. 

Gebert has raised about $6,000 for her campaign, with about $2,400 coming from her personal funds. She’s spent the most money on newspaper ads and billboards. 

Nolan-Plutchak has raised $27,000, with almost $14,000 coming from her own money. She’s also received $563 from the Democratic Party of Wisconsin. Her largest campaign expense has been $8,000 on brochures.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Late last month, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum announced the federal government will pay a French energy company nearly $1 billion — not to build clean energy here in the U.S., but to kill it.

The developer, which was set to invest private dollars in two offshore wind projects that could have powered more than a million American homes, will be paid off by our government to simply walk away. In exchange for this extraordinary payment of taxpayer dollars, the company will use the government payoff to expand fracking and drilling operations in the U.S. 

“The era of taxpayers subsidizing unreliable, unaffordable and unsecure energy is officially over,” declared the secretary as he unveiled the deal. 

The comment is laughable in the face of skyrocketing energy prices caused by — no surprise — unsecure, unreliable oil and gas. The price of gas has risen more than a dollar per gallon in a matter of weeks as the war with Iran upends global oil markets.

Fossil fuels always come with volatility. Even American oil is sold on a global market influenced by geopolitics, supply shocks and other events outside our control. Wind and solar, on the other hand, can be paired with battery storage to offer reliable American power at the lowest cost.

That was the plan in 2022 when Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), a historic investment in domestic clean energy like wind, solar, and battery storage. The idea was simple: generate more energy here, reduce dependence on global fuel markets and give families more control over their energy bills. It was a hedge against exactly the kind of volatility we’re seeing right now.

But that strategy was dismantled through the so-called “Big Beautiful Bill.” That law repealed the IRA’s clean energy tax credits, ripped away help for families to install better insulation and rooftop solar and rolled back pollution protections. Now, energy costs are on the rise as the federal government chokes the supply of wind and solar, the cheapest forms of energy. In states like Wisconsin, where more than $140 million in clean energy grants have been canceled, the ugly side of that “beautiful bill” is showing. 

Over the next decade, projections show that Wisconsin could miss out on about 17 gigawatts of generation capacity due to measures in the bill. That’s more energy than current peak demand for the entire state. Meanwhile, Wisconsin is spending about $14 billion to bring in oil, coal and gas from out of state — money that could be kept in Wisconsin if we prioritized capturing abundant and free energy resources like wind and solar. Despite this, state energy regulators have approved expensive new gas-burning power plants to power the surge of energy-hungry data centers. Wisconsinites will pay more for electricity and breathe dirtier air as a result.

As these long-term consequences take shape, utilities are moving ahead with rate hikes that will cost Wisconsinites even more. In 2025 alone, Wisconsin utilities proposed or enacted more than $2.7 billion in increases, affecting millions of customers.

So, Mr. Burgum, where is this “affordable energy” and who is benefiting from it?

There’s a deep contradiction in turning away from clean energy in this moment. At a time when electricity demand is rising dramatically from data centers, why are we choosing to build fewer of the resources that can be deployed most quickly, scaled most affordably and insulated most effectively from unstable global markets?

There is simply no path to American energy independence that relies heavily on fossil fuels. Wisconsin families and businesses could be enjoying lower bills and cleaner air instead of bracing for the next geopolitical shock. 

The good news is that none of this is set in stone. Congress could restore clean energy tax credits and invest in energy sources that are built here, priced here, and controlled here. But they need to hear from their constituents to understand how important this is. If the past few weeks have shown us anything, it’s that the most unreliable and unaffordable energy system is the one we don’t control.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Madison West High School brought Democratic candidates seeking the governor’s office to town halls last week where they answered questions from students. 

While Jackson Thomas and Clark Schrager, members of the school’s civics club, will not be old enough to vote in the upcoming election, they said students started hosting events with candidates a few years ago, seeking to give young people a voice and a way to participate in the electoral process. In 2024, West students hosted U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin for a town hall during her reelection bid. 

Thomas said not all of their peers, especially freshmen and sophomores, are necessarily paying attention to politics unless they are already interested in it, but they hope the events can bring more awareness. Many seniors heard from the candidates, Schrager said, and some will be 18 and eligible to vote in the August primary and in the November general elections.

“There’s a lot of passion in our school about issues,” Schrager said. “I think if you ask people if they cared about politics, they may say, no, but if you ask them if they cared about education or health care or gun reform, any of those issues, they would say yes. It’s kind of a generational thing for us that there’s a lot of disillusionment with the system as it is, but there’s not a movement away from participating in the political process. There are still people that care about a lot of the issues and want their voices to be heard.”

The students asked the candidates about some of the key issues that the next governor will shape, including affordability, the state’s stewardship program, health care accessibility, abortion, and funding for K-12 schools and the University of Wisconsin system.

Thomas, who is a member of March For Our Lives, said gun violence is among the issues he cares most about, and he hopes to see candidates take a stand on it and propose solutions. 

“It’s unfortunately an issue that I have to think about every day when I go to school,” Thomas said. “That’s something that’s normalized because many people feel it, but it’s a really terrifying thing to have to think about.” He said it’s an issue he wants to see elected officials “not just take a stand on, but put legislation towards changing.” 

Schrager said many students are also thinking about democracy and freedom. 

The students also asked candidates to name one thing that they agreed with Republicans on. 

“Digging into issues has kind of always been something that’s been taught to me, and I think seeing both sides is something really important to me,” said Schrager, whose parents are both journalists. “There’s been a lot of polarization that I think has moved us away from real policies that actually help everybody, and there’s been a lot of focus on hate and bigotry that I think drive us away from making actual changes that could help people.”

The race to succeed Gov. Tony Evers, who opted not to run for a third term, has become crowded on the Democratic side. Candidates who participated in the forums included Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez, state Sen. Kelda Roys (D-Madison), state Rep. Francesca Hong (D-Madison), former Wisconsin Department of Administration Secretary Joel Brennan, Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, former Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation CEO Missy Hughes, former Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes and former state Rep. Brett Hulsey. 

Schrager said something that gave him hope is “the fact that all these candidates came here and they seem genuinely curious about what students had to say.”

Wisconsin U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, the Trump-endorsed Republican candidate for governor, was not one of the participants last week, but the students said they hope to host him in the future. 

“We’re really committed to getting everybody’s viewpoint on all sides,” Schrager said. “We know Madison is a blue bubble. We know West High School is part of that blue bubble, but there are a lot of students here who will vote for him in the fall and will vote along Republican lines and they deserve to have their voices heard as well and hear somebody who aligns with them,” Schrager said. 

Thomas said he thinks that is especially important when they are “trying to bridge the gap between political polarization.”

Schrager agreed, adding that there are “students who will be voting for Democrats who will still fully benefit from hearing the other side.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

States are paying contractors such as Deloitte, Accenture, and Optum millions of dollars to help them comply with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — a law that will strip safety-net health and food benefits from millions.

State governments rely on such companies to design and operate computer systems that assess whether low-income people qualify for Medicaid or food aid through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly referred to as food stamps. Those state systems have a history of errors that can cut off benefits to eligible people, a KFF Health News investigation showed.

These benefits, provided to the poorest Americans, can mean the difference between someone obtaining medical care and having enough to eat — or going without.

States are now racing to update their eligibility systems to adhere to President Donald Trump’s sweeping tax and domestic spending law. The changes will add red tape and restrictions. They are coming at a steep price — both in the cost to taxpayers and coverage losses — according to state documents obtained by KFF Health News and interviews.

The documents show government agencies will spend millions to save considerably more by removing people from health benefits. While states sign eligibility system contracts with companies and work with them to manage updates, the federal government foots most of the bill.

The law’s Medicaid policies will cause 7.5 million people to become uninsured by 2034, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Roughly 2.4 million people will lose access to monthly cash assistance for food, including those with children.

In five states alone, company estimates developed for state officials and reviewed by KFF Health News show that changes will cost at least $45.6 million combined.

“This is a pretty big payday,” said Adrianna McIntyre, an assistant professor of health policy and politics at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

The law, which grants tax breaks to the nation’s wealthiest people, requires most states to tie Medicaid coverage for some adults to having a job, and imposes other restrictions that will make it harder for people with low incomes to stay enrolled. SNAP restrictions began to take effect in 2025. Major Medicaid provisions begin later this year.

Documents prepared by consulting company Deloitte estimate that a pair of computer system changes for Medicaid work requirements in Wisconsin will cost nearly $6 million. Two other changes related to the state’s SNAP program will cost an additional $4.2 million, according to the documents, which Deloitte drafted for the Wisconsin Department of Health Services.

In Iowa, changes to its Medicaid system are expected to cost at least $20 million, according to an estimate prepared by Accenture, a consulting company that operates the state’s eligibility system.

Optum — which operates the platform Vermont residents use for Medicaid and marketplace health plans under the Affordable Care Act — estimated that it could cost roughly $1.8 million to evaluate and incorporate new health coverage restrictions.

Initial changes in Kentucky, which has had a contract with Deloitte since 2012, have cost the state $1.6 million. And in Illinois, Deloitte estimated modifications will cost at least $12 million.

A historic mandate

For six decades after President Lyndon Johnson created the government insurance program in 1965, Congress had never mandated that Medicaid enrollees have a job, volunteer, or go to school.

That will change next year. The tax and spending law enacted by Trump and congressional Republicans requires millions of Medicaid enrollees in 42 states and the District of Columbia to prove they’re working or participating in a similar activity for 80 hours a month, unless they qualify for an exemption. The CBO projected, based on an early version of the bill, that 18.5 million adults would be subject to the new rules — nearly half of those enrolled.

Vermont Medicaid officials expect it will cost $5 million in fiscal 2027 to implement changes in response to the federal law, said Adaline Strumolo, deputy commissioner of the Department of Vermont Health Access. About $1.8 million is for Optum to make eligibility system adjustments. Optum is a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act will subject nearly 55,000 Vermont Medicaid recipients to work requirements — about a third of the state’s enrollees.

The law forced the state “to essentially drop everything else we were doing,” Strumolo said in an interview. “This is a big, big lift.”

Optum’s contract with the state was worth $125.6 million as of October.

Nearly two-thirds of adult Medicaid enrollees nationally are already working, according to KFF. Advocacy groups for Medicaid recipients say work requirements will nonetheless cause significant coverage losses. Enrollees will face added red tape to prove they’re complying. And eligibility systems already prone to error will have to account for employment, job-related activities, and any exemptions.

