The entrance to a Big Lots store in Portland with a SNAP eligibility sign. Up to 3,000 Oregonians who came to the U.S. as refugees, asylum seekers or through other humanitarian protection programs would lose access to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program under new federal rules challenged by Oregon and other states. (Stock photo by hapabapa/Getty Images)

The Wisconsin Assembly passed a bill that will ban Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients from being able to buy soda and candy with their benefits and will provide funding and positions to the state Department of Health Services to help preempt the state from being penalized by the federal government. 

Lawmakers also approved a bill aimed at having the state turn SNAP data over to the Trump administration.

Gov. Tony Evers and lawmakers have been discussing providing additional funding and positions to the state Department of Health Services to ensure the state keeps its payment error rate low, to avoid costly federal penalties enacted as part of a huge national tax cut and spending bill.

A SNAP provision in the federal tax and spending law signed by President Donald Trump last year would penalize states for having a payment error rate above 6%. The Evers administration has estimated a penalty due to the error rate could cost the state up to $205 million. Evers recently urged lawmakers in his State of the State address on Tuesday to provide money to the state agency to keep the error rate low and avoid potential penalties.

Lawmakers attached the money and positions to AB 180 in an amendment. The bill passed 71-22 with 23 Democrats joining Republicans in favor of the bill. 

The amendment included about $69 million and 70 positions for the agency to help ensure quality control of SNAP — also known as FoodShare in Wisconsin — and keep the error rate low.

When it comes to the candy and soda ban provisions, the Wisconsin DHA would need to submit a waiver to the federal government for approval to make the change to the program. 

Under the leadership of U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, the Trump administration has pushed for the ban across the country as a part of his “Make America Healthy Again” agenda. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has approved waivers for 18 states, including Idaho and Oklahoma, so far, and there are at least five states that are actively implementing the ban.

Rep. Ryan Clancy (D-Milwaukee) criticized the bill, saying it “has nothing to do with health,” mentioning he sees people drinking Diet Mountain Dew and other beverages in the Legislature’s chambers, and that the bill is merely “punishing people for poverty.” He also said it is “shameful” to use the candy and soda ban bill to move the money and positions forward. 

“I’m glad that with the amendment there are necessary dollars here that are coming to help our agencies provide dozens of staff members to push back on the onslaught from the Trump regime,” Clancy said. An amendment to the bill includes $3.5 million to help with development and administration of a food stamp platform that is meant to ensure grocery stores can follow the ban. 

Rep. Russell Goodwin (D-Milwaukee) said lawmakers shouldn’t be “policing check-out lanes” and that the bill will create a two-tiered system where poor families have their food choices restricted. 

Rep. Clint Moses (R-Menomonie) said that the bill would ensure that taxpayers are not paying the costs of people eating unhealthy foods. 

“The original intent… was to go down a path to start looking at what we’re feeding our children, what we’re feeding our families and what’s that doing to our families,” Moses said, adding that he has been interested in the issue long before the “Make America Healthy Again” movement. 

Moses said “the amount of money that we could lose from the federal government is astronomical” if the bill doesn’t become law.

Under the bill, candy is defined as “any solid, semi-solid, or molded preparation of sugar, sweeteners, whether natural or artificial, or chocolate, with or without added ingredients such as flavorings, fruit, nuts, or flour, that is commonly marketed, advertised, or recognized as candy, chocolate bar, chewing gum, or similar confectionery and includes chocolate bars, including chocolate bars containing flour, hard candies, gummies, caramels, taffy, licorice, mints, and chewing gum.” It does not include baked goods. 

Soda is defined as a “nonalcoholic beverage that contains natural or artificial sweeteners, including soda, pop, cola, energy drinks, sports drinks, or flavored water, or any product, regardless of its ingredients or labeling, that is marketed, labeled, or advertised as a soda, pop, cola, energy drink or energy supplement.” It does not include beverages that include milk or coffee or unsweetened tea.

A separate bill would require Wisconsin to compile and turn over data to the federal government on all Wisconsin FoodShare recipients since 2020 in accordance with a July letter from the federal Department of Agriculture. The Trump administration says it is seeking the data so it can investigate fraud and has threatened to cut off SNAP benefits to states that don’t comply. The Assembly passed the bill, AB 1027, in a 54-39 vote with Rep. Jodi Emerson (D-Eau Claire) joining Republicans in favor.

On behalf of Wisconsin, Attorney General Josh Kaul joined a lawsuit with 21 other states to block the order. A federal judge in California recently granted the request for a temporary restraining order.

Rep. Ryan Spaude (D-Ashwaubenon) accused his Republican colleagues of being “happy to take up the bidding of the Trump administration” with the passage of the bill. 

No Republicans spoke on the bill. 

Evers has expressed opposition to turning over the data, saying that Wisconsin’s system works. He told WISN 12 in December that the SNAP system is “analyzed every single year and we feel confident in it.” 

“We have people in the state of Wisconsin that need help making sure they’re having nutritious meals. We feel the program right now is working just fine,” he said. 

Both bills need to pass the Senate before they go to Evers.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

DNR Secretary Karen Hyun peers through the window after the Assembly passed one of two PFAS bills. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)

More than 30 months after Gov. Tony Evers signed the 2023-25 biennial budget into law, setting aside $125 million to help Wisconsin communities mitigate PFAS pollution in the state’s drinking water, the Wisconsin Assembly on Friday unanimously passed two bills to get the money out the door. 

This is the second time legislation to spend the money has reached this point after Evers vetoed a PFAS bill in 2024 over objections that the bill was too friendly to polluters. Since the money was set aside, the issue has been mired in partisan feuding. 

As the Assembly scrambled to finish its work by its self-imposed Friday deadline before lawmakers head home to campaign for reelection, negotiations over the specific language of the legislation pushed the vote, initially scheduled for Thursday, past 8:30 p.m. on Friday evening. 

The two bills were among the last pieces of legislation the Assembly voted on in normal session before adjourning. 

The bill establishes programs to spend the money through grants for private well owners and municipal drinking water systems, boosting the state’s testing capabilities and research into PFAS at Universities of Wisconsin institutions. 

Republicans, with the support of business groups, have been trying to craft legislation that protects “innocent landowners” from being held responsible for PFAS pollution while Democrats and environmental groups have argued the initial bill too widely defined “innocent,” letting polluters off the hook while weakening the state’s toxic spills law. 

The return of the bill this session was met with renewed optimism that a bipartisan agreement could be reached. However, after Republicans narrowed the definition of innocent landowners, business groups such as Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce and representatives of the state’s paper industry abandoned the effort, saying they couldn’t support the proposal anymore. 

Throughout the two and a half years of debate, residents of communities affected by PFAS pollution have continued to struggle, often calling for the Legislature to instead enact standards for the acceptable level of PFAS in the state’s groundwater — the source of drinking water for the hundreds of thousands of Wisconsinites with private wells. 

PFAS pollution has affected larger communities such as Madison and Wausau and small communities such as French Island near La Crosse and the town of Stella near Rhinelander. The class of man-made chemical compounds was widely used in certain kinds of firefighting foams and household goods such as nonstick pans and fast-food wrappers. PFAS have been connected to health problems such as developmental problems in children and certain types of cancer. 

On the floor of the Assembly Friday evening, with lawmakers desperate to hit the road, only three representatives spoke on the bill. 

Rep. Lori Palmeri (D-Oshkosh), a member of the environment committee that produced the bills, touted the measures as a “great compromise” despite late-night final revisions to the bill, while Rep. Jill Billings (D-La Crosse) recounted the “horrifying” struggles PFAS contamination has caused for her constituents on French Island. 

Rep. Jeff Mursau (R-Crivitz), one of the bill’s authors, said the bill is a “small step” toward fully solving the PFAS problem in the state but that the body was finally passing a bill that was the hardest to get across the finish line of his whole career in the Assembly. 

Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Oconto), one of the co-authors and lead negotiators on the PFAS legislation, celebrated the compromise that came from long negotiations with Evers and the Department of Natural Resources. 

“Today’s vote in the Assembly will bring a massive, multiyear effort to address PFAS contamination in Wisconsin even closer to fruition,” he said in a release sent before 6 p.m. Thursday, more than a day before the Assembly actually voted. “Wisconsinites across the state have suffered for far too long from PFAS polluting their land and water. Bill passage will put innocent communities and landowners on the best path forward to remediate PFAS while ensuring they are not punished or forced into bankruptcy over pollution they did not cause.”

In a week in which the Assembly broke through on a handful of issues that have long been mired in the Legislature’s partisan muck, Wimberger said the bipartisan compromise was notable. 

“Even a broken squirrel can find a clock twice a day,” he said.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

President Donald Trump delivers remarks during a working breakfast with governors in the State Dining Room at the White House on Feb. 20, 2026 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump told governors Friday during a meeting at the White House he has no plans to surge federal immigration operations in states where it’s not wanted. 

New York Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul said during an afternoon press conference with several other governors that Trump was asked during the closed-door meeting about what lessons he learned from immigration enforcement operations in Minnesota, where federal officers killed two U.S. citizens. 

“The president said, ‘We’ll only go where we’re wanted.’ And said, for example, ‘I won’t go to New York unless Kathy calls and says she wants me to come to New York,’” she said. “I took that as a very positive outcome from this meeting. And I would want to hold him and the administration to that statement.”

Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, vice chair of the National Governors Association, said Democratic governors were able to express “how problematic” actions by immigration enforcement officials have been, especially after Republicans in Congress drastically increased funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement as well as Customs and Border Protection in their signature tax and spending cuts law.  

“We were actually encouraged to hear the president say that one of the takeaways from Minnesota was that he only wants to go places that he is welcomed. So we were very glad to hear that,” he said. “I want to be very clear that until we can have an accountable agency, the type of surge that we saw in Minnesota is not welcome in the state of Maryland.”

Louisiana Republican Gov. Jeff Landry said during the press conference at the NGA’s winter conference there have been “no problems” with federal immigration enforcement actions in his state. 

“Why? Because it was a completely integrated operation under which local, state and federal partners worked together,” he said. “We did not allow people to break our laws and get in the way and impede law enforcement in doing their lawful duty.” 

Landry said Trump “made it very clear, if you don’t want our help, we won’t give you any help.”

Tariffs ruling interrupts meeting

Governors from throughout the country traveled to Washington, D.C., this week to attend their annual winter conference and meet with Trump at the White House, though that meeting was diverted somewhat after the Supreme Court ruled on tariffs. 

Trump is scheduled to host a black tie dinner for some of the governors this weekend, though he decided not to invite certain Democrats to that event, provoking controversy throughout the lead-up to the governors’ meeting. 

Oklahoma Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt, chairman of the National Governor’s Association, said during the afternoon press conference the morning meeting with Trump included 12 GOP and 10 Democratic governors. 

“It was overall a really productive meeting and a great show of ‘Hey, here is how the governors can come before the president and bring up issues that affect all of us,’” he said. 

Moore said the White House meeting was “productive” and “a chance for us to be able to share our thoughts and our perspectives and our ideas with the Cabinet secretaries and the agency heads and with the president himself.”