An estimated 5.3 million enrollees will become uninsured by 2034 due to work requirements, the CBO reported.

In Wisconsin, state officials estimate roughly 63,000 adults could lose coverage after work requirements take effect. Not covering those people would save $532.6 million in Medicaid spending for one year.

Wisconsin’s eligibility system for Medicaid and SNAP — known as CARES — was implemented statewide in 1994, and initially was a transfer system from Florida, according to a 2016 state document.

Deloitte submitted its cost estimates for Medicaid and SNAP changes to the state in September and December. Elizabeth Goodsitt, a spokesperson for the Wisconsin Department of Health Services, declined to answer questions about whether additional changes will be needed, how much it will cost to make all eligibility system changes to comply with the new federal law, and whether the state negotiated prices with Deloitte.

Bobby Peterson, executive director of the public interest law firm ABC for Health, said Wisconsin has invested “very little” to help people navigate the Medicaid eligibility process, which soon will become more difficult.

“But they’re very willing to throw $6 million to their contractors to create the bells and whistles,” Peterson said. “That’s where I feel a sense of frustration.”

New hurdles for vets and homeless people

Medicaid work requirements are only one change required by Trump’s tax law that will make it harder to obtain safety-net benefits.

Starting in October, the law prohibits several immigrant populations from accessing Medicaid and ACA coverage, including people who have been granted asylum, refugees, and certain survivors of domestic violence or human trafficking. Beginning Dec. 31, states must verify eligibility twice a year for millions of adults — doubling state officials’ workload. And the law restricts SNAP benefits by requiring more adult recipients to work and by removing work exemptions for veterans, homeless people, and former foster youth.

Days after Trump signed the bill in July, Kentucky health officials raced to make changes to the state’s integrated eligibility system, which verifies eligibility for Medicaid, SNAP, and other programs. Deloitte operates the system under a five-year contract worth more than $157 million. According to documents obtained by KFF Health News, initial changes costing $1.6 million were labeled a “high priority” and approved on an “emergency” basis, with some of the changes to the nation’s largest food aid program going into effect almost immediately.

Officials with Kentucky’s Cabinet for Health and Family Services declined to answer a detailed list of questions, including how much it will cost to make all the modifications needed.

Deloitte spokesperson Karen Walsh said the company is working with states to implement new requirements but declined to answer questions about cost estimates in several states. “We are delivering the value and investments we committed to,” Walsh said.

In most states, government agencies rely on contractors to build and run the systems that determine eligibility for Medicaid. Many of those states also use such computer systems for SNAP. But the federal government — that is, taxpayers — covers 90% of state costs to develop and implement state Medicaid eligibility systems and pays 75% of ongoing maintenance and operations expenses, according to federal regulations.

“Five, 10 years ago, I’m not sure if you would hear much mention of SNAP from a Medicaid director,” Melisa Byrd, Washington, D.C.’s Medicaid director, said in November at an annual conference of Medicaid officials. “And particularly for those with integrated eligibility systems — as D.C. is —­ I’m learning more about SNAP than I ever thought.”

The federal law was the topic du jour at last year’s gathering in Maryland, held at the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center, the largest hotel between New Jersey and Florida.

Consulting companies had taken notice. Gainwell, an eligibility contractor and one of the conference’s corporate sponsors, emblazoned its logo on hotel escalators. Companies set up booths with materials promoting how they could help states and handed out snacks and swag.

“Conduent helps agencies work smarter by simplifying operations, cutting costs and driving better outcomes through intelligent automation, analytics, and innovation in fraud prevention,” read one such handout from another contractor. “Together, we can better serve residents at every step of their health journeys.” Conduent holds Medicaid eligibility and enrollment contracts in Mississippi and New Jersey, their Medicaid agencies confirmed to KFF Health News.

In handouts, Deloitte touted its role in “building a new era in state health care” and as “a national leader in Medicaid program and technology transformation, building a strong track record across the federal, state, and commercial health care ecosystem.” KFF Health News found that Deloitte, a global consultancy that generated $70.5 billion in revenue in fiscal 2025, dominates this slice of government business.

“With Medicaid Community Engagement (CE) requirements, states are tasked with adding a new condition of Medicaid eligibility to support state and federal objectives,” added another brochure. “Deloitte offers strategic outreach and responsive support to help states engage communities, lower barriers, and address access to coverage.”

A $20.3 million bill in Iowa

Before Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Iowa lawmakers wanted to impose their own version of work requirements. They would have applied to 183,000 people before any exemptions. The new law would necessitate a change to Iowa’s Medicaid eligibility system, according to documents prepared by Accenture, which operates Iowa’s system through a contract worth more than $60 million.

Adding the ability to verify work status would cost up to $7 million, an Accenture estimate from March 2025 showed. By July, the cost to implement the One Big Beautiful Bill Act’s work requirements and other Medicaid provisions skyrocketed to roughly $20.3 million. Accenture’s analysis said the federal law necessitated additional changes to Iowa’s system. Making employment a condition of Medicaid benefits could cause an estimated 32,000 Iowans to lose coverage, according to a 2025 state document.

Cutting 32,000 people from coverage could save $183 million in one year, a fraction of the $8.9 billion Iowa and the federal government spend on Medicaid in a given year.

In Cedar Rapids, most of Eastern Iowa Health Center’s patients rely on Medicaid, CEO Joe Lock said. He questioned the government’s logic of spending tens of millions of dollars on a policy to remove Iowans from Medicaid.

Most of the health center’s patients live at or below the federal poverty level — currently $33,000 for a family of four.

“There is no benefit to this population,” Lock said.

Danielle Sample, a spokesperson for Iowa’s Department of Health and Human Services, did not answer questions about how much it will cost to implement changes to the state’s separate SNAP eligibility system.

In Illinois, the state’s work this year is largely focused on meeting major provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The state estimates that as many as 360,000 residents could lose Medicaid, largely due to the work requirements, said Melissa Kula, a spokesperson for the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services.

Kula confirmed that most of the work detailed in one of Deloitte’s estimates — priced at $12 million — is related to Trump’s law. The estimate also mentions other work. Kula said Deloitte is charging the state a $2 million fixed fee related to work requirements.

The Trump administration has acknowledged that the work is coming at a cost. In January, top officials for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said government contractors, including Deloitte, Accenture, and Optum, have promised to offer discounts and reduced rates through 2028 to help states incorporate system changes.

“The companies were extremely excited to do this,” said Daniel Brillman, the top CMS Medicaid official. “Everyone’s really focused on getting to work.”

CMS spokesperson Catherine Howden declined to answer questions about the discounts.

Goodsitt, the Wisconsin Medicaid spokesperson, declined to answer questions about whether Deloitte has discounted its rates. Officials with Kentucky’s Cabinet for Health and Family Services did not answer a detailed list of questions, including whether Deloitte extended discounts to make these changes.

It’s unclear what discounts, if any, Deloitte and Accenture have offered to individual states. Walsh, the Deloitte spokesperson, declined to answer detailed questions about the discounts the Trump administration announced this year. Accenture did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

Strumolo, the Vermont health official, said state officials discussed the announcement with Optum “in detail.”

Optum pledged to offer discounts for a specific module related to Medicaid work requirements. That product is unworkable for Vermont because it would mean “moving to a new system when we don’t have to.” When asked about whether the company offered discounts, Strumolo said “not explicitly.”

In a statement, UnitedHealth Group spokesperson Tyler Mason said Optum supports state implementation of new federal requirements “with a range of options to meet their unique cost and policy needs.”

He declined to specify whether Optum discounted Vermont’s rates and how it calculated the costs of doing its work. “Optum is helping mitigate upfront implementation expenses so states can focus on approaches that reduce duplication, accelerate implementation, and manage costs over time — supporting better outcomes for individuals covered by Medicaid,” Mason said.

Strumolo said Optum’s initial changes in Vermont cover items that take effect this year and in 2027 — Medicaid work requirements, checking eligibility every six months, and prohibiting certain immigrants from qualifying for health programs.

“There’s a lot more that could come,” she said.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. 

WASHINGTON — A federal court order last month to effectively axe a Biden-era student loan repayment plan capped years of chaos for more than 7 million student borrowers enrolled in the program.

The Saving on a Valuable Education, or SAVE, plan marked a cornerstone of the Joe Biden administration’s loan forgiveness efforts but became mired in legal challenges from several GOP-led states. 

On July 1, federal loan servicers will start sending notices to borrowers instructing them to enter into a legal repayment plan within 90 days, the department said. Borrowers who do not switch within the 90-day window outlined by their servicer will be automatically placed into a new plan.

The agency issued guidance to borrowers in late March instructing them of the timeline and urging people to switch into a new plan. 

Here’s what borrowers need to know as they navigate next steps:

How did we get here? 

The program, introduced in 2023, sought to lower monthly loan payments for borrowers and forgive remaining debt after a certain period of time.

But millions of borrowers experienced chaos and confusion as they were forced to navigate complex court rulings, interest accrual on their debt and continued uncertainty over the plan’s fate.

Borrowers were placed in an interest-free forbearance in 2024 amid legal limbo, and the department resumed charging interest on the debt of those in the program in August 2025. 

President Donald Trump’s administration in December announced a proposed agreement to end the plan. 

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

A federal judge dismissed that lawsuit in late February, striking down the administration’s efforts to axe the plan. 

But a federal appeals court reversed the lower court’s decision in March, effectively putting an end to the SAVE plan. 

Was the SAVE plan already slated for elimination? 

Congressional Republicans’ mega tax and spending cut bill signed into law by Trump in July 2025 includes a sweeping overhaul of the federal student loan system. 

Part of the GOP’s “big, beautiful” law phased out the SAVE plan by July 2028. 

I’m in SAVE. What are my new repayment options? 

Borrowers have several new repayment options, and can switch to a new plan prior to receiving the incoming notice from their federal loan servicer.

One option includes the Income-Based Repayment, or IBR, plan, which ties borrowers’ loan payment to their earnings. 

Borrowers also have the option to enter into two repayment plans stemming  from the GOP’s “big, beautiful” law — the Repayment Assistance Plan, or RAP, and the Tiered Standard plan — which will both launch July 1. 

Preston Cooper, senior fellow in higher education policy at the American Enterprise Institute, a right-leaning think tank, noted that whether IBR or RAP is a better deal for borrowers depends on their particular circumstances.

“I would recommend that if you are kind of earlier in your repayment journey, and you have a lot more interest because your balance is higher, the Repayment Assistance Plan is going to be your best bet,” Cooper said.

“If you’re later in your repayment journey, you’re closer to that 20 or 25-year mark for forgiveness, Income-Based Repayment is probably going to be your better bet,” he added.

Borrowers could also opt into a handful of other repayment options, such as the Pay as You Earn and Income-Contingent Repayment plans. 

However, those two plans will be eliminated by July 2028 under Republicans’ “big, beautiful” law, meaning borrowers would have to switch plans again in two years. 

What other steps can I take in the meantime? 

Michele Zampini, associate vice president for federal policy and advocacy at the Institute for College Access & Success, said the best thing for a borrower to do is “just be proactive.” 

“Make sure, from a very base level, you can access your account, you know all the basics of where you stand, and then do some comparisons across what plan options you’re going to have,” said Zampini, whose organization aims to advance affordability, accountability and equity in higher education.   

Zampini also pointed to Federal Student Aid’s loan simulator as a good resource for borrowers to get specific numbers to compare across plans. 

“If there’s a plan that you want to move into that’s already open and available, if it’s one of the older plans, start moving now, if you can afford it,” she said. “And then, if you want to wait for the new plan to open … know what that payment estimate is going to look like, and then set yourself a reminder for July to check back and look at the enrollment process once that plan opens.” 

Amid the “total dissonance and chaos” borrowers in SAVE have experienced, Zampini said the department “has really shirked its responsibility in at least keeping borrowers updated and giving them clear information on what’s happening, when it’s happening, and what the implications are going to be for their payments and kind of their budgets and what they have to do and when they have to do it.” 

What about the plan to eliminate the department?

Persis Yu, deputy executive director and managing counsel at the advocacy group Protect Borrowers, told States Newsroom she is “incredibly worried about borrowers not being able to figure out what to do, missing the deadline, getting put into a plan that they can’t afford, and then falling into default, which has, of course, incredibly onerous consequences.” 

The end of SAVE also comes as the Trump administration continues its efforts to dismantle the Department of Education, including through a series of interagency agreements that transfer several of its responsibilities to other departments. 

Under the most recent agreement, the Treasury Department will take over Education’s responsibility for collecting on defaulted federal student loan debt — the first step in a multiphase process toward Treasury taking on Education’s entire, roughly $1.7 trillion federal student loan portfolio.

“The specifics of the plan with Treasury right now are about debt collection, but the overarching mission of dismantling the Department of Education at this moment means that there are not the people in place to oversee the servicers,” Yu said. 

Part of the administration’s efforts to do away with the agency included a reduction in force initiated in March 2025 that hit wide swaths of the department, including Federal Student Aid, or FSA. 

Yu also highlighted a March report from the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, which found that staffing reductions at FSA affected the government’s ability to determine how well student loan servicers are doing their jobs. 

Before Wyoming elections, the state’s League of Women Voters tries to get voter registration information into the hands of residents at events and gatherings. But under state law, League volunteers can’t sign up voters themselves — only local election officials can do that.

“It’s been tough,” said Linda Barton, president of the League of Women Voters of Wyoming. She added that her group does its best to offer registration information. “We provide a lot of printed literature that we hand out all over the state.”

Congress may take Wyoming’s approach nationwide.

The SAVE America Act would effectively ban voter registration drives, a mainstay of college campuses and neighborhood events. 

The U.S. Senate began debating a version of President Donald Trump’s signature elections measure last month, after the House passed it in February. The legislation would require voters to show photo identification to cast a ballot. It would also require individuals to present documents proving their citizenship, such as a passport or birth certificate, to government officials in person to register to vote. 

Trump and Republican members of Congress have cast the proposal as necessary to secure elections and crack down on noncitizen voters ahead of the midterms. Democrats and other critics warn it risks disenfranchising wide swaths of Americans. Studies have shown noncitizen voting is extremely rare.

In many states, civic groups have long provided applications to would-be voters that they can quickly fill out. During the 2024 election cycle, voter registration drives accounted for 3.7% of registrations, according to survey data from the federal Election Assistance Commission. While a small percentage, the figure still represents 2.1 million Americans.

Twenty-four states and the District of Columbia placed no restrictions on voter registration drives as of November 2024, according to the Movement Advancement Project, a Colorado-based think tank. An additional 24 states impose some limits, while Wyoming and New Hampshire prohibit them.

Bill would end registration drives nationwide

Every form of voter registration drive would effectively end under the SAVE America Act as currently drafted in the Senate, said Brian Miller, executive director of NonprofitVOTE, which aids nonprofit organizations in helping individuals vote and participate in the democratic process. Community-based groups, universities, food pantries and others who help register voters would all be affected.

“That’s the high school civics teacher who works with his graduating class … gone, they can’t do that anymore,” Miller said.

NonprofitVOTE, working with 120 organizations across nine states, engaged 60,000 voters during the 2022 midterm cycle, according to a report by the group. It found that individuals reached by nonprofits were 10 percentage points more likely to cast a ballot than comparable registered voters.

The effect was more pronounced among younger voters. Those ages 18 to 24 who were engaged by nonprofit groups were 12 percentage points more likely to cast a ballot than comparable registered voters.

Hispanic Federation, a nationwide Hispanic and Latino advocacy group, says it has registered 160,000 voters since 2016. Frederick Vélez III Burgos, the federation’s senior director for communications and community outreach, said the organization works to register voters because of language and cultural barriers, work schedules and other factors that make the process challenging.

“There’s just a group of people and communities that is just very difficult to get registered through normal means,” Burgos said.

Top Trump priority

Trump has made clear the SAVE America Act is his top legislative priority and he has urged Congress to pass the measure before moving to other business. While Republicans control both chambers of Congress, support for the proposal falls short of the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster in the Senate.

“The SAVE Act would gut tried-and-true methods of voter registration, including registration by mail and registering online,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, said earlier this year.

Still, Senate Republican leaders in March kicked off an extended, wide-ranging debate over the bill. It remains unclear when the debate will end. Congress is scheduled to be in recess until mid-April.

GOP proponents have dismissed concerns that the legislation would make registering to vote and casting a ballot difficult. Sen. Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican, said on the Senate floor that the bill offers multiple ways to prove citizenship and “gives states the flexibility to create other pathways to show proof of citizenship.”

Grassley noted that his mother was one of the first women to cast a ballot after ratification of the 19th Amendment, which guaranteed women the right to vote.

“The SAVE America Act doesn’t infringe on these hard-fought voting rights. It would preserve the integrity of every vote cast in a federal election,” Grassley said.

Hard-to-reach voters

Third-party voter registration drives date back to voter education and registration efforts by the National American Woman Suffrage Association, according to Joshua Douglas, a University of Kentucky law professor who specializes in voting rights and election law. The association eventually morphed into the League of Women Voters, which helped spearhead registration efforts following the 19th Amendment.

Voter registration drives typically aid voters who may not otherwise have opportunities to register, Douglas wrote in an email to States Newsroom. They may not have a driver’s license or may not be thinking about registering.

“There is a long history of civic organizations engaged in voter registration drives and this legislation would make that work harder,” Douglas wrote.

Tom Lopach, president and CEO of the nonpartisan Voter Participation Center, an organization that works to register voters from underrepresented populations, said he fears some members of Congress haven’t fully read the bill or digested how it would affect voting. 

Since VPC was founded in 2003, it has helped register 7 million voters, Lopach said.

“And that’s just us,” he said. “When you think about the League of Women Voters, when you think about in-person voter registration drives happening in a grocery store parking lot, or knocking doors in a neighborhood, you would have tens of millions of Americans not registered and then not voting.”

States trending toward more restrictions

Even if the SAVE America Act doesn’t become law, some states have taken steps to make voter registration drives more difficult. 

The Center for Public Integrity and NPR found in 2024 that at least six states had passed legislation cracking down on voter registration drives following the 2020 election. Some of the bills imposed massive fines for violations or barred noncitizens from participating.

As recently as March, the North Carolina State Board of Elections announced it would require groups conducting voter registration drives to print their own registration forms. The board cited significant costs, after it provided nearly 1.3 million applications to organizations and government agencies in 2024 at a cost of more than $269,000.

“Nothing about this temporary tightening of our practice surrounding voter registration drives changes the fact that any North Carolina citizen who wants a voter registration application will always be able to get one simply by contacting their county board of elections or the State Board,” Sam Hayes, the board’s executive director, told NC Newsline.

Courts have blocked some state-level restrictions. A federal court prohibited Kansas from enforcing a 2021 law that barred out-of-state organizations from distributing advance mail ballot applications to voters and prohibited applications that contained personalized voter information. Kansas has appealed the decision.

The Missouri Supreme Court last week ruled against a state law that prohibited groups like the League of Women Voters from using paid workers in voter registration drives. The state’s high court also struck down requirements that individuals who solicit more than 10 registration applications must register with the state and be Missouri voters. The law had also prohibited encouraging someone to obtain an absentee ballot.

Kay Park, president of the League of Women Voters of Missouri, called the restrictions “ridiculous” and said that while they were in effect the organization did nothing with absentee ballots — such as suggesting an absentee ballot could be an option for someone with a disability, for instance.

The League of Women Voters of Missouri holds voter registration drives in high schools, Park said. While Missouri residents must be 18 to vote, they can register once they’re 17 ½ years old. The SAVE America Act would effectively end those drives.

If the legislation becomes law, Park said the Missouri league would likely focus more of its efforts on helping individuals obtain identification documents and birth certifications — something it’s already trying to do.

“It just puts another cog in the wheel,” Park said.

Wyoming model

In Wyoming, Barton and her fellow League of Women Voters members are already grappling with a state-level proof-of-citizenship voter registration law passed last year, regardless of whether Congress passes the SAVE America Act.

Residents who want to register to vote must visit a county clerk’s office and bring a valid passport or birth certificate. Wyoming also accepts REAL ID-compliant driver’s licenses and tribal IDs, as long as they do not indicate the individual is a noncitizen, and a few other documents, such as a naturalization certificate. Individuals may register by mail but must include copies of their documents along with a notarized application.

The new state requirements were championed by Wyoming Secretary of State Chuck Gray, a Republican who is running for the state’s U.S. House seat.

“As the chief election official of Wyoming that has experience with these common sense election integrity measures, I can tell you that the SAVE America Act will be easy for states to implement,” Gray wrote in a March 17 letter to Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a South Dakota Republican.