“We had a chance to talk about the things that matter to the people of our states. We had a chance to speak with Cabinet secretaries about energy prices and how we have to have a singular focus to bring energy prices down,” he said. “We had a chance to speak with the Transportation secretary about transportation issues. In the case of Maryland, it was the American Legion Bridge and the Francis Scott Key Bridge.”

Moore added the meeting was an important opportunity to “speak truth to power” and show that bipartisanship still exists on certain issues.

Sewage spill, Gateway Tunnel 

Moore said he didn’t bring up Trump blaming him for a sewage spill that began with a discharge into the Potomac River in the District of Columbia, opting instead to use the meeting to focus on talking with Cabinet secretaries on infrastructure, natural disaster relief and housing. 

“I am here to focus on helping the people of my state,” he said. “I am not going to spend a second talking about a petty attack that the president of the United States had.”

Hochul said she appreciated the Cabinet secretaries were at the meeting and that governors were able to talk with them about several issues. 

“I was able to talk about the Gateway Tunnel and keeping the funding on for the largest infrastructure project in America today,” she said, referring to a project to build new rail track between New York and New Jersey under the Hudson River. “We’d like to keep our offshore wind on and not have to go to court constantly to get that turned back on.”

North Carolina Democratic Gov. Josh Stein said he was able to speak directly with Trump about the state’s ongoing recovery needs from Hurricane Helene.

“We’ve got to rebuild houses. We’ve got to rebuild roads and bridges. We’ve got to rebuild businesses. And we cannot do that in North Carolina without the partnership of the federal government,” he said. “We have a $13.5 billion request with (the Office of Management and Budget) and with the Congress. And I asked the president and he said that they are eager to talk about that. 

“So I came away very encouraged that he will bring renewed focus from this administration to help western North Carolina recover from Hurricane Helene.”

Landry said the Supreme Court’s ruling on tariffs, which was released during the meeting, “completely overshadowed, which, in my opinion, was getting ready to be a very productive meeting with the president.”

“It was unfortunate that the Supreme Court came out with a bad ruling at that time because I think we were going to have a great meeting,” he said. 

Trump vowed to keep the tariffs in place under other authorities he believes he holds during an afternoon press conference at the White House, where he also rebuked the six Supreme Court justices who wrote “that (the International Economic Emergency Powers Act) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.” 

Hochul disagreed with the assertion the Supreme Court’s decision wasn’t the right one. 

“I think the Supreme Court, many of whom are appointees by the president, sided with supporting the Constitution and doing what’s right,” she said. “So we support this decision and hope that we can continue to find ways to work together to drive down costs, not do the opposite as we saw tariffs do in our states.”

The state Assembly passed a bill to eliminate the school revenue limit increases that are the result of Gov. Tony Evers’ 400-year veto. Evers signing the 2023 state budget which included the 400-year veto. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

During its final planned floor session this week, the Wisconsin State Assembly passed a constitutional amendment proposal that would limit the executive partial veto power and a bill to eliminate the school revenue limit increases that are the result of Gov. Tony Evers’ 400-year veto. 

Assembly Minority Leader Greta Neubauer (D-Racine) said it was the “wrong decision” for lawmakers to finish their work in February and “take quite a long vacation.” 

“There is a lot left on the table for us to address but we all know that an arbitrary deadline has been set for us to go home,” Neubauer said. “Thankfully, it does seem like the tide is turning in this body and one day things will be different and operate under a different framework that is focused on people rather than politics and power.” 

Neubauer mentioned the passage of the postpartum Medicaid extension bill and the breast cancer screening bills that are now on their way to Gov. Tony Evers. 

The session wrap-up will free Assembly lawmakers up to campaign for reelection, and the body could look much different next session as some longtime lawmakers, including Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester), are retiring. Under newly competitive maps, the balance of power in both the Assembly and Senate is up for grabs.

“We have a lot left to accomplish this session. There is still time for us to act on funding our public schools, protecting our rights and freedoms, lowering costs and helping Wisconsinites make ends meet,” Neubauer said. “This is the moment to act boldly and do the right thing for the people of Wisconsin.” 

Vos told WISN-12 on Friday that leaders and Gov. Tony Evers had not yet reached a deal on how to use the state’s projected $2.5 budget surplus. The leaders have been negotiating on ways to ease property taxes and provide funding to schools.

“We’re going to figure a way to get it done,” Vos said, adding that he wants the money to “go back to the people” while Evers wants additional investments. “The middle ground is a little of each.”

“We’ll probably have to come back in a special session or extraordinary session, something like that,” he said. 

Lawmakers passed proposals that were introduced in reaction to the veto as well as bills to ban phones in school, regulate app and social media companies and to provide state money towards “Trump accounts.” 

Fight over partial veto

The Assembly passed two proposals that took aim at the partial veto Evers used when he signed the 2023 state budget that extended an annual $325 per-pupil school revenue limit increase for 400 years. Evers, who recently defended the veto in his State of the State address, said he wanted to provide school districts with a consistent way to raise revenue in the absence of reliable state funding increases. 

The Assembly also approved in a 54-41 vote along party lines a third constitutional amendment to go before voters later this year. 

The amendments will go before Wisconsin voters in November. Two others, including one to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs from state and local governments and one to prohibit the state from ordering the closure of places of worship during a state of emergency, passed the state Legislature earlier this year. 

Constitutional amendment proposals have to pass the state Legislature in two consecutive legislative sessions before they go to voters. If approved, SJR 116 would prohibit partial vetoes from raising or creating any taxes or fees. 

Rep. Amanda Nedweski (R-Pleasant Prairie) introduced the amendment proposal  after Evers’ veto. 

“You never know for sure who’s going to be the next governor,” Nedweski said on the Assembly floor Thursday. “Choose wisely on this.” 

The Assembly also concurred in a bill that would outright eliminate the annual $325 per pupil revenue limit increases that are the result of the partial veto. The vote on SB 389 was 54-40 and it sends the bill to Evers, who is likely to veto it. 

Despite its likely rejection, Republican lawmakers still made the case for why Evers should sign the bill into law.

Rep. Karen Hurd (R-Withee) read a letter from superintendents on the professional advisory committee for the Cooperative Educational Service Agency 10, which serves parts of northwestern Wisconsin, urging Evers to reverse his veto. They argued in part that  $325 per pupil is not an increase that allows schools to keep pace with the rate of inflation, doesn’t fix chronic underfunding of special education funding and puts it all on property taxpayers.

The superintendents said that they thought the veto could impede reform of school funding in Wisconsin. 

The veto doesn’t stop lawmakers from being able to put more state funding into schools, but Republican lawmakers have refused to do so. During the state budget process, Republican lawmakers angered by the veto opted not to provide any increase in general school aid in the 2025-26 or 2026-27 fiscal years. School advocates said the decision would only further exacerbate the funding issues they face, especially since their decision on whether to use the additional $325 increase would rely only on property tax increases. 

“Every year we put together a budget, a budget that has to be sustainable. There may be a year that we could put more aid into schools than $325 per student. We have to look at that each year,” Hurd said. “We are people that are trying to fund the schools in every way that we can, but when it is set at $325 per year for the next 400 years, then that opportunity for us to work within the budget and increase it has been ripped away.”

Democrats said that before taking away authority from schools, lawmakers should consider improving the state’s system for funding schools. Rep. Christian Phelps (D-Eau Claire) said that the annual school revenue limit increase is the “only predictable source of revenue” for  Wisconsin public schools.

“We should not close public schools,” he said, alluding to Republican lawmakers who have proposed consolidating school districts as a way of helping with funding challenges. “We should fund them.”

Rep. Angelina Cruz (D-Racine) said the GOP bill does not answer the question of how to fund schools and provide relief to property taxpayers

“The answer is to reconnect school funding to inflation. The answer is to increase state aid so local property taxes are not the backstop. The answer is to modernize the formula to reflect demographic realities. The answer is to fulfill our constitutional obligation to fully fund public schools,” Cruz said. 

AB 460 would allow siblings of students in the state’s school voucher program to qualify for participation even if their family no longer meets the family income requirements. It passed on a voice vote. It now goes to the state Senate.

“I’m not going to do anything that further exacerbates the zeroing out of the state’s resources on public schools or expands privatization on the Wisconsin taxpayers dime, particularly Wisconsin property taxpayers dime,” Phelps said. “Unfortunately, this bill proposes removing income caps  on the students that Wisconsin property taxpayers would be funding to attend private schools.”

Cell phone ban, online regulations

AB 948 would require school districts to adopt policies that prohibit the use of cell phones for the entire school days, taking a step further than the recent law signed by Evers that bans phones during class. It passed via voice vote and will now go to the Senate.

Rep. Alex Joers (D-Waunakee) said he would support the bill but thought it was the “easy way out,” saying he wasn’t sure with advancing technologies in the future that to “blanketly ban things” would be an effective solution.

Rep. Alex Penterman (R-Hustisford), who has worked as a substitute teacher, said students in middle and high school can become a “social piranha” if they don’t have the latest smartphone. 

Rep. Lindee Brill (R-Sheboygan Falls) said the bill would encourage students to engage with each other and bring back “loud lunches” where “kids aren’t on the phones but instead negotiations are happening between peanut butter and jelly and grilled cheese and not Snapchat. We need to go back to kids making their after school plans while they’re eating their lunches instead of bullying each other online.”

Goeben said her bills would support the “God-given constitutional right of parents to protect and guide their children, not tech platforms.” 

The Assembly also passed a set of bills meant to put regulations on apps and social media companies that are intended to give parents more oversight over their children’s activity.

Rep. Joy Goeben (R-Hobart) said the bills were aimed at protecting children in “digital world that was not built with their safety in mind.”

“We’re living in an age of online predatory behavior, instant access and algorithm driven exposure. Children are encountering explicit material at younger and younger ages and many parents feel that they are fighting a losing battle.” 

“We cannot pretend that warning labels will solve every problem but we can insist on honesty and accountability from those who profit from this content.” 

AB 961 passed 61-34. It would would require digital distributors of media to display prominent “explicit content” warning labels on material that “predominantly appeals to the prurient, shameful, or morbid interest of children,” “is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable for children” and “lacks serious literary, artistic, political, scientific or educational value for children.” 

The bill calls for the warning label to be displayed on the front page of digital platforms, the label would need to appear for at least 10 seconds or until a user acknowledges the warning.

AB 962 passed 58-37. It would require app developers and app stores to verify the age of users and get parental consent before children are able to download or purchase apps or make in-store purchases. Accounts belonging to a minor would have to be affiliated with an account owned by a parent.

AB 963 passed 60-35. It would require social media platforms that bring in more than $1 billion in revenue per year to take several steps, including estimating the age of users and for minors,  setting their privacy to the most private settings, turning off addictive features and prohibiting profile-based, paid commercial advertising in their feeds. 

Trump accounts

The Assembly also approved bills to provide state funds to the “Trump accounts” program. 

The federal tax and spending bill signed into law by President Donald Trump last year included a measure to allow parents to create dedicated “Trump accounts” similar to IRA accounts, for their children. Parents of babies born between Jan. 1, 2025 through the end of 2028 and who are U.S. citizens with a valid Social Security number will be eligible to have $1,000 deposited in the account from the federal government. 