Gray didn’t respond to questions from States Newsroom.

Barton said without the option to hold voter registration drives, going to events and speaking to clubs and organizations like Rotary are imperative.

“I just think that the only other choice is to be out there, communicating as much as possible,” she said.

When an Alabama clinic’s only OB-GYN left the state to provide abortion care in Colorado, the head of operations thought the facility would have to close.

But Robin Marty, executive director at WAWC Healthcare in Tuscaloosa, hired a doctor in August who she called a “unicorn” — someone who’s from Alabama and, after training outside of the state, returned home to practice medicine.

Marty said Alabama’s near-total abortion ban could cause physicians to practice elsewhere after they finish their residencies.

“Doctors don’t want to worry about surveillance, potential arrests and other legal issues,” she said.

A study published in March found that applications to medical residency programs in states with abortion restrictions have declined compared to states where abortion remained mostly legal. The findings are an “early signal” that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision nearly four years ago overturning federal abortion rights protections may exacerbate health care shortages, said lead author Dr. Anisha Ganguly.

A majority of doctors end up practicing medicine in states where they trained. Obstetrician and gynecology training programs typically take four years to complete, so the full scope of how abortion restrictions affect where physicians work after they complete their residencies remains to be seen.

Still, experts said the findings could spell trouble for the future of the reproductive health care workforce in states with abortion restrictions, some of which are already plagued with maternity care deserts.

Doctors say bans limit training, standards of care

OB-GYNs affiliated with Physicians for Reproductive Health who either trained or work in states with abortion bans told States Newsroom that restrictions after the Supreme Court decision hamstrung their ability to offer reproductive care and affected the education of medical residents.

Dr. Neha Ali grew up in Texas and trained there, too. But by the end of her OB-GYN residency’s second year, the state enacted SB 8, a six-week abortion ban that allowed residents in the state to sue providers or anyone who helped someone terminate a pregnancy. After the Dobbs decision in June 2022, a near-total abortion ban took effect in Texas.

“I knew I wanted to be an abortion provider before I started OB-GYN residency, and I chose to be in Texas for my residency training because I wanted to experience what that’s like in a state with barriers. But ultimately, the barriers became too large,” Ali said.

After she finished residency in 2024, Ali moved to Colorado, a state with strong abortion-rights protections, where she practices complex family planning.

Ali said she talks to medical students about her experience training in Texas, where she was not able to perform any dilation and evacuations — a second-trimester abortion procedure — during residency.

“I do think it’s very valuable to see what it’s like to be in a restrictive state and understand what that is like to be a provider there, but that doesn’t sell people on a residency for four years,” she said.

OB-GYN Dr. Louis Monnig trained in Kentucky before the state banned abortion.

“Making it difficult or putting up barriers to that training just limits the abilities of any doctor who provides reproductive care to have opportunities to get exposure and experience, and just get better at what they’re doing,” he said.

Monnig completed his residency in June 2023 and moved back to his home state of Louisiana because of his connections to the region and its health care disparities. “It felt like it was worth it to come back,” he said.

In October 2024, a Louisiana law classifying mifepristone and misoprostol as controlled dangerous substances took effect.

“It made me lose faith that lawmakers were doing any of these things to actually protect patients or patient safety,” he said.

The medications are used not only for abortions, but miscarriages and other conditions, too. The law has sowed confusion among health care providers and led some to practice emergency drills to access the drugs during obstetric emergencies, Louisiana Illuminator reported. Monnig said the law has “changed some of the day-to-day operational workflow for patient care,” especially for situations where misoprostol is used, such as labor induction and postpartum hemorrhaging.

Patients have faced issues when trying to get prescriptions filled: Pharmacists have called Monnig’s office to make sure a patient wasn’t having an abortion after he prescribed misoprostol for conditions such as cervical stenosis — when it’s difficult to insert a medical instrument in the cervical canal.

Drop in applications to ban states’ residency programs

Out of more than 22 million applications to 4,315 residency programs across the U.S., 67% were submitted to programs in states without abortion restrictions between 2018 and 2023, the new research showed. Thirty-three percent went to programs in states with restrictions.

Fewer women than men applied to train in states with abortion restrictions before the Supreme Court’s landmark abortion ruling, according to the study, and that disparity widened after more than a dozen states enacted abortion bans. The number of men applying to residency programs in states with abortion restrictions — mostly in the South and the Midwest — also decreased significantly.

“When there’s a decreased level of interest in these states, it suggests to us that there’s an evolving health care workforce shortage in these states,” said Ganguly, an internal medicine physician and an assistant professor at University of North Carolina’s Division of General Medicine and Epidemiology.

Many states with abortion bans — Idaho, Iowa and Georgia, for example — are also facing labor and delivery unit closures, particularly in rural areas where hospitals struggle with provider recruitment. Health officials in these states listed improvements to maternal health as a priority in their applications to the federal Rural Health Care Transformation Program, but solutions will take years to implement.

Shortages affect more than one specialty. Ganguly said OB-GYNs have historically offered the bulk of abortion-related care in the U.S., but it’s increasingly important in emergency medicine, family medicine and internal medicine. Primary care providers and emergency medicine doctors often diagnose pregnancy complications such as miscarriages, and internists help women who have chronic disease manage and plan for pregnancy.

Dr. Hector Chapa, an OB-GYN who teaches obstetrics and gynecology at Texas A&M University and is a member of the American Association of Pro–Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, took issue with the study’s approach.

“It’s essential to understand that this study is not specific to OB‑GYN residency programs, and by grouping OB‑GYN with family medicine, internal medicine and emergency medicine, the study assumes that all specialties are affected equally, despite their very different levels of involvement in abortion. This broad grouping risks introducing bias into the results,” he said in a statement.

Ganguly said her team did examine applications to OB-GYN residency programs in isolation to affirm findings of a decline among applicants in abortion-restricted states. Looking at other specialties, too, was meant to provide clarity about how bans affect the health care workforce more broadly.

OB-GYN education and the maternal health care workforce

The latest study adds to a body of research examining how the Supreme Court’s decision on abortion in 2022 affected training after medical school, particularly for those specializing in reproductive health care.

In the 2023-2024 application cycle, the number of applicants to training programs in states with abortion bans decreased by 4.2% compared to the previous cycle, while there was less than a 1% decrease in applications to residency programs in states where abortion is legal, according to the American Association of Medical Colleges.

In some states, abortion bans have definitively led to an exodus of OB-GYNs and maternal fetal medicine specialists. Idaho lost 35% of its doctors who provide obstetrics between August 2022 and December 2024, according to a study published in July.

Having reproductive health providers flee states with abortion bans is “devastating,” according to Pamela Merritt, the executive director of Medical Students for Choice.

“It’s a public health disaster that we’re going to see the consequences of decades to come,” she said.

Merritt’s organization has chapters at several medical schools in states with abortion bans. She said students are not getting adequate training, and some are even discouraged from discussing abortion.

In February, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center canceled a Medical Students for Choice chapter’s talk with an OB-GYN who wrote a book about providing abortion care later in pregnancy. School officials told The Texas Tribune hosting the event on campus was not in the university’s best interests.

“Everybody who graduates from medical school in Texas should know that there’s this thing called third-trimester abortion, that when the life of the mother is at risk, you legally can provide this care,” Merritt said.

Republican Gov. Greg Abbott signed legislation last year clarifying that doctors can offer pregnant women abortions during medical emergencies. The Texas Medical Board released guidelines for the abortion law this year, nearly half a decade after the state banned most abortions and at least four Texans died after being denied prompt abortion care, ProPublica reported.

Program helps residents in restrictive states get abortion care training

“Every single physician, nurse and health care provider needs to be educated about abortion care,” said Dr. Jody Steinauer, an OB-GYN and the director of the Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health at the University of California in San Francisco. “This is a huge crisis in OB-GYN specifically: All OB-GYNs must have the competence and the skill to safely empty the uterus. Even if the individual is personally uncomfortable providing abortion care, they have to be able to empty the uterus to save someone’s life in an emergency.”

Steinauer leads the Ryan Residency Training Program, which works with OB-GYN residencies across the country to ensure comprehensive abortion and family planning rotations. Nearly a dozen states lack Ryan programs, and most of them have near-total abortion bans.

She said residencies in states with abortion bans are struggling to make sure their students have the skills to provide abortion: “We’re at risk of having a whole generation of OB-GYN graduates who are not skilled to provide the care they need to provide.”

To remedy this issue, the Ryan Program has helped to establish 20 partnerships with schools in abortion-restrictive states to train OB-GYN medical residents in states with reproductive rights protections.

Steinauer said the rotations are between two to four weeks and complicated to plan, but they help doctors learn procedural skills, how to manage medication abortions and counseling.

The rotations also help OB-GYNs navigate pain management during obstetric procedures, communicate effectively with abortion patients and familiarize themselves with ultrasounds, she said. These skills are important for providing the full spectrum of reproductive health care, from inserting IUDs to treating miscarriages, the doctor said.

“It’s such a refreshing experience for them to be working in a state without a ban, and they get to see abortion as normal health care,” she said.

Stateline reporter Elisha Brown can be reached at ebrown@stateline.org.

Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers vetoed Republican bills that would eliminate income taxes on tips and overtime, require counties to cooperate with federal immigration agents and  overturn his 400-year veto that provided school revenue limit increases.

No tax on tips and overtime

In July 2025, President Donald Trump signed a tax and spending bill that included provisions allowing tipped workers making less than $150,000 to deduct up to $25,000 in tips annually from their federal taxable income and allowing certain employees who work overtime and make less than $150,000 to claim a tax deduction. Republican lawmakers in Wisconsin introduced proposals to align state income tax policy with those measures. 

SB 36 would have given tipped employees a state income tax exemption for cash tips, with a sunset date in 2028.

Evers supported eliminating taxes on tips in his 2025-27 state budget proposal, but GOP lawmakers rejected the provision and instead advanced their bill. Evers’ proposal would have been a permanent change, unlike the Republican proposal. 

“We should not be at the whims of a Republican-controlled Congress that has no problem gutting basic necessities and services like food and access to healthcare just to pay for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires,” Evers wrote in his veto message. 

Wisconsin Republicans have sent Evers a number of proposals influenced by the Trump administration and Republican-led Congress to varying success. He signed a SNAP bill with funding for DHS that also included a policy to prohibit SNAP participants from being able to use their benefits to buy candy and soda, while vetoing a bill to opt the state into a federal school choice tax credit program. 

Evers wrote that his “expectation” when providing tax relief is to pass proposals that are “real, responsible, and targeted to the middle class.” Evers has signed a number of tax cuts given to him by Republican lawmakers throughout his time in office. As a result of cuts, a 2024 Wisconsin Policy Forum report found that the state and local tax burden on residents had hit a record low in 2024. In 2025, another report found that the tax burdens remained low as incomes rose.

Evers said that the state must also “stay well within our means by still ensuring our tax policy changes are sustainable and will not force us to cut services or raise taxes down the road. Therefore, I am vetoing this bill in its entirety because I object to adopting a temporary income tax provision instead of working to provide comprehensive and lasting relief to Wisconsin taxpayers.” 

Evers had a similar message in vetoing AB 461, which would have provided an income tax deduction for overtime. Under the bill, single filers would have been able to claim up to $12,500 per year under the subtraction, while joint filers would have been able to claim up to $25,000. Unlike the “no tax on tips” bill, the change would have been permanent.

“I object to this bill changing the tax code in a way that will treat Wisconsin workers who earn  similar wages differently just because of their classification as salaried or hourly workers. A salaried worker who earns $35,000 (and is not eligible to earn overtime compensation) should not pay a different amount in taxes from an hourly worker who earns $35,000 through working overtime,” Evers wrote in his veto message. “We should focus on creating a fairer tax code that provides real, responsible tax relief that supports rather than divides working Wisconsinites.”

Vetoes ICE compliance bill

Evers vetoed AB 24, which would have required  local law enforcement in Wisconsin to work with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The bill would have required sheriffs to check the citizenship status of people being held in jail on felony charges and notify federal immigration enforcement officials if citizenship cannot be verified. 

Counties failing to comply would be at risk of losing 15% of their shared revenue payments from the state, which help cover the cost of fire, law enforcement and other services.

Republican lawmakers, including Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) and Sen. Julian Bradley (R-New Berlin), introduced the bill at the start of Trump’s second term, saying that the state needed to support his immigration agenda. 

Since the introduction of the bill, the Trump administration has stepped up detaining and deporting  immigrants. The federal government sent agents to neighboring Minnesota, where they shot and killed two U.S. citizens, including a Wisconsin native. This week in Wisconsin, ICE detained Salah Sarsour, a Palestinian activist and president of the Milwaukee Islamic Society. More local law enforcement in Wisconsin have also entered agreements with ICE in the last year. 

According to a Stateline report, experts have said jails are the easiest place to pick up people for deportation, and more local law enforcement cooperation leads to more arrests. 

Evers did not make any specific mention of ICE in his veto message, instead focusing on the potential penalty that local communities could face. 

“Republican lawmakers are trying to micromanage local law enforcement decisions by threatening to gut state aid by 15% for our local communities — that’s a non-starter,” Evers wrote. “We shouldn’t be threatening law enforcement with deep budget cuts; we should be working together with local law enforcement to improve public safety, reduce crime and keep dangerous drugs and violent criminals off of our street.”

400-year veto repeal rejected

Evers also vetoed another attempt by Republican lawmakers to repeal his 400-year veto, which extended school districts’ ability to bring in an additional $325 per pupil annually through funding from the state or through property taxes. Lawmakers rejected calls to provide an increase to schools’ general aid in the most recent state budget, meaning most schools have raised property taxes to make use of the revenue authority. 

Republican lawmakers have argued that eliminating the veto is the best way to help address rising property taxes and pushed forward SB 389 to do so. 

Evers wrote in his veto message that lawmakers “all know that my 400-year veto didn’t raise Wisconsinites’ property taxes — it’s just a heckuva lot easier for them to blame me than it is to tell the truth.” He said he objected to repealing the veto, which was upheld by the state Supreme Court, without providing additional resources to school districts. 

“My 400-year veto is here to stay, lawmakers,” he wrote. “Just fund our public schools and get over it.”. 

Evers also vetoed AB 460, which would have allowed siblings of students in the state’s school voucher program to participate regardless of their income level. Advocates of the legislation said it would help keep families together in school, but Evers said the bill would expand the cost of the voucher system and further burden struggling public schools.

Currently to qualify for a school voucher program, a student’s family must be below a certain income. A student who has attended a prior year remains qualified even if the family income increases above the limit, but then a sibling who hasn’t attended might no longer qualify to apply for the voucher program. 

The legislation went to Evers as the enrollment caps on the state’s voucher programs will sunset next school year. Evers said in his veto message that he objects to increased spending on the state’s voucher program. 

“Funding for private parental choice programs remains convoluted and inconsistent across programs,” Evers said. “The cost burden of private parental choice program expansion falls either on local property taxpayers, who already are struggling due to a lack of investment in public schools by the Legislature, or on the state general fund, which draws resources away from students in public schools.” 

Vetoes closing holdover appointments loophole

Evers also vetoed AB 248. The GOP bill would have closed the loophole in state law that allows for appointees to stay in their positions past the expiration of their term. The Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the practice in 2021, when Department of Natural Resources Board member Fred Prehn, appointed during Gov. Scott Walker’s second term, stayed after his term was up, blocking an Evers appointee from taking the seat.  The Court upheld the loophole again in 2025, when Wisconsin Elections Commission Administrator Meagan Wolfe stayed after the expiration of her term.

In his veto message Evers called the bill “just the latest in a decade-plus-long effort by Republican lawmakers to abuse the power available to them, undermine basic tenets of our democracy and erode foundational cornerstones of state government that will have impacts on our state for generations.” He noted that while he was in office lawmakers delayed confirming his nominees for key positions and fired others from their positions “for no apparent reason other than being appointed by a Democratic governor.”

“This bill is a representation of the years of Republican efforts to erode our democratic institutions… This bill represents the worst of partisan politics and what can happen when a Legislature chooses to put politics before people,” Evers wrote. “It’s shortsighted, and it is politics at its worst and most dangerous. I will not enable the Legislature to continue this ridiculous exercise.”

Evers signs handful of school bills

Evers also signed two bills introduced by lawmakers to address concerns about investigations into grooming allegations against teachers. The concerns were prompted after a CapTimes news report that found over 200 investigations into teacher licenses due to allegations of sexual misconduct or grooming from 2018 to 2023. 

SB 785, now 2025 Wisconsin Act 185, requires the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) to maintain an online licensing portal that is searchable by the public at no cost. The portal will need to include information on license holders under investigation and the name of individuals who have had their licenses revoked.

AB 1004, now 2025 Wisconsin Act 186, prohibits public and private schools from entering agreements that would suppress information on the immoral conduct of an employee, would affect the report of immoral conduct by an employer or employees or require an education employer to expunge information about allegations of findings or immoral conduct. 

Evers also signed AB 530, now 2025 Wisconsin Act 189, which prohibits the operation of drones over schools in Wisconsin unless there is authorization by the school’s governing body or by a sheriff or a chief of a local public protection service agency.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Gov. Tony Evers announced Friday that he had signed two executive orders to begin offering commutations, a reduction of a criminal sentence by the governor’s authority to grant clemency.

Even though Evers has granted a record number of pardons, a form of forgiveness that reinstates some rights, during his tenure — over 2,000 — he has not granted any commutations. The last Wisconsin governor to offer a commutation was Republican Tommy Thompson,  who issued seven commutations in addition to 202 pardons. Thompson was governor from 1987 to 2001, 

“It’s time for Wisconsin to join red and blue states across our country and finally move our justice system into the 21st Century by reforming our criminal justice and corrections systems to improve public safety, reduce the likelihood that individuals will reoffend when they enter our communities, and save taxpayer dollars in the long run,” Evers said in a statement. “Issuing official grants of forgiveness through pardons has been one of the most rewarding parts of my job as governor, and I’m looking forward to restoring the commutations process in Wisconsin for the first time since Tommy Thompson was governor.”. 

Members of WISDOM, a non-profit faith-based organization that works to end mass incarceration, say Evers told them in 2023 that he would begin issuing commutations. Subsequently, the organization and other criminal justice advocates have been pressing Evers’ administration to offer commutations and to create a structure to process applications.

Prior to Evers’ announcement, there was no process in place for those in the criminal justice system, either in prison or community supervision (parole, probation or extended supervision), to apply for a commutation. There was only a process to apply for a pardon, but to be eligible for a pardon the applicant had to complete an entire sentence,  including incarceration and community supervision, and avoid any criminal charges for  five years. 

Evers ran for office in 2018 on a commitment to reduce the prison population in Wisconsin, but after a dip during COVID, the number of people in prison population has remained steady at over 23,000. Advocates have said commutations would enable Evers to address the high prison population by offering it to worthy residents, especially those who committed crimes as youth, have been incarcerated for  a considerable number of years, and are good candidates to return to society.

In his announcement, Evers called on lawmakers to take more steps to reduce the prison population.

“Wisconsin cannot wait for criminal justice reforms,” Evers said. “As our prison population continues to skyrocket, increasing costs to taxpayers on overtime and other resource needs, the Legislature must start working toward making long-term justice and corrections reforms a priority, including efforts to help stabilize our state’s prison population that our institutions already are struggling to accommodate. For years, I’ve asked the Legislature to work with me to invest in behavioral and mental health services, treatment and diversion, and reentry programming—these are evidence-based and data-driven policies we know will help keep our communities safer while continuing to ensure dangerous individuals remain in our institutions. My administration will continue doing what we can as long as I am governor, but we cannot do it alone—the Legislature must get serious about this issue.” 

The governor noted in his order, Executive Order 287, that commutation “promotes rehabilitation by providing a system that rewards the positive efforts of incarcerated individuals who demonstrate personal growth and a commitment to change with the possibility of a second chance to contribute to society, become productive members of their communities, make amends, and improve their lives and those of the people around them.”

Additionally, the order noted, “the granting of commutations can also encourage incarcerated individuals to be accountable, take responsibility, make amends, and seek forgiveness for their actions that have harmed other individuals and the community.” 

Advocates have said the possibility of a commutation is an incentive for those incarcerated to be model residents, to strive to improve themselves with job skills, and address behavioral issues to be better prepared for life outside of prison.   

Evers said there will be categories of individuals  ineligible for commutation, including those who have committed sexual assault, physical abuse of a child, sexual exploitation of a child, trafficking of a child, incest and soliciting a child for prostitution.