AB 996 would provide a state match for the accounts. AB 997 includes the $60 million in annual funding for the 2025-27 budget cycle for proposal. Both passed 62-35 with eight Democrats joining Republicans in favor.

“People are not saving at the right pace for retirement,” said the author of both bills, Rep. Elijah Behnke (R- Town of Chase). “The reason this is the best possible policy is because you’re investing in your kids’ future.” 

Joers said the money should be invested in other priorities that could help children and parents more and expressed concerns about the federal program not being up and running yet.

“I think that we need to do a lot better for our kids and our parents,” Joers said. “This bill takes money that we should be giving to our children and our parents right now and instead takes it and gives it to a federal program that has not even been set up yet. I know the president wandered around stage with Nicki Minaj, but this program has not started yet.” 

“Kids need this money now, not 18 years from now. They need it now in their schools they need this money. Let’s keep the promise that we made in our budget to fund special education reimbursement.”

“Immoral conduct” investigations

The Assembly also approved two additional bills that were introduced after an investigation by the CapTimes that found there were over 200 investigations into teacher licenses due to allegations of sexual misconduct or grooming from 2018 to 2023. 

The bills seek to provide new rules on how “immoral conduct” investigations are conducted.

AB 1003, which passed on a voice vote, would prohibit the Department of Public Instruction from ending an investigation into a license holder accused of immoral conduct without a determination on whether there should be a license revocation or termination. The prohibition wouldn’t apply if a licensee permanently surrenders the licenses and waives their rights to a future appeal. 

AB 1004, which passed 87-8, 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. 

Other bills on the issue that have passed the Assembly or Senate include one to create a “grooming” crime in Wisconsin, one to ensure school districts have policies on appropriate communications and one to require DPI to maintain an online licensing portal that is searchable by the public at no cost. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

President Donald Trump speaks during a press briefing at the White House Feb. 20, 2026 in Washington, D.C., after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against his use of emergency powers to implement international trade tariffs. Also pictured on stage, left to right, are Solicitor General John Sauer and Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump said Friday he plans to keep tariffs in place using different authorities after the Supreme Court ruled he exceeded his power under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act. 

During the afternoon press conference in the White House briefing room, Trump repeatedly criticized the six justices who wrote “that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.” 

“The Supreme Court’s ruling on tariffs is deeply disappointing and I’m ashamed of certain members of the Court, absolutely ashamed, for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country,” he said. 

Trump’s disdain of Chief Justice John Roberts as well as Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor did not stop there. 

He said the justices’ opposition to his tariff policies meant they were a “disgrace to our nation” as well as “unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution.”

Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh wrote dissenting opinions. Justice Samuel Alito and Thomas joined Kavanaugh’s dissent.

Trump appointed Barrett, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh during his first term.

But, Trump said, the ruling would not change the tariffs he has implemented under IEEPA since he planned to institute the same tax on goods coming into the country under different laws. 

“The good news is that there are methods, practices, statutes and authorities as recognized by the entire Court in this terrible decision, and also as recognized by Congress, which they refer to, that are even stronger than the IEEPA tariffs available to me as president of the United States,” he said. 

Trump said he would sign an order later in the day to “impose a 10% global tariff under Section 122, over and above our normal tariffs already being charged.”

Trump didn’t commit to returning the tens of billions of dollars the U.S. government has collected from IEEPA tariffs, saying the ruling didn’t address that issue. 

“They take months and months to write an opinion, and they don’t even discuss that point,” Trump said. “I guess it has to get litigated for the next two years.”

Trump said he didn’t plan to ask Congress to pass any new laws or give the president broader tariff authority. 

“I don’t have to. I have the right to do tariffs. And I’ve always had the right to do tariffs. It has all been approved by Congress, so there’s no reason to do it,” he said. “All we’re doing is we’re going through a little bit more complicated process, not complicated very much, but a little more complicated than what we had. And we’ll be able to take in more tariffs.” 

Trump is set to address a joint session of Congress, which will likely be attended by many, if not all, of the Supreme Court justices, on Tuesday night. 

Trump said he “couldn’t care less” whether the justices attend the speech, which is held in the House chamber. He said they are “barely” still invited, even though the president, who leads the executive branch, doesn’t hold the authority to exclude guests from either chamber of Congress, which makes up the separate but equal legislative branch.  

Justices can, however, choose not to attend. 

The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 9, 2024. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a major blow to President Donald Trump’s trade agenda Friday, ruling the tariffs he issued under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act are illegal.

In a 6-3 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court said Congress alone holds the power to tax in almost all circumstances. The Trump administration’s argument that trade deficits and illegal drug imports granted it emergency power to levy tariffs was not justified, the court said. Tariffs are taxes on imported goods.

The Trump administration had argued that a provision in the law, known as IEEPA, that said the executive branch could “regulate” imports empowered the president to levy tariffs.

“Based on two words separated by 16 others (in the law)—‘regulate’ and ‘importation’—the President asserts the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time,” Roberts wrote. “Those words cannot bear such weight.”

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined Roberts’ opinion. 

Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh filed dissenting opinions. Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito joined Kavanaugh’s.

Kavanaugh’s dissent accepted the administration’s reading of the law and said it was not the justices’ role to decide a policy matter that has “generated vigorous” debate. 

“The sole legal question here is whether, under IEEPA, tariffs are a means to ‘regulate . . . importation,’” he wrote. “Statutory text, history, and precedent demonstrate that the answer is clearly yes: Like quotas and embargoes, tariffs are a traditional and common tool to regulate importation.”

New tariffs

Trump blasted the ruling at an afternoon press conference. Asked if he regretted nominating Gorsuch and Barrett, he said the decision was “an embarrassment to their families.”

He said the judges were “being politically correct” and catering to special interests rather than fairly interpreting the law.

He also said he would impose global 10% tariffs under a provision of the Trade Act of 1974, which  allows the president to unilaterally apply tariffs for up to 150 days.

“Today, I will sign an order to impose a 10% global tariff under Section 122 over and above our normal tariffs already being charged,” he said.

Tariffs were an important tool to balance the country’s trade and hold leverage over other countries, he said. 

‘Unchecked’ presidential authority

In the opinion of the court, Roberts wrote that Trump’s expansive use of the emergency tariff powers would upend the balance of powers between branches of government.

The administration’s position would empower the president “to unilaterally impose unbounded tariffs,” simply by declaring an economic emergency, Roberts wrote. Further, that declaration would be unreviewable and could be overturned only by a veto-proof majority in both houses of Congress.

That view “would replace the longstanding executive-legislative collaboration over trade policy with unchecked Presidential policymaking,” he wrote.

When Congress intends to convey that kind of power to the executive branch, it generally does so in uncertain terms, Roberts said.

“In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it,” he wrote. 

The government’s argument that IEEPA authorized that power, “falls short,” the opinion said. 

The chief justice added that it was telling that in the nearly 50 years since the IEEPA became law, no other president has read such broad powers into it.

What to do about the taxes that were collected?

The ruling opens a new debate about how to handle tariff revenue that the government has already collected since Trump first imposed the IEEPA tariffs a year ago.

Kavanaugh noted the likely confusion the issue would cause.

“The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers,” he wrote. “But that process is likely to be a ‘mess,’ as was acknowledged at oral argument.”

U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat and prominent economic liberal, said that revenue should be sent to small businesses that were harmed by the imposition of tariffs.

“Any refunds from the federal government should end up in the pockets of the millions of Americans and small businesses that were illegally cheated out of their hard-earned money by Donald Trump,” she wrote in a statement.

Main Street Alliance, a national trade group representing small businesses, called for the revenue collected under the tariffs to be returned to small businesses.

“If the authority was unlawful, the collections were unlawful,” Executive Director Richard Trent said in a statement. “Every penny taken from small businesses under this framework should be returned.”

Attention turns to Congress

With the court ruling that taxing power lies with Congress, efforts to codify the tariffs Trump had applied could become a priority for Republican lawmakers.

“No one can deny that the President’s use of tariffs has brought in billions of dollars and created immense leverage for America’s trade strategy and for securing strong, reciprocal America-first trade agreements with countries that had been taking advantage of American workers for decades,” House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, wrote on social media. “Congress and the Administration will determine the best path forward in the coming weeks.”

Adrian Smith, a Nebraska Republican who chairs the House Ways and Means Committee’s subpanel on trade, said Congress should work with the president to legislate tariffs.

“Nebraska’s farmers, ranchers, and manufacturers create world-leading products and deserve reliable access to global markets,” he said. “I am committed to working with the administration to deliver long-term certainty through comprehensive and enforceable trade agreements. The President has made clear his intention to use every available tool to secure strong deals, but only Congress can ensure that these agreements provide lasting stability beyond any single administration.”

Ohio Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno, though, said in a social media post that the ruling would severely hamper efforts to rebalance trade, and called for Congress to codify the tariffs.

“SCOTUS’s outrageous ruling handcuffs our fight against unfair trade that has devastated American workers for decades,” he wrote. “These tariffs protected jobs, revived manufacturing, and forced cheaters like China to pay up. Now globalists win, factories (sic) investments may reverse, and American workers lose again. This betrayal must be reversed and Republicans must get to work immediately on a reconciliation bill to codify the tariffs that had made our country the hottest country on earth!”

Democratic lawmakers praised the court’s decision, while blasting the tariffs as a matter of policy.

“This is a win for the wallets of every American consumer,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said. “Trump’s chaotic and illegal tariff tax made life more expensive and our economy more unstable. Families paid more. Small businesses and farmers got squeezed. Markets swung wildly. We’ve said from day one: a president cannot ignore Congress and unilaterally slap tariffs on Americans. That overreach failed.”

Sen. Jeff Merkley, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, called the decision “a win for farmers, small businesses, and hardworking, middle-class families across the country,” he said in a statement. 

“Trump’s illegal and chaotic tariffs have harmed American consumers and businesses, leaving them to foot the bill for rising prices due to Trumpflation,” the Oregon Democrat added. “While Trump continues his ‘families lose, billionaires win’ agenda, we’re using every tool at our disposal to fight back against his reckless policies and build an economy where families thrive, and billionaires pay their fair share.”

Arguments were heard in November

The justices heard arguments in early November in what was the first major case of the second Trump term to move beyond the court’s emergency docket and be heard on the merits of the case.

Small businesses and Democratic state attorneys general led the legal challenges against Trump’s tariffs in the two separate cases, consolidated before the Supreme Court. They alleged Trump usurped taxing power, which belongs to Congress as outlined in Article I of the Constitution.

Victor Schwartz, founder and president of the family-owned, New York-based wine and spirits importer VOS Selections led the small business plaintiffs, which included a Utah-based plastics producer, a Virginia-based children’s electricity learning kit maker, a Pennsylvania-based fishing gear company and a Vermont-based women’s cycling apparel company.

State attorneys general who sued included those from Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico and Oregon.

Two Illinois-based toy makers that primarily manufacture products in Asia filed a separate challenge.