Executive Order 287 will create a Commutation Advisory Board comprised of 14 members, including the Governor’s chief legal counsel or a designee and others who “have experience or expertise in the fields of reentry services, victim rights, corrections, and related areas and who are otherwise able to provide a valuable perspective on reduction of criminal sentences.”

The governor’s second  executive order, 288, creates a juvenile life sentence commutation process for individuals who were “tried as adults and sentenced to life imprisonment for a crime committed in their youth.”

“A growing body of neuroscientific and psychological research has demonstrated that an individual’s brain, behavior, and personality undergo significant changes throughout their teen years and into their twenties,” said the governor. He noted in a press release the U.S. Supreme Court decision Miller v. Alabama, which found that a mandatory life sentence without parole for juveniles is unconstitutional, in part because they are not fully accountable for their actions due to brain development and maturity.

“Individuals who commit a crime in their youth therefore possess increased potential for rehabilitation, a diminished degree of culpability, and a lower chance of reoffending once they have reached maturity,” said Evers.

Since 2022, there has been legislation offering adjustments of life sentences for people who were sentenced as adults when they were under age 18, but that legislation has failed to gain traction. With SB 882, the most recent example, one  issue has been apparent confusion over the number of those eligible, with the number cited by Sen. Jesse James (R-Altoona), the legislation’s sponsor, reportedly differing from the number advocacy groups were reporting.

Advocacy groups welcome order

Beverly Walker, an official with WISDOM and also with Integrity Center who led the organization’s advocacy for commutation, and Sherry Reames, a WISDOM volunteer who also worked on commutations, said in statements that Evers’ order would address conditions created by Wisconsin’s sentencing policies, including prison overcrowding, that especially affect Black, brown, indigenous and poor communities.

“Today, Gov. Evers took action to advance justice in Wisconsin,” said Walker. “This marks a significant shift forward.”

“Gov. Evers’ decision to restore the commutations process will promote redemption and provide hope for people who have made great strides with their personal growth and development.” said Reames. “This is an important first step, but much work remains to be done.”

Reames said WISDOM would “closely monitor the implementation of the commutation process” and help ensure it is inclusive.

“If Governor Evers and future Wisconsin governors boldly move the commutations process forward in the coming months and years, this would begin to reverse the harm caused by decades of over-incarceration and provide hope and opportunities for many people,” she said.  

Marianne Olesson, co-executive director of EXPO of Wisconsin, one of the advocacy groups that has been pressing for commutations, called Evers’ orders Friday “an important and long-overdue step toward a more just, humane, and credible legal system.” 

“By signing Executive Orders 287 and 288, Governor Evers has reopened a pathway for review, redemption, and second chances for people currently serving sentences, including a process specifically recognizing the unique potential for growth and rehabilitation among youth sentenced to life in prison,” Olesson said. “The new process includes eligibility criteria, review by a Commutation Advisory Board, consideration of institutional conduct and rehabilitation, and opportunities for survivor and victim input.”

Olesson said opportunities for people in the justice system to demonstrate they’ve changed are important. 

 “A justice system that allows no meaningful path for review, even in the face of growth, accountability, and years of demonstrated change, is not a system rooted in true public safety or human dignity,” she said. “Restoring commutations acknowledges that people can evolve and that redemption must be more than just a talking point. We applaud his commitment and we are grateful.”

The Wisconsin State Public Defenders office also praised the orders.

 “For the first time in a generation, thousands of Wisconsinites written off by the state’s legal system will have a clear path to returning home,” Public Defender Jennifer Bias said in a statement.  “For the many Wisconsinites who have done the hard work of redemption and are ready to come home, this is a chance to start anew. For our state, this is an opportunity to heal the scars left by decades of over-incarceration. Governor Evers is taking a bold and necessary step forward.”

This report has been updated with additional comments received after publication from leaders of  WISDOM.

President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting mail ballots faced a fresh challenge on Friday, as a coalition of Democratic states filed a lawsuit seeking to block an order that experts say is an extraordinary attempt by the president to assert authority over elections.

More than 20 states — led by California, Massachusetts, Nevada and Washington — and the District of Columbia sued in federal court in Massachusetts. They argue the order violates the Constitution, which gives states the responsibility to run elections and allows Congress, not the president unilaterally, the power to override state regulations.

“Though the President may wish he had unlimited power to restrict voting rights, the Constitution gives states – not the White House – the authority to oversee elections,” Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, a Democrat, said in a statement.

The lawsuit is only the latest in a growing number of legal challenges to the order since Trump signed it on Tuesday.

The Democratic National Committee, top Democrats in Congress and other Democratic groups have sued, along with the American Civil Liberties Union, League of Women Voters, the League of United Latin American Citizens and other voting rights groups. 

Friday’s state-led challenge marked at least the fifth lawsuit over the order.

“Neither the Constitution nor any act of Congress confers upon the President the authority to mandate sweeping changes to States’ electoral systems or procedures,” the complaint reads.

The Trump administration has said the order is necessary to ensure the security of elections and crack down on noncitizen voting, which studies have found is extremely rare. Trump acknowledged the order would likely face litigation when he signed it but called it “foolproof.”

“The President will do everything in his power to defend the safety and security of American elections and to ensure that only American citizens are voting in them,” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement on Wednesday.

List required

The order requires the Department of Homeland Security, with help from the Social Security Administration, to compile a list of voting-age U.S. citizens living in each state and then provide that information to state officials at least 60 days before each federal election. 

The order does not tell states how to use the data, but it instructs the U.S. attorney general to prioritize investigations into state and local officials who issue federal ballots to ineligible voters.

The list of citizens will be drawn from naturalization and Social Security records, according to the order. It will also include data from SAVE, a powerful computer program maintained by Homeland Security that verifies citizenship by checking names against information in federal databases. 

The order also directs the postmaster general to require every outbound mail ballot be in an envelope that includes a tracking barcode. 

At least 90 days before a federal election, states must notify the U.S. Postal Service whether they intend to allow ballots to be sent through the mail. States would then have to submit to USPS a list of voters planning to vote by mail at least 60 days before the election.

“The expression ‘a solution in search of a problem’ came to mind, but this is sort of a quasi-solution in search of a hallucination,” said Pamela Smith, president and CEO of Verified Voting, an organization that promotes the responsible use of technology in elections.

Under the order, the Justice Department and other federal agencies would be directed to withhold federal funds from states and localities that don’t comply with federal laws. It doesn’t specify what federal funds would potentially be targeted or whether states could lose election-related dollars.

“The president’s illegal executive order creates a shadow voter eligibility list within the federal government and it threatens to coerce states into disenfranchising voters missing from those lists,” Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford said at a news conference in Las Vegas.

States say they run elections, not feds

The coalition of states argues in the lawsuit that Trump’s order would require states to upend existing election administration procedures and spend significant time and resources “mitigating the harms” of its requirements and educating voters about the new rules.

The states joining the lawsuit include Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin, in addition to the District of Columbia and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, a Democrat.

Some Republican state officials have backed Trump’s efforts. Wyoming Secretary of State Chuck Gray in a statement voiced “complete and total” support for the order.

“I look forward to continuing to work with the Trump Administration, the Department of Homeland Security, the United States Postal Inspection Service, and our county clerks on implementation of this executive order,” Gray said.

But the states say the order would require states to act contrary to their own voter roll procedures, systems and voter registration laws, the complaint argues. Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, a Democrat, said the Constitution is clear that states run elections.

“Not the President,” Mayes said. “And Arizona will not allow the federal government to seize control of our elections.”

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration released its fiscal 2027 budget request Friday, asking Congress to increase spending on defense programs by 43% and decrease funding for non-defense accounts by 10%. 

The proposal kicks off what will be a monthslong process on Capitol Hill as lawmakers write the dozen annual government funding bills ahead of the Oct. 1 deadline. 

Congress rarely adheres to the president’s request entirely, and didn’t do so last year, rejecting many of the proposed cuts, including to health and education.

Last year’s process, the first of President Donald Trump’s second term, was considerably rocky, leading to a 43-day shutdown that began in October, a brief partial shutdown that ended in early February and an ongoing shutdown for the Department of Homeland Security. 

This budget request proposes Republicans again use the complex budget reconciliation process they used last year to enact the “big, beautiful” law to further bolster spending on the Pentagon and DHS. 

The Defense Department would have its budget raised to $1.5 trillion, a $445 billion increase over its current funding level. The administration proposes lawmakers put $1.1 trillion of that in the annual spending bill that would require bipartisan support to move through the Senate and place the other $350 billion in the partisan reconciliation bill. 

“America has already begun to strengthen and reinvigorate the military by committing tens of billions of dollars to new and innovative programs such as the Golden Dome for America, and making critical investments in the defense industrial base,” the document states. “By continuing to provide the resources necessary to rebuild America’s military, the Budget re-establishes deterrence, revives the warrior ethos of America’s Armed Forces, and prioritizes investments against the most acute national security threats.”

Department-by-department requests

The budget asks that lawmakers also increase spending on:  

• The Energy Department by $4.8 billion, or 10%, to $53.9 billion.
• The Justice Department by $4.7 billion, or 13%, to $40.8 billion.
• The Veterans’ Affairs Department by $11.5 billion, or 9%, to $144.9 billion in discretionary spending. 

The proposal asks Congress to decrease spending on: 

• The Agriculture Department by $4.9 billion, or 19%, to $20.8 billion.
• The Commerce Department by $1.3 billion, or 12.2%, to $9.2 billion. 
• The Education Department by $2.3 billion, or 2.9%, to $76.5 billion.
• The Environmental Protection Agency by $4.6 billion, or 52%, to $4.2 billion. 
• The Department of Health and Human Services by $15.8 billion, or 12.5%, to $111.1 billion. 
• The Department of Housing and Urban Development by $10.7 billion, or 13%, to $73.5 billion.
• The Interior Department by $2.3 billion, or 12.9%, to $15.9 billion. 
• The Labor Department by $3.5 billion, or 25.9%, to $9.9 billion.
• The Small Business Administration by $671 million, or 67%, to $329 million. 
• The State Department and other international programs by $15.5 billion, or 30%, to $35.6 billion.
• The Transportation Department by $1.6 billion, or 6.2%, to $26.6 billion.
• The Treasury Department by $1.5 billion, or 12%, to $11.5 billion. 

The budget proposes $63 billion in funding for the Department of Homeland Security, which doesn’t yet have its appropriations bill from the current year for comparison. 

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, said in a statement there are issues with some of its proposals for both defense and domestic spending. 

“While there are some improvements over last year’s domestic discretionary budget request, including full support for the Pell Grant program, the request has several shortcomings,” she said. “For example, the proposal includes unwarranted funding cuts in biomedical research. It would also terminate worthwhile programs like LIHEAP, which helps low-income families and seniors to pay their energy bills during the cold winter and hot summer months, and TRIO, which assists low-income, first-generation students in pursuing higher education.” 

Collins indicated she may bolster defense spending for a certain type of ship that she views as essential to the country’s military. 

“The request for just one DDG-51, the workhorse of the U.S. Navy, is insufficient to counter the ever-growing Chinese fleet, which now exceeds the size of the American Navy, as well as other global threats,” she said. 

Privatizing TSA screening

The president’s request asks lawmakers to cut funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s non-disaster grant program and to begin the process of offloading security screening at the nation’s airports. 

“The Budget begins the privatization of TSA’s airport screeners by requiring small airports to enroll in the Screening Partnership Program, under which TSA pays for private screeners at designated airports,” it states. “The airports that already use this program have demonstrated savings compared to Federal screening operations. The move would yield cost savings compared to Federal screening and begin reform of a troubled Federal agency.”

The budget asks Congress to provide an increase of $1.7 billion to the Bureau of Prisons to improve working conditions and pay, with $152 million of that going to the first year costs to “rebuild Alcatraz as a state-of-the-art secure prison facility.” The Bureau of Prisons has been evaluating whether to restore the closed California facility.

The budget proposes increases in funding for Trump’s efforts to improve the District of Columbia, including a $10 billion Presidential Capital Stewardship Program run through the National Park Service and $403 million for a new Transportation Department program to upgrade security in the Metro system and other local projects. 

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, which launched the Artemis II mission this week to orbit the moon, would receive a $5.6 billion, or 23%, cut under Trump’s budget proposal to a total funding level of $18.8 billion. 

It asks Congress to decrease funding for the International Space Station by $1.1 billion and “prioritizes the rapid development and deployment of commercial space stations, while also keeping the safe de-orbit of the ISS on track for 2030.” 

Dems reject ‘bleak’ budget

Washington Democratic Sen. Patty Murray, ranking member on the Appropriations Committee, wrote in a statement that the budget request was “bleak and unacceptable.”

“President Trump wants to slash medical research to fund costly foreign wars,” she wrote. “It doesn’t get more backward than that, and the only responsible thing to do with a budget this morally bankrupt is to toss it in the trash.”

Murray added that she expects Congress to pursue bipartisan spending bills, just as lawmakers did during last year’s process, including investments in domestic issues. 

“This week, President Trump said that our country cannot afford to help families with child care or health care—but his own budget proves what a ridiculous farce that is,” she said. “Imagine how many families we could help if, instead of giving the Pentagon more money than they can even figure out what to do with, we cut people’s heating bills in half and made child care affordable for every family in America.”

Senate Budget Committee ranking member Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., wrote in a statement the request lacks detail for programs that run outside of the annual budget and appropriations process, like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. 

“Going back decades, presidents have sent to Congress detailed budgets with 10 years’ worth of detailed plans – outlining their approach to tax policy and our growing debt, as well as the solvency of our biggest programs like Medicare and Social Security,” he wrote. “This budget doesn’t do any of that. It’s just an out-of-touch plea for more money for guns and bombs, and less for the things people need, like housing, health care, education, roads, scientific research, and environmental protection.”

Minnesota Democratic Rep. Betty McCollum, ranking member on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, said the Pentagon doesn’t have an issue with how much in taxpayer money lawmakers allocate, but “a problem with efficiently spending the funding that Congress has provided them – and accounting for it.”

“The President’s request for $1.15 trillion in defense spending is outrageous and unacceptable, especially when President Trump and Congressional Republicans intend to make further cuts to critical services that Americans rely on at home,” she said. “Our nation cannot be secure without investments in our country’s critical health care, education, nutrition, and infrastructure.”

WASHINGTON — A U.S. fighter jet went down over Iran Friday and one crew member has been rescued, according to several media reports. Iranian state media reported the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps was responsible.  

The attack marks the first time Iran has shot down U.S. military aircraft since the war’s start. Reuters and the New York Times have cited U.S. officials confirming the incident. Axios has cited two unnamed sources. Sources told news media the aircraft was an F-15.

Another U.S. combat plane went down into the Persian Gulf, near the Strait of Hormuz, and the single pilot was rescued, according to media reports citing U.S. officials. Whether the A-10 Warthog was downed by enemy fire is unclear. The crash occurred roughly around the same time that the F-15 was attacked.

The Pentagon has not responded to States Newsroom’s requests for confirmation of the reports.

A U.S. military search and rescue operation is reportedly underway, according to American officials cited in the Times report and Iranian state media. 

U.S. Central Command, which posts about the war every day on social media, had not posted information about the downed jet as of 5 p.m. Eastern.

President Donald Trump has not commented on the incidents. At 3:20 p.m. Eastern, he wrote on his social media platform, Truth Social, “KEEP THE OIL, ANYONE?”

The IRGC reportedly downed the jet, which Iranian media said was an F-35, over central Iran and the crew ejected from the plane, according to the Iranian Tasmin News Agency, citing IRGC officials. 

Tasmin also claimed U.S. Black Hawk helicopters and a C-130 Hercules aircraft were searching for the pilot. A Black Hawk was hit by fire during the rescue operation but was able to remain in flight and land in Iraq, according to the New York Times, citing U.S. and Israeli officials.

Trump vowed to hit Iran ‘extremely hard’

The apparent attack came two days after Trump delivered a formal primetime address telling the nation the U.S. objectives in Iran were “nearing completion” but that American forces would be hitting Iran “extremely hard” over the next two to three weeks.

The U.S. entered the joint war with Israel on Feb. 28, killing the country’s late Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and numerous other senior leaders. Khamenei’s son, Mojtaba Khamenei, has taken over as the Islamic state’s top cleric, according to Iran’s government, but he has not been seen in public.

The fighting continues to rock global energy markets after Iran’s takeover of the Strait of Hormuz, a major passageway for one-fifth of the world’s petroleum and liquid natural gas supply.

A gallon of gas in the U.S. now costs just above $4 on average, according to AAA, the highest since 2022, when Russia launched its full-scale war on Ukraine. Brent crude oil, the international standard, was trading at $109 a barrel as of Friday morning.

The war has taken thousands of civilian lives across the Middle East and injured tens of thousands more. Thirteen U.S. troops have been killed.

Energy and other civilian infrastructure has been badly damaged in Iran and across the region. Trump posted a video on Thursday on Truth Social of U.S. strikes destroying a major bridge connecting the country’s capital Tehran to Karaj. 

Trump has repeated several times over the past week that the U.S. will bomb Iran “back to the stone ages.”

Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates Maria Lazar and Chris Taylor tried to tag each other with accusations of partisanship during the sole debate in the campaign Thursday evening. 

After the initially scheduled debate last week was canceled because Taylor was hospitalized with a kidney stone — and another delay Thursday due to severe weather in the Milwaukee area — the debate, moderated by WISN’s Matt Smith and Gerron Jordan, was held at WISN’s studio in Milwaukee just five days before polls open April 7.

The candidates are vying for an open seat on the Court being vacated by conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley. After a string of high stakes races for the Court because the ideological swing of the body was up for grabs, this year’s race has drawn less attention and less money. This year the race will decide if the Court’s liberal wing will gain a 5-2 majority or if the split will remain 4-3. 

Through most of the campaign, Taylor has led in the polls and raised more money, however recent polling showed large swaths of the state’s voters remained undecided. 

Taylor, a judge on the state’s District IV Court of Appeals who previously worked on the Dane County Circuit Court, as a Democrat in the state Assembly and as the policy director of Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, painted herself as a “scrupulous” judge who is proud of her work in the Legislature but will bring an independent judicial record to the Supreme Court. 

“I am scrupulous in applying the law, and I have a spine of steel when it comes to making sure people’s rights and freedoms are protected,” Taylor said.

Lazar, a judge on the state’s District II Court of Appeals who worked on the Waukesha County Circuit Court and as an assistant attorney general at the Department of Justice under Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, touted her longer tenure as a judge and described herself as an independent jurist who has never belonged to a political party. 

“I guess when my opponent has a few more years of judicial experience, she’ll understand that being reversed is a part of being an independent judiciary,” Lazar said. 

Yet, as has been the case throughout the campaign, the candidates each tried to cast their opponent as a partisan extremist. 

Lazar repeatedly said that Taylor was answering questions as a legislator, not a judge. 

“On the one hand, you have a judge, an experienced judge who has been on the bench for more than 12 years, protecting the rights of everyone in the state,” Lazar said. “And on the other hand, you have a radical, extreme legislator who is known as the most liberal of the 99 in that Assembly, who now as a judicial activist, wants to put her views, her values and her agenda in the court above the law.” 

But Taylor pointed to cases in which Lazar sided with right-wing interest groups, endorsements from right-wing figures and her work before joining the bench to argue that Lazar is the more partisan figure. 

“She has a very specific agenda that favors big corporations and right-wing special interests,” Taylor said. 

The first clash of the night came over the state’s political maps and election law. Through much of the campaign, Taylor and her supporters have argued that if Lazar is elected she’ll be a vote on the Supreme Court in favor of potential Republican efforts to meddle with the state’s election results. 

Taylor pointed to Lazar’s previous support from election conspiracy theory figures such as Michael Gableman and her decision in Wisconsin Voter Alliance v. Secord, in which Lazar was criticized by the Supreme Court for ignoring existing precedent to rule that a group of election deniers should be given access to the confidential voting records of people with disabilities. She said that Lazar would be a “rubber stamp” for federal efforts to interfere in the state. 

In response, Lazar defended the state’s election system more forcefully than she had previously on the campaign trail. 

“I think it’s important that we tell people in the state of Wisconsin that our elections are safe, they’re fair and that their votes count, and that’s the key, important thing that we need to address in this state,” she said. 

The sharpest disagreement of the night came during a discussion of abortion. Last year, the Court struck down the state’s 1849 criminal abortion ban, which had halted abortion services in the state following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. Since the state Court’s decision, a previously instituted law banning abortion after 20 weeks has been the guiding law in the state. 

Lazar said that she thought the return of abortion policy decisions to the individual states was a good thing and that she believes the 20 week line is a good compromise for the divided Wisconsin electorate. 