For nearly three hours on Nov. 5, the justices dissected the language of IEEPA, a 1970s-era sanctions law that Trump invoked during the first year of his term in a series of emergency declarations and proclamations triggering import taxes on goods from nearly every country.

The high-profile case drew Cabinet officials to the court, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who sat shoulder-to-shoulder with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. 

Members of Congress also attended. Among the crowded rows were U.S. House Ways and Means Chairman Jason Smith, R-Mo., Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Democratic Sens. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Ed Markey of Massachusetts.

‘Liberation day’

Trump began imposing tariffs under IEEPA via executive order in February and March on products from China, Canada and Mexico, declaring the countries responsible for illegal fentanyl smuggled into the United States.

The president escalated the emergency tariffs April 2, which he dubbed “liberation day,” when he declared trade imbalances a national emergency. In addition to a new baseline 10% global tariff, Trump announced hefty additional duties on products from countries that export more goods to the U.S. than they import from U.S. suppliers.

The White House calculations baffled economists, as the administration proposed steep duties on close trading partners — including 20% on products from the European Union, 25% on South Korea, 32% on Taiwan and 46% on Vietnam. 

Inexplicably he also announced a 50% tariffs on goods from the landlocked, 11,000-square-mile African nation of Lesotho, and 10% on the Heard and McDonald Islands, only inhabited by penguins and seals.

Trump’s announcement crashed markets, wiping trillions of dollars away in just a matter of days. He relented and delayed most of the tariffs, but escalated a trade war with China — shooting up the levy to 125%, and eventually to 145%.

The administration’s trade war with China cooled a bit in May, but left the rate on some products at an effective 55%.

Trump maintains his tariffs have forced the hand of other governments to invest in the U.S. in exchange for lower tariffs. For example, Trump officials claimed victory in a framework deal with Japan that lowered duties on Japanese products to 15%, from 25%, with a promise from Japan to invest $550 billion in the U.S.

As recently as late August, Trump imposed an extra 25% tariff on goods imported from India, bringing the total tariffs on Indian products to 50%, because of the country’s usage of Russian oil. 

In early August, Trump slapped a 40% tax on all Brazilian goods after he disagreed with the country’s prosecution of its former right-wing President Jair Bolsonaro for plotting a coup to remain in power in 2022.

Republican lawmakers watch Gov. Tony Evers’ final State of the State address, shaking their heads, making side comments and pulling their phones out during portions of the speech. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Before Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) announced his retirement Thursday, it was obvious something had changed. The longest serving speaker in Wisconsin history, known for keeping Assembly Republicans on a tight leash, slipped out of a caucus meeting late Wednesday night. Capitol reporter Baylor Spears tracked him down at a fundraiser at the Madison Club, where, she reported, Vos told her his caucus was meeting without him. Later that evening, Assembly Republicans announced that Vos had suddenly dropped his yearslong opposition to letting Wisconsin expand postpartum Medicaid coverage for new mothers for one year. Vos’ last-minute change of heart allowed eight Republicans facing competitive reelection races to hold a late-night press conference proclaiming the news that they planned to pass postpartum coverage, along with another measure extending life-saving breast-cancer screenings that Vos was suddenly permitting to come up for a vote. Vos himself didn’t bother to attend. 

With both Vos and Gov. Tony Evers retiring, the two most powerful politicians in the state — and the often dysfunctional dynamic between them — are going away. It’s the end of an era characterized by toxic partisanship, although probably not the last we’ll see of divided government in our 50/50 state. 

Still, as Vos relaxes his grip, Wisconsin Republicans are starting to wrap their heads around the new reality that they no longer hold complete control over what was once, effectively, a one-party state. 

New, fairer voting maps have already eroded gerrymandered GOP supermajorities in the Legislature that previously endured even when Democrats won every statewide race. In the upcoming November elections, the new maps will, for the first time, take full effect.

The creation of more competitive districts has not immediately ushered in an atmosphere of productive bipartisanship in the Capitol. But it did cause enough of a thaw that Wisconsin could finally join the other 48 states that have already expanded postpartum Medicaid. Republicans running in newly competitive districts can campaign on this bit of belated progress. Two cheers for Wisconsin! We’re 49th!

At the Vos-less press conference Wednesday night, Republicans gave emotional testimony about “the women who need this protection.” They thanked the speaker for finally listening to their pleas. Then, instead of reaching across the aisle, they delivered a scorching rebuke to Democrats who had been pushing for months for a vote on both of the women’s health bills they were celebrating. When the bills were not scheduled, Democrats vowed to bring them up as amendments to other bills, holding up action on the floor and threatening to put their GOP colleagues in the embarrassing position of having to vote down their efforts.

“I’m very angry at what happened today — very angry,” Rep. Patrick Snyder (R-Weston) said. “I talked to my Democratic colleagues and told them that I was close, that it was going to get done, but then they throw this crap at us today. It almost blew it up.”

By speaking up, Democrats nearly ruined Republicans’ efforts to gain support within their own caucus, according to Snyder. That analysis caused Democratic Minority Leader Greta Neubauer to roll her eyes. “It seems that the bills are going to the floor after years of Rep. Pat Snyder telling us that these bills were going to be passed and them not being passed, so it does seem like our actions made a difference today,” Neubauer said. 

Partisan habits die hard. For much of the most recent legislative session, Republicans formed a Sorehead Caucus whose sole aims were rehashing grievances about their loss of power and trying in vain to recreate the dominance they enjoyed when they controlled every branch of government. 

Back in 2018, when Evers won the first time, breaking the GOP stranglehold by beating former Republican Gov. Scott Walker, Republicans held a lame duck session to claw back the incoming governor’s powers. Eight years later, as Evers is about to leave office at the end of his second term, they’re still at it. Motivated by spite over Evers’ line-item veto extending their modest, two-year increase in school revenue limits for the next 400 years, they have insisted on starving school districts of state funds, punishing not only Wisconsin schoolchildren but also the property taxpayers who, in the absence of state funding, are forced to pick up the tab. 

In a similarly spiteful vein, Republicans just killed off the popular, bipartisan Knowles Nelson stewardship program, setting up the 36-year-old land conservation effort to die this summer. Over and over in hearings on whether to renew the program or drastically cut it back, Republicans cited a state Supreme Court decision that held they cannot anonymously veto individual conservation projects. GOP legislators said the decision — written by the most conservative justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court — left them no option but to gut the program just to show who’s boss. 

As Henry Redman reports, a handful of conservation-minded Republicans could have joined forces with Democrats to save the program, but Republican bill authors insisted on negotiating only within their own caucus, ignoring Democratic efforts to make a deal and instead trying to please the program’s far-right enemies by making deeper and deeper cuts before finally giving up and letting the program lapse.

This style of governing — a hangover from the Walker era — might satisfy certain politicians’ hunger for power, but it’s ill-suited to getting anything productive done for the people who live in the state.

Let’s hope Vos’ departure marks the end of the petty partisanship that has blocked progress in Wisconsin for far too long.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The return of the sandhill crane to Wisconsin is a conservation success, but now the state needs to manage the population and the crop damage the birds can cause. (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources)

Republicans in the Legislature have been working for years to pass legislation that would allow sandhill cranes to be hunted in Wisconsin. GOP lawmakers have introduced several bills on the issue. 

A 2024 legislative study committee assessed ways in which lawmakers could help manage crop damage caused by the birds as well as how to manage a crane hunt. But after introducing a package, they amended it down to just a crane hunt measure. 

GOP lawmakers have spent a few weeks working to pass legislation that would add some regulations on the use of high powered wake boats on the state’s water bodies. The boats have drawn ire from lakeshore residents across the state because of the large waves they create, which can damage shorelines. People also often bring the boats to several different boats, which raises the risk of spreading invasive species in the boat’s ballast. 

Both bills have drawn criticism from members of the public. Environmental and wildlife advocates have questioned the crane bill’s lack of crop damage provisions and complained that Republicans are pushing through a hunt without fully understanding current science. 

The wake boat bill has drawn complaints that it is too friendly to the wealthy wake boat owners and weakens local authority to establish more stringent wake boating rules. 

On Thursday, when the Republican-authored wake boat bill introduced just 10 days earlier came up for a vote on the Assembly floor, GOP members  offered an amendment that jammed in the Republican-authored crane hunt proposal. 

Democrats objected to the last minute combination, with Reps. Angela Stroud (D-Ashland) and Vincent Miresse (D-Stevents Point) calling it “bad governance.” 

“I’m quickly trying to read the amendment to see which of the bills this is, is it the one from the study committee that a bipartisan committee put together, or is it the one that was totally butchered in the Senate, and I don’t have time to read through it, because this is just bad governance,” Stroud said. “I’m going to be a no because these are two different bills completely. But I just want to point out, as I probably just said, that this is not what the people from Wisconsin expect us to be doing when we’re voting on things that deeply affect them.” 

Miresse said the passage of the wake boat bill prioritizes the input of wealthy boat owners and was rushed at the expense of “the vast majority of stakeholders” who were “united against this bill.”

Rep. Shae Sortwell (R-Two Rivers) said it only makes sense to combine the bills because cranes live in marshy areas. 

“I know that it’s common on that side of the aisle to get confused when we’re trying to do good government here, but let me walk them through the germaneness of how these are two very relevant and important things to have together,” he said. “For those who aren’t aware, Sandhill Cranes like to nest near water lines. They like to be in marshy areas. You know, where we often find marshy areas around? Lake shores. You know what’s a great way to protect our lake shores, keeping those high speed, high wake boats away from those shorelines.”

The vote on the combined bill caused further controversy when Republicans moved ahead with a voice vote while Democrats tried to call for a roll call vote. The spat froze the work of the Assembly while every Democrat lined up to record the vote against the combined legislation, which has now been sent to the Senate. 

Hours later, when the standalone Republican bill to establish a sandhill crane hunt came up as originally scheduled, Miresse addressed the body about wake boats. 

“I’m here to talk about wake boats today,” he said to laughter from the Democratic side of the floor.

Republicans said that Wisconsin has a “sandhill crane problem,” noting that the resurgence of the crane population is a conservation success story but now there are too many. 

Rep. Paul Tittl (R-Manitowoc) said the bill supports the state’s farmers and hunters. 

“This bill is about supporting hunters, farmers and getting serious about sandhill crane management here in our state,” Tittl said. “We can’t stand by and let other people dictate our state’s conservation policy on sandhill cranes just because it’s a pretty bird. I agree it is a beautiful bird, and so is a wood duck. I think deer is majestic. Well, so I challenge you now if you support science and facts, hunters, farmers and most importantly, our Wisconsin State Constitution, the vote is yes.”

But Rep. Karen DeSanto (D-Baraboo), whose district includes the International Crane Foundation, questioned how hunting cranes in the fall would prevent farm fields from being damaged in the spring. 

“We need a more comprehensive approach that includes more than just a hunt, because a limited fall hunt would have little impact on spring crop damage,” DeSanto said.

Anti-rights of nature 

Republicans also passed a bill 54-41 that would prohibit local governments from passing ordinances protecting the rights of nature. The bill was introduced after Green Bay and Milwaukee have passed or discussed establishing largely symbolic ordinances protecting the rights of bodies of water to be kept clean. 