“I think that it falls within the parameters of where people in the state believe it should be, and if they don’t, the answer is to go to the legislature and the governor, not the courts,” she said, accusing Taylor of supporting abortions up to birth. 

Taylor said Lazar’s support of overturning Roe v. Wade ignores the women across the country who have been harmed by losing access to abortion care. 

“So it is tragic that we have someone running for the state Supreme Court that is celebrating that there are women all over this country who are victims of rape and incest … losing access,” Taylor said. “That is what the reality of overturning Roe v. Wade, that you have called very wise. It’s not been very wise for victims of rape and incest who now live in states where abortion has been outlawed. It’s not very wise for women who have lost their lives in states because they couldn’t get help when a pregnancy went wrong.”

Lazar responded by again accusing Taylor of acting as a partisan. 

“This is exactly what we’ve been doing in this campaign,” she said. “It’s the same old political playbook. If you don’t have anything truthful to say about your opponent, then just lie and mislead.”

Early voting is open until Saturday. Polls open at 7 a.m. on Election Day, April 7. Details for poll locations and hours can be found at MyVote.WI.gov.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A large and diverse crowd packed a community center on Milwaukee’s  south side Thursday, calling for the release of Salah Sarsour, president of the Islamic Society of Milwaukee. Sarsour, who is of Palestinian descent, was detained by federal immigration agents Monday morning. His supporters are calling Sarsour’s arrest an targeted act of political retaliation designed to chill opposition to the Israeli government and support for the Palestinian people.

“This is a man who came to the United States and kind of lived the American dream,” Othman Atta, executive director of the Islamic Society of Milwaukee, told the audience of community members, press, activists, and local elected officials. “And they are trying to tarnish his image. They’re trying to target him.”

A green card holder and lawful permanent resident, Sarsour has lived in the United States for over 30 years. “The U.S. government fully vetted his visa application at that time,” Kathryn Brady, head of the Muslim Legal Fund of America’s Immigration Litigation Department, said in a statement Wednesday. Brady said that it’s difficult to believe that the federal government’s “position now is not rooted in a violation of his First Amendment right to speak about the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.”

Atta said that on Monday Sarsour stopped at an old warehouse on Milwaukee’s south side which he owned because mail kept arriving there. As he left, a car came on the wrong side of the street “flying toward him,” said Atta, forcing Sarsour to jump out of the way. The unmarked car stopped and a person allegedly in civilian clothes pointed a gun at Sarsour and asked who he was by name. 

Atta said 12 vehicles were involved in the arrest, and Sarsour was loaded into a van before being told he was being taken by federal immigration officers. 

Atta said that the story was relayed to Sarsour’s attorney Munjed Ahmad during a phone call in which Sarsour declared that he was a lion and willing to fight. Sarsour was transported to the Broadview Detention Center in Illinois before being quickly transferred to another facility in Indiana, Atta said.  

“This is America,” said Atta. “This is Trump’s America.” 

He described Sarsour as a husband, father, grandfather, and a successful business owner who has no criminal record or convictions. 

“According to the papers that were filed in immigration court, they went back to when he was a minor — a teenager — in the West Bank under Israeli occupation,” said Atta. 

When he was a teenager, Sarsour was arrested and detained by the Israeli police. “He served two years,” said Atta. “Many of you who know him know that his passion for Palestine, his passion for justice, was based on the experience he had and that his family and friends had. He would talk to us many times how for 80 straight days, he was interrogated, and brutalized, and tortured while he was in Israeli military custody.” 

Palestinians living both in the West Bank and the region of Gaza, which has suffered catastrophic damage and where tens of thousands of people have been killed during attacks by the Israeli government in the last two and a half years, have reported similar abuse. 

In 2024, the United Nations found that due process rights for Palestinians had been violated in the West Bank for nearly 60 years. Last year, charges were dropped against five Israeli soldiers accused of beating and sexually abusing a Palestinian prisoner in an assault that was captured in a video. A top legal official in the Israeli military admitted to approving the video’s release in an effort to show the world how the over 9,000 Palestinians detained by Israel are treated, the Associated Press reported. 

Al Jazeera reported that the bodies of Palestinians released as part of a ceasefire deal between Israel and militant factions of Hamas exhibited signs of torture including restraints and injuries still evident on the dead. 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said in a statement Thursday that Sarsour was convicted of throwing Molotov cocktails at the homes of Israeli armed forces.” In the statement, which repeatedly called Sarsour a “terrorist” and an “illegal alien from Jordan,” DHS charged that he “lied” on his green card application to enter the country in 1993 during the Clinton administration, and that his first attempts to apply for an immigrant visa at the American consulate in Jerusalem were rebuffed because of those allegations and others of “illegally attempting to possess” weapons and ammunition. 

Atta and Sarsour’s supportive community urged onlookers Thursday not to forget the reports about Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. 

Atta said that Sarsour was again detained by the Israeli government after returning in 1995, which is where the weapons allegations came from, and that the written charges were in Hebrew, “which he doesn’t read or understand.”

Sarsour’s son, Kareem, was joined by other members of his family Thursday. Over the last two days, the family has been “bombarded” with “thousands of messages from all the people who knew him saying what he meant to them as a father-figure, as a role model, as a beloved community member, it just tells you who he was,” said Kareem Sarsour. Kareem described his father as “always giving” and said that Sarsour had tried to give his children everything he couldn’t have when he lived in the West Bank. 

The crowd that assembled to support Sarsour and his family included many Muslim residents, local activists, and elected officials, with Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley and  Mayor Cavalier Johnson in the front row, and further back, Alds. JoCasta Zamarripa and Alex Brower. Christine Neumann-Oriz, executive director of Voces de la Frontera, was in the audience, and speakers from Jewish Voice for Peace joined Muslim and Christian faith leaders in denouncing Sarsour’s detention and calling for his release.

A flurry of Wisconsin lawmakers and local officials have condemned Sarsour’s arrest. Sen. Chris Larson (D-Milwaukee) said in a statement that the federal government was “increasingly fascist”  and called Sarsour “a vocal advocate for a free and independent Palestinian State.” 

“We have already seen numerous Muslim activists unfairly and unlawfully targeted by the Trump Administration for their beliefs and their speech,” Larson wrote. “These Unconstitutional assaults on our freedoms should alarm all of us. When any individual or group is targeted by the government for their speech, all of our freedoms are threatened.” 

Congresswoman Gwen Moore called Sarsour’s detention “completely unacceptable.” “Salah Sarsour is a respected leader in the Milwaukee community, and his detention raises serious concerns about the continued targeting of lawful residents based on the color of their skin or their political beliefs,” she said.

Rep. Ryan Clancy (D-Milwaukee) charged that Sarsour’s detention was an attack on free speech. “Until free expression and free speech are protected, not treated as a privilege of the Trump Administration’s loudest supporters, this openly fascist government should be neither trusted nor obeyed,” Clancy said in a statement. “We must abolish ICE and hold those responsible for these repeated acts of state violence accountable.” 

Statements supporting Sarsour were also put out by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Mandela Barnes for governor campaign, and the Milwaukee Area Labor Council Immigrant Rights Committee. 

Ahmad said that he’s “shocked” at how many communications he’s received from attorneys around the country on Sarsour’s case. “We have assembled a very capable legal team, that legal team continues to grow,” said Ahmad, declaring that they will work to free Sarsour. A hearing is scheduled on April 18. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

WASHINGTON — One year after President Donald Trump announced his now-illegal “Liberation Day” tariffs, he marked the anniversary by signing executive orders adjusting duties on pharmaceuticals and metals as Democratic critics slammed economic fallout from Trump’s trade policies.

Last April 2, Trump shocked American businesses and global markets when he declared a national emergency to impose a 10% tariff on goods from nearly every country, plus higher double-digit duties on imports from major U.S. trading partners. 

Investors lost trillions days after the announcement, and Trump began months of delays and on-again, off-again taxes on imports. 

In doing so, Trump raised the effective tariff rate on foreign goods to its highest point since the 1930s. Economists warned the average American household would end up losing up to a few thousand dollars in increased costs. 

After lawsuits from small business owners and Democratic state officials, the Supreme Court decided 6-3 in February that Trump’s unprecedented triggering of sweeping tariffs under the 1977 International Economic Emergency Powers Act exceeded presidential authority.

Since then, the White House has sought other legal routes to impose tariffs. Several, like duties on metals, are already in place under national security statutes, and have been since Trump’s first term. Almost immediately after the Supreme Court’s major blow, Trump announced a temporary base 10% tariff on all imports under section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.

On Thursday, Trump signed two executive orders changing the tariff calculation on imported steel, aluminum and copper, and slapping a whopping 100% tariff on pharmaceuticals made by transnational companies that decline to invest in manufacturing their drugs in the United States.

Both tariff adjustments are under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, a statute authorizing the president to impose trade restrictions in response to national security threats.

Dems stress affordability 

Democrats pounced on Trump’s “Liberation Day” anniversary ahead of the 2026 midterm elections that will determine control of Congress and will surely include affordability as a central issue.

On a press call organized by the Democratic National Committee, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries laid blame on Trump’s tariffs for increasing costs.

“We can thank the Trump tariffs for imposing thousands of dollars in additional costs on everyday Americans, small business owners and farmers throughout the country,” he said.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a statement that in one year, Trump “thrust the United States’ economy into chaos with sweeping tariff taxes on dozens of countries.”

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., described Trump’s trade policy as “manic.”

“Trump is taking money out of the pockets of families walking an economic tightrope, by slapping huge taxes on groceries and other essentials,” he said in a statement Thursday.

Several questions on the degree to which tariff costs have been passed on to consumers, and how much they have stymied growth and hiring, remain unanswered, according to a one-year analysis from the Yale Budget Lab.

Sen. Andy Kim, D-N.J., said during the virtual DNC press conference he met this week with business owners in his state and heard trepidation about their decisions moving forward.

“The thing that they just continue to hammer over and over again is just how uncertain this moment is, how much unpredictability that there is and that they cannot, you know, they cannot figure out how to invest further or try to grow their business,” Kim said, adding businesses need “immediate relief” after the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s emergency tariffs.

Kim is among two dozen Senate Democrats sponsoring a bill that would require the U.S. Customs and Border Protection commissioner to report to lawmakers every 30 days on the status of IEEPA tariff refunds.

States Newsroom has interviewed several business owners about the effects of tariffs and the prospect of being made whole by the government for the now illegal IEEPA tariffs they were charged.