The concept stems from provisions in the constitutions of some South American countries and Native American tribes such as Wisconsin’s Ho-Chunk Nation. In American law, environmental activists have been pushing for the legal rights of nature for decades, Rep. Andrew Hysell (D-Sun Prairie) noted. 

“People who have a meaningful relation to the body of water, whether it be a fisherman, a canoeist, a zoologist or a logger, must be able to speak for the values which the river represents and which are threatened with destruction,” Hysell said.

A separate bill, authored by Miresse and introduced last year without any movement, would recognize the natural rights of Devil’s Lake State Park. 

Republicans say such ordinances are communist and anti-business while Democrats point to legal interpretations that recognize corporations as people as setting a precedent. 

“I’d like to thank the authors for bringing this bill. I think it’s worthy of discussion,” Miresse said. “To ensure a livable future, we must restore balance with our natural world, and that means changing how our laws treat nature. Instead of viewing rivers, forests, ecosystems as materials for consumption and dumping grounds, we must recognize their inherent rights to exist, thrive, regenerate and be restored.”

Rep. Joy Goebben (R-Hobart), the bill’s co-author, said it would protect property rights. But Rep. Lindee Brill (R-Sheboygan Falls) complained that Democrats want to protect nature but not fetuses.

“I find it rich that the other side of the aisle talks about inherent rights of water, trees and air. Yet … they produced an amendment to kill children after birth in the womb. So while they talk about drinking water being a luxury, human life should be a luxury that should be valued in this place, and instead, they make a mockery of it.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

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

If your local court is struggling with a backlog of cases then help is on the way — except for people living in Milwaukee County. Although initially included in a Republican effort to fund more legal staff statewide, Milwaukee was largely removed from a bill authorizing additional circuit court and criminal justice system positions, in a move both Democratic and Republican lawmakers have said was purely political. 

On Thursday, lawmakers voted to pass the Assembly version of that bill (AB 514) during an Assembly floor session. Under its original form — authored by Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Gillett) and Rep. David Steffens (R-Howard) — the bill would have provided Milwaukee County with funding for four assistant district attorney positions, four assistant state public defender positions, and six support staff positions for the Public Defender’s Office by 2028. 

That aid is sorely needed in Milwaukee, where courts are burdened by thousands of unresolved cases, Wisconsin Watch reported. The backlog creates situations where cases are dismissed, people are held in custody for excessive periods waiting for trial, and attorneys on both sides of cases are overwhelmed. “Justice delayed, justice denied,” is how Kent Lovern, Milwaukee County’s District Attorney, described the backlog’s consequences. Yet in late January, the bill was amended to cut assistance for Milwaukee except for additional assistant prosecutor positions. 

When questioned about the cuts during an early February Senate hearing, Steffens said “there were certain things that had to be done” in order to get unanimous support for the bill among his fellow Republicans. Other counties, including Waukesha, Green Bay, Menomonee, Kenosha, Richland, Sauk, Ozaukee, Washington, Jefferson, Eau Claire, and numerous others didn’t see cuts in the number of additional public defenders the bill supports. 

Since the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020, courts across the state have battled backlogs and staffing shortages. In August 2025, Wisconsin Watch reported, there was a backlog of 12,586 felony cases across the entire Wisconsin court system. Currently, according to Wisconsin Watch, there are over 10,000 unresolved felony cases in Milwaukee County’s court system.

Answering questions from Sen. LaTonya Johnson (D-Milwaukee), Steffens explained that the original bill was designed based on clear and “clinical” needs assessments. “However,” said Steffens, “there does become a period where politics sometimes gets involved. And the substitute that was passed, again unanimously in the Assembly, did reflect some of those political pressures.” Instead of ensuring Milwaukee’s justice system gets the resources it needs now, Steffens said there would be “a continued opportunity through the next budget” to accomplish that.

“People have different positions on things all the time, and we have to respond to that as bill authors,” said Steffens. “I will say this, though, with every piece of legislation we introduce we have an opportunity to do nothing, something, or everything. This is quite something. This will be the largest increase in well over 15 years for these positions. The people who have been working on this look at this as a historic opportunity. If you are looking for perfection in this bill, you will not find it.”

Steffens declined to say which Republican lawmakers did not want to support Milwaukee County’s court system.

In a statement to Wisconsin Examiner, State Public Defender Jennifer Bias stressed the need for more defense attorneys in the court system. “Wisconsin has a dire need for more public defender staff statewide,” Bias said in an emailed statement. “Even in its amended form, this bill is a big step in the right direction and has the full support of our agency.”

On the Assembly floor Thursday evening, Steffens said that over his nearly 12 years in the legislature, he has worked with the Republican majority (which he noted has maintained “nearly uninterrupted control” for 30 years) to pass new crime laws or measures to enhance existing crime laws hundreds of times. Steffens said he was unaware of how this would shape the court system, and that the thousands of case backlogs is a sign that he and other lawmakers have failed the court system. He recounted hearing about a man in the Brown County Jail, who claimed he was innocent, and spent over a year waiting his case to conclude. As a result, he lost his job, his wife, and his job.

“That’s not justice,” said Steffens. “The Constitution guarantees that every person shall be provided with a speedy trial. We’ve been denying that to people throughout this state. In Brown County alone, we have a backlog of 8,000 cases.” Steffens added, “I’m trying to make up for my errors, my failure as a legislator, and I hope you’ll join me.”

Recalling a colleague who said that the bill “is the cost of being a law and order state,” he declared, “it’s time to pay that bill, and we’re going to do it by hiring these people. So I hope you’ll all join me in supporting this bipartisan piece of legislation and making a substantial step forward in restoring some measure of justice for all the people in Wisconsin.”

After Steffens spoke a voice vote was called on the bill. Some lawmakers very audibly yelled “no!” but were unable to stop the bill from passing and being messaged to the Senate. 

Safety and support for everyone, except if you live in Milwaukee

“We see time and time again that Milwaukee County is blamed for its criminal activity,” Johnson said in frustration during an interview earlier this week. “We’re blamed for the rise in crime in other suburban areas, and other surrounding areas in Milwaukee, but this is a clear indication of why that continues to happen. Because when we have opportunities such as this…And I’m upset that other counties are getting these resources. If they need them, they deserve them. Milwaukee deserves those same measures of safety and security, too.” A spokesperson for Steffens said that he was unavailable for comment, and Wimberger’s office didn’t respond to Wisconsin Examiner’s request. 

Johnson said that the motivation to cut Milwaukee out of the court support bill stemmed from a conflict involving the district attorney’s office, public defender’s office and a court watch group called Enough Is Enough. The group is dedicated to Erin Mogensen, a 32-year-old Shorewood woman who was pregnant when a driver crashed into and killed her in 2023. Enough Is Enough monitors similar cases in the court system, and has issued reports suggesting that judges delivered sentences in reckless driving and fleeing cases that were more lenient than what prosecutors recommended. 

Last fall, two regional managers of the Wisconsin State Public Defender’s Office issued a letter to judges in the Milwaukee County Circuit Court’s criminal division accusing Enough Is Enough of being little more than “an extension of the DA’s office,” the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported. The defenders obtained 258 emails from a public records request, showing “extensive meetings” between members of Enough Is Enough and the Milwaukee County DA’s office. Current and former assistant district attorneys were involved in the meetings, and even worked to review and draft letters from Enough Is Enough addressed to the judiciary. The public defenders warned the judges to consider this when evaluating impact statements or the presence of Enough Is Enough. 

Both the group and the DA’s office pushed back against the public defenders’ accusations, the Journal Sentinel reported. Lovern acknowledged that he was approached by the group’s members in 2024, when he announced his bid for district attorney after John Chisholm retired. By the time Lovern became DA, Enough Is Enough had obtained 501(c)3 status. Lovern said he offered the group access where appropriate and assistance from his office. 

Rep. Bob Donovan (R-Greenfield) jumped to the group’s defense, accusing the public defender’s office of trying to intimidate and discredit what Donovan called a “volunteer” and “grassroots” organization. Donovan had backed Enough Is Enough since its inception, has focused on the issue of  reckless driving in recent years, according to the Journal Sentinel. Donovan didn’t respond to a request for comment for this story. 

“When we talk about how things in this building can be political,” Johnson told the Wisconsin Examiner, speaking of the state Capitol, “this is a perfect example of a petty argument between two factions of the court system can be interjected by somebody in the state Legislature that just takes this argument to a whole new [level].” 

The decision to strip the public defender positions from Milwaukee will only worsen the court backlog, Johnson said. “So you’re going to make things more complicated simply because you’re being petty,” she told the Examiner. “And what really pisses me off is the fact that we know in this building that if the rest of the state is taken care of with their needs, and the only entity that has a need is Milwaukee County, it will not get met. Because we’ve seen them slight Milwaukee County before…You don’t get to trump public safety for hundreds of thousands of people simply because you’re being petty, and petty politics is playing into this state Legislature, and their responsibility to an entire county.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Lawmakers applauded the family of the late Gail Zeemer after voting to concur in the passage of “Gail’s Law.” The bill expands insurance coverage for breast cancer screening. It passed with a unanimous 96-0 vote. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

During its final planned day of legislative business this year, the Wisconsin Assembly passed a bill to ensure health care coverage of screenings for women at high risk of breast cancer and a bill to extend postpartum Medicaid coverage to a year.

Republican lawmakers announced Wednesday evening that they would vote on the bills, breaking gridlock on the issues which for years was held up by Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester). Vos, who announced his retirement at the beginning of the floor session Thursday, reversed his position and voted in favor of both bills.  

Each bill passed the Senate in nearly unanimous votes last year, and the Assembly concurring votes will send the bills to Gov. Tony Evers for a signature. 

Lawmakers honor Gail Zeemer as they pass breast cancer screening bill

SB 264 requires health insurance policies to provide coverage for diagnostic breast examinations and for supplemental breast screening examinations for women with dense breast tissue. The bill would require coverage to include no patient cost-sharing. 

The family of Gail Zeemer, a Neenah woman who spent time advocating for the legislation before her death from breast cancer in 2024, sat in the Assembly gallery. Zeemer, who had dense breast tissue, was diagnosed with cancer at a late stage after not receiving additional screening. She battled cancer for eight years and passed away in June 2024 at the age of 56.

Lawmakers applauded her family after voting to concur in the bill, named “Gail’s Law.” It passed in a unanimous 96-0 vote.  

Rep. Robyn Vining (D-Wauwatosa) spoke about listening to testimony from Zeemer during a hearing on the bill prior to her death in the Assembly Health committee.

“She was full of strength and determination,” Vining said. “This year, as we’ve heard testimony, her absence was felt in the room. Today is the day that she fought for, and I am so sorry that Gail is not here with us today. Gail’s law will save lives. It will prevent preventable deaths.”

“You didn’t give up. You didn’t take no for an answer,” Vining said of Zeemer’s family and other advocates for the bills.

Several lawmakers, including Rep. Nate Gustafson (R-Omro) and Rep. Amanda Nedweski (R-Pleasant Prairie), teared up as they spoke of their support for the legislation.

“It’s about families,” Nedweski said of the bill. “Too many husbands have lost their wives to breast cancer, too many parents have had to say goodbye to a daughter too soon, and too many children have seen their mother’s hair fall out and have had to cry themselves to sleep while their mothers went through chemo, surgery and radiation, sometimes only to be told the cancer is back, and there are no other options.” 

Nedweski said the bill takes an important step to “help children keep their moms.” 

“Mammography simply does not work for everyone,” she added. 

Nedweski said the bill is a “wise investment,” noting that it is why Texas and Florida have adopted similar policies. “Gail’s law is not only life-saving, it is cost-saving. Detecting cancer early not only drastically increases survival rates, it means that treatment costs will be lower for patients and for families.” 

Women with dense breast tissue have a higher risk of breast cancer and it can make it harder for radiologists to see cancer on mammograms, according to the American Cancer Society. 

Insurance policies in Wisconsin are already required to provide coverage for two mammograms for women between the ages of 45 and 49 and annual screenings for women over the age of 50, but insurance companies are not required to cover additional screenings for women with dense breast tissue or at higher risk. 

Bipartisan support for the bill did not prevent partisan bickering during debate. Republican lawmakers complained in a press conference announcing the bill scheduling and again on the floor about Democratic lawmakers’ prior actions urging a vote.

Rep. Barbara Dittrich (R-Oconomowoc) said that the eight Republican Assembly lawmakers were the “true heroes who fought for where we are today.” 

“I celebrate them, rather than the tantrum throwing we saw leading up to this,” she said.

Others highlighted the bipartisan nature of the bills. 

Rep. Lee Snodgrass (D-Appleton) thanked Sen. Rachael Cabral-Guevara (R-Appleton), a key supporter of the legislation, and Rep. Dean Kaufert (R-Neenah), who called for lawmakers to go to partisan caucus to discuss the measure on Wednesday. GOP lawmakers credit discussion during the caucus for the recent breakthrough. 

“I know that this body is contentious often. I know that some of us don’t even like each other, but when we can come together and do something good for women’s health and the people of Wisconsin,” Snodgrass said, “it’s truly a victory.” 

Some lawmakers said that Wisconsin still needs to do more to ensure that people can access health care in the state.

Margaret Arney (D-Wauwatosa) called the passage of the bill a “victory” but a “small step on a long road.” 

“We need to seriously stare in the face of what it takes for people to afford health care,” Arney said. “All the people in Wisconsin deserve to have health security and I invite us to take that step together.” 

Postpartum Medicaid extension

Wisconsin is poised to become the 49th state to accept a federal expansion of Medicaid coverage for women for one year after they give birth after the state Assembly approved SB 23. 

The bill passed 95-1. Rep. Shae Sortwell (R-Two Rivers) is the only lawmaker who voted against the bill. 

Evers, who most recently called on lawmakers to pass the bill and send it to him at his State of the State address on Tuesday evening, is likely to sign it.

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

Rep. Patrick Snyder (R-Weston), the lead Assembly author on the bill, said he picked up the “mantle” on the issue because of what he heard while knocking doors during the campaign cycle. A previous author on the bill was former Republican Rep. Donna Rozar, who lost her reelection bid in 2024. 

Snyder also doubled down on criticizing Democratic lawmakers for their efforts to force a vote on the issue. “I had a night’s sleep and I realized that a lot of my Democrat colleagues who I’m friends with are following orders,” he said. 

“Thank goodness we beat Arkansas,” Snyder said, referring to the only other state in the U.S. that has not extended postpartum Medicaid coverage for a year. “Strong families will mean strong Wisconsin. That’s what I put my faith in, not trying to score political points.” 

Rep. Deb Andraca (D-Whitefish Bay) struck a more cordial tone. 

“I want to thank everyone here who changed their mind,” Andraca said. “That’s not easy.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Federal agents stage at a front gate as Reps. Ilhan Omar, Kelly Morrison and Rep. Angie Craig, all Minnesota Democrats, attempt to enter the regional Immigration and Customs Enforcement headquarters at the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building in Minneapolis on Jan. 10, 2026. The House members were briefly allowed access to the facility where the Department of Homeland Security has been headquartering operations in the state. (Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — As they seek to curb President Donald Trump’s aggressive approach to immigration enforcement, congressional Democrats are looking to formalize some guidelines previous administrations used.

Of the 10 policy proposals Democratic leaders offered in negotiations to reopen the Department of Homeland Security, which has been in a funding lapse since Feb. 14 in the midst of widespread uproar over the fatal shootings of two U.S. citizens by immigration officers in Minneapolis last month, seven have been employed in at least some form by previous administrations.

Democrats are asking the Trump administration to reinstate policies it has rejected in its controversial push to carry out mass deportations. Prior policies Democrats want to formalize include use-of-force standards, allowing unannounced visits by members of Congress to facilities that detain immigrants and obtaining judicial warrants before entering private residences.

“Many of the things the Democrats are asking for are to revert to prior policies,” said Theresa Cardinal Brown, a senior DHS official during the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations. “Some of them are responding to the ways this administration is carrying out its operations that previous administrations did not.”

Formalizing the policies in law, as part of a deal to pass a fiscal 2026 funding bill for the department, would make them more permanent.

“Policies and guidance … apply as the current leadership applies them,” Cardinal Brown said. “They’re not absolutes, and they can be changed much more frequently.”

But an agreement between congressional Democrats and the White House on changes to immigration enforcement appears elusive. The White House’s response to the proposals was “incomplete and insufficient,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a Feb. 9 statement. 

No recent movement on negotiations

Democrats late Monday sent over a counterproposal to Republicans and the White House, but did not make public what those changes were, according to a statement from party leaders.

While there is bipartisan support for some of the proposals, like requiring body-worn cameras, others, such as barring immigration agents from wearing face coverings and requiring judicial warrants to enter private property, have been rejected outright by the Trump administration.

A White House official said the “Trump Administration remains interested in having good faith conversations with the Democrats.” 

“President Trump has been clear – he wants the government open,” according to the White House official.

Even with the department shut down, immigration enforcement will continue, due to $170 billion in funding in the massive tax cuts and spending package Trump signed into law last year. 

Democrats’ proposals do not include consequences if DHS doesn’t comply, which raises an issue of effectiveness, said Heidi Altman, vice president of policy at the National Immigration Law Center, an advocacy group that aims to provide free or low-cost legal services for immigrants.

“When Congress is negotiating policy measures, are they also putting teeth to those policy measures, and are they yanking away the funds that we know ICE and CBP will use to violate guardrails to begin with?” Altman said.

Changes demanded after Minneapolis deaths

After Renee Good was shot and killed by immigration officer Jonathan Ross on Jan. 7, lawmakers amended the Homeland Security funding bill to add guardrails, such as appropriating $20 million for body cameras and adding a requirement for DHS to report how funds from the tax cuts and spending package are being spent.

But a second death in Minnesota, that of intensive care unit nurse Alex Pretti on Jan. 24, spurred Democrats to reject funding for DHS without stronger policy changes to the enforcement tactics used by immigration officers at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection. 

Only three of the 10 proposals from Schumer and Jeffries, both of New York, would be entirely new. 

They are: prohibiting ICE and other immigration enforcement agents from wearing face coverings, barring racial profiling after the Supreme Court cleared the way for the practice last year, and standardizing uniforms of DHS agents.

The heads of ICE and CBP rejected Democrats’ request to have their immigration officers forgo face coverings when asked during an oversight hearing before the House Homeland Security Committee last week. 

Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons and CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott, along with congressional Republicans, have argued that masks and face coverings prevent their officers from being doxed. 

Local cooperation

Other proposals, including barring of immigration enforcement of so-called sensitive locations such as religious places, child care facilities, hospitals and schools, would expand previous DHS guidance that restricted enforcement in such places.

The Democratic proposal calls for enforcement to be prohibited at those sensitive locations. Prior guidance allowed for the practice on a limited basis.

Then-acting ICE Director Caleb Vitello rescinded the policy shortly after President Donald Trump took office in January last year. There are several lawsuits brought by religious groups challenging the move by the Trump administration.

A requirement that immigration officials gain permission from local and state governments before undertaking large enforcement operations like the one in Minneapolis would build on previous policies of federal-local cooperation.

But that measure would be a long shot, Cardinal Brown said.

“I think that’s going to be a hard one,” she said. “The federal government has the authority to enforce immigration law anywhere in the country it wishes.”

She said a more realistic option would be for the federal government to inform or coordinate with local authorities for large-scale immigration operations. 

Another proposed requirement that DHS officials present identification also builds on a previous policy.

Another proposal builds on DHS policy of targeted enforcement by ending “indiscriminate arrests,” without warrants.

Under current immigration law, if an officer encounters a person believed to be in the U.S. unlawfully and can escape before a warrant is obtained, a warrantless arrest is lawful.

Democrats want to increase standards on the forms ICE uses to authorize an arrest. These administrative forms are not signed by a judge but instead by an ICE employee.

Judicial warrants

The remaining proposals would revert DHS policies to those in place under prior administrations’ guidance. Those include use-of-force standards, use of body cameras when interacting with the public, allowing members of Congress unannounced oversight visits at detention centers that hold immigrants and requiring a judicial warrant to enter private property.

An internal ICE memo, obtained by The Associated Press, showed that Lyons instructed ICE agents to enter private residences without a judicial warrant – a departure from longstanding DHS policy.

“This judicial warrant issue is so disturbing,” said Ben Johnson, executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, or AILA.  

He said the question of whether a warrant is needed to enter private property was already decided under the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment. 

“The fact that it’s being discussed now is really frightening,” Johnson said.

Body cameras

Providing funds for DHS to acquire body cameras for immigration officers is one proposal Democrats and Republicans seem to have agreed on.

Earlier this month, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem announced that body cameras would be provided to all immigration agents in Minneapolis, and said that as “funding is available, the body camera program will be expanded nationwide.”

During an oversight hearing on Capitol Hill, Lyons said about 3,000 ICE officers currently have body cameras with another 6,000 cameras on the way. Scott said  roughly 10,000 Border Patrol agents, about half the total force, have body cameras.

But body cameras are not a guarantee against misconduct, Altman said.

CBP officials were wearing body cameras when Pretti was shot and killed. Scott said that footage would be released after the investigation is over.

“We see officers in the field right now wearing body-worn cameras engaging in abuse and violence on the daily,” Altman said. 

Oversight visits

One of the proposals would also end a DHS policy to require members of Congress to provide seven-day notice of oversight visits at facilities that hold immigrants, despite a 2019 appropriations law that allows for unannounced visits.

Since last summer, several lawmakers have been denied oversight visits at ICE facilities prompting them to sue in federal court. 

On the day funding for DHS lapsed, Feb. 14, the Department of Justice submitted a brief, noting that because of the shutdown, unannounced oversight visits by lawmakers can be denied. 

The administration argued that during the shutdown, immigration enforcement has been funded by the tax cuts and spending bill, which does not include language allowing unannounced visits, rather than regular appropriations. 

“There is no lawful basis for the Court to enjoin Defendants’ conduct so long as the restricted funds have lapsed,” according to the document.

The Wisconsin Legislature is considering a bill to legalize online sports gambling. (Getty Images)

The Wisconsin Assembly on Thursday passed bills to legalize online sports betting and add state regulations for University of Wisconsin athletes receiving money for their name, image and likeness rights. 

Both bills passed with no or little debate and the NIL bill passed with just a single no vote. They will now be sent to the state Senate. 

Last fall, Republican lawmakers introduced the online sports betting bill with a lot of momentum. A public hearing on the measure just days after the bill’s introduction. 

The Wisconsin constitution requires that any legal gambling be managed by the state’s federally recognized Native American tribes. Under current law, people can place sports bets in person at tribal casinos but online sports bets — a market that has grown exponentially as legal sports gambling has spread across the country — remained prohibited. Under the bill, Wisconsin would follow a legal framework first established in Florida that would allow online sports betting if the infrastructure to manage the bets is housed on tribal land. 

The sports betting bill was introduced and hearings were held in both chambers of the Legislature in rapid succession, but the bill did not come up for a floor vote until the last day of the Assembly’s schedule. 

The Assembly passed the bill with bipartisan support despite objections from lobbying groups representing the country’s largest online sportsbooks. The state’s tribes have supported the legislation, arguing that the proliferation of live betting markets on websites such as Kalshi and the ease with which many Wisconsinites can cross the border to Illinois where online sports bets are legal, has damaged their business. 

The NIL bill adds regulations for how University of Wisconsin schools manage payment to collegiate athletes. The NCAA officially allowed collegiate athletes to be paid for appearing in advertisements or commercial products such as video games in 2021. 

Under the bill passed Thursday, student-athletes will be allowed to hire agents to represent them and individual universities can facilitate NIL agreements on behalf of their athletes. Students will not be allowed to endorse tobacco products, alcohol or illegal activities. Some records related to NIL agreements will be exempt from the state’s open records law “when competitive reasons require confidentiality.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) announced Thursday that he will not seek another term in office, putting an end to his tenure as the state’s longest serving top Assembly leader. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) announced Thursday that he will not seek another term in office, putting an end to his tenure as the state’s longest serving top Assembly leader.

Vos, who is Wisconsin’s 75th Assembly speaker, made the announcement ahead of Assembly lawmakers’ last scheduled floor session of the spring. He was at times on the verge of tears as he spoke. 

“When I first walked into this chamber, I could not have imagined how deeply this institution would shape my life, or profoundly I would come to believe in its purpose,” Vos said. “As I announce that I will not be running for reelection in November, I am struck by how much this work has shaped me, how honored I am to have played a small part in democracy, and how proud I am to know that the state of our Legislature is strong.”

Vos said the decision wasn’t easy. Revealing that he had a heart attack in mid-November, he said the incident gave him a “sign” that pushed him in the “right direction.” He said his doctor has determined that he is “perfectly fine,” but needs to reduce his stress. 

“Let me tell you, this job is stressful,” Vos said.

Vos, 57, was born in Burlington in Racine County and lists the village of Rochester as his home community. He was first elected to the state Assembly in 2004 after serving for 10 years on the Racine County Board. He was first chosen by his caucus to serve as speaker in 2013. 

“I have always believed that our republic, in order to remain healthy, the Legislature must be the strongest branch of government, not because it should dominate, but because it represents,” Vos said. “When legislatures grow weak, the people’s voice grows faint, when executives govern by unilateral fiat or action or courts are forced to resolve political questions, it’s often because legislators fail to do their job. My work here in the state Capitol has been guided by the conviction that this body must never surrender its authority, its responsibility or its relevance.” 

Gov. Tony Evers, who was first elected in 2018 and has had a contentious relationship with Vos, said in a statement that Vos’ retirement “marks the end of an era in Wisconsin politics.” Evers also decided to not seek another term in office in 2026.  

“I’m grateful to have served as governor during Speaker Vos’ tenure. Although we’ve disagreed more often than we didn’t, I respect his candor, his ability to navigate complex policies and conversations, and his unrivaled passion for politics,” Evers said. 

Vos and Evers had a shaky start to their working relationship even before Evers’ swearing-in in 2019. Under the leadership of Vos, Republican lawmakers worked to strip the executive branch of a number of powers during the lame-duck legislative session after the 2018 election.

In recent years, Vos, the Republican-led Legislature and Evers have been in numerous court battles over who holds certain powers, especially as Evers used his partial veto powers to make significant changes to state budgets sent to him by Republicans. 

“We strengthened legislative oversight, even though our court has weakened it. We reaffirmed the power of the purse, even though some want to take it away, and insisted that major policy decisions be made by elected representatives accountable to voters, not unelected state employees,” Vos said. “The Wisconsin State Legislature is not just where laws are passed, it’s where democracy slows itself down on purpose. We debate in public, we answer to voters, we live with the consequences of our decisions, right or wrong.”

As Assembly lawmakers rushed to finish up their legislative work this session before they go home to campaign, Republicans were seeking a way to spend part, or nearly all, of the state’s $2.5 billion projected budget surplus, though the negotiations appeared paused as of Wednesday.

“Robin’s one-of-a-kind, so I wish whoever becomes the next Assembly Speaker well. They’ll no doubt have their work cut out for them. Being in public service is challenging and can be thankless work, most especially when you’re responsible for getting things done. I understand that better than most,” Evers said. “For your sacrifices and your service over the years, thank you, Mr. Speaker.”

At times during his tenure, Vos dug in his heels on issues even when they had widespread bipartisan support. On Wednesday evening, Vos finally relented on two women’s health bills that he had blocked from receiving a vote. His switch came under pressure from members of his own caucus and as Democratic lawmakers also called for a vote.

“No accomplishment in this building is ever the work of one person,” Vos said. 

In his farewell speech, Vos thanked his staff along with Republican and Democratic members of the Assembly, saying they have “argued fiercely and disagreed passionately.” He also acknowledged his constituents in the 63rd district, which he represented for 12 years, as well as the voters of  the new 33rd district. Vos quipped that it was now his district under the “Evers gerrymander” — referring to new voting maps passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor, which are widely seen as undoing the gerrymandered maps that previously allowed Republicans to hold disproportionate legislative majorities.

“Thank you for placing your trust in me time and time again over the past two decades. I am deeply humbled by the confidence in my ability to serve Racine and Walworth counties, to my friends and neighbors who stood with me from the very beginning and every step,” Vos said, adding that they even stayed through his “recall or whatever.” 

Vos was targeted for a recall election in 2024 by supporters of President Donald Trump after he angered them by not supporting calls to decertify former President Joe Biden’s win in Wisconsin in 2020 and by not supporting the impeachment of Meagan Wolfe, the administrator of the Wisconsin Elections Commission. 

 

Throughout Vos’ tenure as speaker, Republican lawmakers have held an iron grip on their control of the state Assembly with Republican lawmakers winning their seats under maps that were determined to be an unconstitutional gerrymander in 2023. 

Vos has not always gotten his way in negotiations. After the state Supreme Court ruling on the old voting maps, Vos first proposed that the state adopt an “Iowa-style redistricting commission,” which failed to get enough support in the state Senate, before agreeing to pass new maps proposed by Evers. 

Those new maps have put control of the Assembly and Senate up for grabs in 2026. 

Republican Party of Wisconsin Chairman Brian Schimming said in a statement that Vos has “been influential to Republican politics for decades” and thanked him for his “his tireless service and dedication to Republican successes.” 

The Democratic Party of Wisconsin Chair Devin Remiker said Vos spent his tenure trying “his best” to make state government “dysfunctional and leave working people with higher costs and fewer rights.” He said history would remember him “as a little man who was only remarkable for his gift of still managing to punch down despite his own smallness.”

Vos is not the only Republican with retirement plans this session. Others include Rep. Dave Murphy, Sen. Steve Nass and Sen. Rob Hutton. 

“My time has lasted quite a while, but my service in this chamber will end when the new class of freshmen are sworn in,” Vos said. “I’ve been so honored to serve with all of you in this chamber, and I will miss many of you, but not all of you, but to those of you who I will miss, and actually all of you, I appreciate your service.” 

“I’ll miss the clowns, but not the circus,” he added.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear waves to the audience after delivering his State of the Commonwealth address on Jan. 7, 2026, in Frankfort. (Photo by Arden Barnes/Kentucky Lantern)

WASHINGTON — Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear’s faith calls him to address hunger, health access and community care, he said during an event Thursday at the progressive Center for American Progress that previewed a potential campaign in the 2028 cycle.

The Trump administration has “hijacked” faith, the Democrat said, leading to harm instead of helping people. He pointed to the repercussions of the major tax cuts and spending package Republicans passed last year that paid for tax cuts by making changes to food assistance and health care that will result in millions of people losing access to those safety nets.

“Are we using faith to help people or to hurt people?” he said. “It’s that simple.”

More than 100,000 people are expected to be kicked off SNAP and 25 rural hospitals are at risk of closing in Kentucky alone, he said.

“The reason why I talk about faith is it motivates me. (It’s) why I’m willing to get up no matter how mean and cruel the world has gotten and fight to make it just a little bit better,” he said.

Upcoming White House bid?

Beshear, 48, is widely expected to make a presidential run in 2028, and did not rule out a bid when members of the audience asked how he would govern if he won the presidency. 

Like previous presidential hopefuls, he’s gearing up for a book tour. He told the think tank his upcoming book explores how his Christian faith has led him through challenging times as governor, from the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic to deadly tornadoes, and how he believes those values can heal the deep polarization of the country.

“In the end, where we’ve got to go is … I hope that you would say that you are an American long before you’d say you are a Democrat or Republican,” Beshear said.

Beshear was a top candidate for 2024 Democratic nominee Kamala Harris’ running mate before she selected Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz.

Immigration

An audience member asked Beshear how he would address immigration if he were president. The issue has dominated political discourse since the deadly shootings of two U.S. citizens by federal immigration agents in Minneapolis last month. 

Beshear said that every federal immigration officer needs to be retrained, and he expressed concerns about what he called constitutional violations, such as agents entering private residences without a judicial warrant.

“What we see with (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) is an out-of-control law enforcement agency,” he said. “They are so overly aggressive compared to any other law enforcement group in the nation.”

He said enforcement operations like the one in Minneapolis “will continue in other places if the current leadership continues and if they are not fully retrained.”

Beshear said the country needs comprehensive immigration reform that addresses long-term undocumented immigrants in the country and also provides a steady workforce. 

“I think that there is a reasonable way to go forward on immigration,” he said. 

RFK as campaign model

Another audience member asked Beshear if a potential 2028 Democratic presidential run would resemble Robert F. Kennedy’s 1968 campaign style that aimed to unite the country deeply divided in the midst of the Vietnam War, massive poverty and the Civil Rights Movement. Kennedy was a top candidate for the Democratic nomination before his June 1968 assassination.

Beshear said he would.

“Absolutely,” he said. “When I think about his campaign … you think about hope, you think about connection. He made you feel that progress was possible, that we could go up against huge adversaries like poverty and we could do better.”

“I’m very angry at what happened today — very angry,” Rep. Patrick Snyder (R-Weston) said. “I talked to my Democratic colleagues and told them that I was close, that it was going to get done, but then they throw this crap at us today. It almost blew it up.” (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Eight Republican state Assembly lawmakers announced at 9:45 p.m. Wednesday that gridlock is ending on bills to provide a year of Medicaid coverage to postpartum mothers and ensure cancer screenings for women with a high risk of breast cancer, and both will receive a vote in the Assembly this week. 

The bills had been held up this legislative session despite widespread bipartisan support due to opposition from Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester), who once said he didn’t want to expand “welfare” in relation to the postpartum coverage and said recent federal changes made changes on breast cancer screening coverage unnecessary. He declined to comment to the Wisconsin Examiner on what changed his mind. 

Vos was not at the press conference led by Rep. Todd Novak (R-Dodgeville) and seven other Assembly Republicans, who represent purple districts across the state and had been advocating for the bills.

“It hasn’t been fun,” Novak said about the process. “I truly appreciate a caucus who is willing to listen to us bring the stories from our district… and get them to a point where they are willing to take a vote tomorrow.”

The lawmakers said that they sent a letter to Vos on Feb. 3 urging him to allow for a vote on the bill. The letter stated that the measure aligns with “core Republican priorities” including “protecting life and supporting families,” “fiscal responsibility” and “reducing government dependency.”

SB 23 would extend Medicaid coverage for postpartum mothers to a year. Wisconsin is one of two states in the U.S. that has not taken the federal extension, which was first offered to states five years ago in the American Rescue Plan Act.

People in Wisconsin are typically only eligible for Medicaid coverage if they make up to 100% of the federal poverty level, but pregnant women can receive Medicaid coverage if they have an annual income of up to 306% of the federal poverty level. Currently in Wisconsin, a newborn whose mother is a Medicaid recipient receives a year of coverage, but mothers risk losing their coverage after 60 days if they don’t otherwise qualify for Medicaid.

The bill passed the Senate in April 2025 on a 32-1 vote. It also previously passed the Senate in 2023-24 legislative session, but died in the Assembly.

SB 264 would require health insurance policies to provide coverage for diagnostic breast examinations and for supplemental breast screening examinations for an individual who has dense breast tissue. The bill would require coverage to include no patient cost-sharing. 

The bill is named “Gail’s Law” in honor of Gail Zeemer, a Neenah woman who advocated for the legislation and who died from breast cancer in 2024. Women with dense breast tissue have a higher risk of breast cancer and dense breast tissue can make it harder for radiologists to see cancer on mammograms, according to the American Cancer Society. 

The bill received a nearly unanimous vote in the Senate in October.

Republican lawmakers also railed at Democratic lawmakers, who had been urging the Assembly to vote on the bills for months and planned to hold up votes during Wednesday’s floor session by introducing amendments on every bill to advocate action on the issues.

“I’m very angry at what happened today — very angry,” Rep. Patrick Snyder (R-Weston) said, adding that he had been speaking to his Republican colleagues about why it was important to join the majority of the country in extending coverage. “I talked to my Democratic colleagues and told them that I was close, that it was going to get done, but then they throw this crap at us today. It almost blew it up.”

At a press conference at 1 p.m., Assembly Minority Leader Greta Neubauer (D-Racine) announced that she and her husband are expecting their first child this summer while urging the Assembly to take a vote on the bills that would increase health care coverage for women.

“I wasn’t really planning to talk about this today, but I am pregnant,” Neubauer said, adding that she is due in June. “We could not be more excited. During this pregnancy, I have been reflecting and I’m very lucky. I’m lucky to have quality, affordable health care coverage for myself and my baby when they arrive. For too many Wisconsin families, that health care coverage is cut off far too soon… This needs to end. We must pass postpartum Medicaid expansion now.” 

As the Assembly began acting on bills in the floor session that followed, Democrats took turns interrupting with speeches demanding that GOP lawmakers take up their amendments to put the Medicaid and breast cancer bills on the floor. Shortly after 3 p.m. Rep. Dean Kaufert (R-Neenah) called for a partisan caucus, and the session was paused. The Assembly did not return to the floor until 10 p.m. 

Republican lawmakers said they spent the time in caucus talking about the issues.

“I’m in it for the women that need this protection. They’re in it for politics, and that’s sickening,” Snyder said, adding that it would be hard for him to trust his Democratic colleagues in the future. “I don’t know what they were trying to do, but lobbyists told them to wait at least till Thursday, and they didn’t.”

Novak said his voice was hoarse after the caucus. He said lawmakers who were on the fence about the bill were angered by the Democratic amendments and it set back their progress on the discussions.

“I actually put my seat on the line. I said I wanted this bill to pass or I don’t know I could run again,” Snyder said. “How many Democrats put their seat on the line for anything if there’s something they’re passionate about? That’s why it’s about people, not about the politics.” 

At a press conference after, Neubauer was unapologetic for the Democratic lawmakers’ actions. 

“It seems that the bills are going to the floor after years of Rep. Pat Snyder telling us that these bills were going to be passed and them not being passed, so it does seem like our actions made a difference today,” Neubauer said. 

Neubauer rejected the assertion that Democrats were just engaging in politics and said the job of the minority party is to ensure that important issues get air time and get votes.

“Republicans refusing to vote on [the amendments] is their own choice. We have a responsibility to our constituents and the women of this state whose lives depend on these policies being passed,” Neubauer said. “We were going to stop at nothing to get a vote on these bills. We hope that that’s what’s going to happen tomorrow.”

Rep. Shannon Zimmerman (R-River Falls) said that the development is “proof that minds can be shifted.”

“I appreciate, certainly, the speaker’s willingness to hear us out. I appreciate all of my members in my caucus,” Zimmerman said. “The outcome that we have reached today is one that will have a positive impact on the lives of many in the state of Wisconsin.”

Vos and Assembly Majority Leader Tyler August (R-Walworth) were not at the caucus the entire time. In the early evening, the caucus leaders were at what Vos called a “thank you reception” hosted by the Jobs First Coalition — a nonprofit advocacy group that has a history of spending to help elect Republicans. 

Michelle Litjens, Vos’ wife and a former Republican member of the Assembly, has worked as a fundraiser for the organization. She told reporters the group was thanking legislators and that they often bring guests to speak on issues to their members.

When asked about why they were at the event while lawmakers were said to be in recess for caucus, Vos said “people are caucusing.” 

“This is the way it was for, like, 50 years before I became speaker,” Vos said. He added that people would leave floor sessions to go to receptions “all the time.” 

The Republican lawmakers who announced the deal to bring the bills to the floor said they were able to “win over hearts” in their caucus and shared personal stories about breast cancer. 

“Probably every person in this room has been touched in some way with someone in their family with cancer,” Kaufert said. “In my particular case, my mother when I was 17 years old in high school, she had breast cancer, and they didn’t have technologies that they do now, and at age of 19, my mother passed away due to that breast cancer.”

Rep. Bob Donovan (R-Greenfield) said his wife was diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer.

“Sadly, had this bill been in place back then, it may have impacted her particular situation. I’m very proud of the way she has dealt with this in front of my family and how they’ve stepped up to the plate to deal with it,” Donovan said. “Our situation is what it is, but I can’t tell you how pleased I am to have played a small part in helping this bill move forward.” 

Novak also said Vos is a “tough negotiator,” but that he “really felt what we were saying,” and that other GOP lawmakers also had some concerns.

The reversal comes as Assembly lawmakers are racing to finish their work. August said the Assembly GOP leaders plan to be finished this week. The Assembly has scheduled a floor session for Thursday. 

The lawmakers said they want the bills to go to Gov. Tony Evers by Monday, adding that Evers has committed to signing them without any line-item vetoes as long as they are unchanged.

“They’ll be clean,” Novak said.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Senate Republicans and Democrats agreed that they shouldn’t just hand state funds over to the organization for the long term. Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu criticized WisconsinEye at a press conference earlier this month. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

The Wisconsin Senate passed a bill Wednesday to solicit proposals from organizations seeking to run the state’s public affairs network, which livestreams and archives state government proceedings. 

The job since 2007 has been done by WisconsinEye, a nonprofit organization, but Senate lawmakers want to explore other options after the group abruptly stopped its coverage for over a month due to fundraising difficulties and started seeking more substantial state support for its operations. 

The state Assembly has proposed that the state place $10 million, which was already set aside in the state budget for WisconsinEye, into an endowment fund and allow WisconsinEye to use the interest to help support its operations. The organization’s current annual operating budget is nearly $1 million, and even with the interest, WisconsinEye would likely still need to fundraise hundreds of thousands each year.

Senate Republicans and Democrats agreed that they shouldn’t just hand state funds over to the organization for the long term, expressing concerns about WisconsinEye’s management and transparency. 

The Senate bill, approved on a voice vote, would provide a year of short-term funding and initiate a process to solicit bids for the job. The lawmakers said their proposal would allow them to explore all of their options to continue to livestream government proceedings.

Sen. Mark Spreitzer (D-Beloit) called it a “travesty” that WisconsinEye went dark for over a month earlier this year. He noted that for that time WisconsinEye was in breach of its contract with the Legislature. He said the Senate bill would allow lawmakers to explore all options, noting that he had initially proposed that the state take over the work of livestreaming by creating a state public affairs network. 

“This is a bipartisan bright spot where we actually came together and had conversation with many,” Spreitzer said. 

Specifically, the Senate proposal asks the Department of Administration (DOA) to solicit bids for the operation of a statewide public affairs network that would provide unedited live video and audio coverage of state government proceedings. Those proceedings would include Senate and Assembly floor sessions, legislative committee meetings, state agency meetings, state Supreme Court and other judicial meetings. The bill states that if “practicable,” the network can also cover eligible news conferences and civic events. 

An amendment to the bill implements a deadline for submitting proposals of June 30, 2026. The Department of Administration will then need to submit each proposal to the Legislature and may include its own recommendations. 

The amendment also includes a provision to have WisconsinEye and the DOA secretary submit a request for temporary funding to the Joint Committee on Finance. The grant for temporary funding would be $585,630.60 and if approved by JFC would be paid out to WisconsinEye in monthly payments of $48,802.55.

The payments would cease if WisconsinEye stops providing live coverage and online access to its archives or if another organization is selected during the proposals process to take over as the state’s public affairs network.

The amendment also includes a provision, originally included in the Assembly proposal, requiring WisconsinEye to appoint new members to its board of directors including one designee each for the Assembly speaker, Assembly minority leader, Senate majority leader and Senate minority leader. 

Sen. Julian Bradley (R-New Berlin), the lead author on the bill, said he hoped the Assembly would take up the proposal. 

“Transparency is the most important thing,” Bradley said, adding that it is “awesome that we were able to get this done.”

Senate Minority Leader Dianne Hesselbein (D-Middleton) noted that she had concerns leaving conversations with her fellow caucus leaders about the proposal.

“It was clear walking out of that meeting that we weren’t on the same page as the state Assembly,” Hesselbein said.

WisconsinEye restarted its coverage this month after the Joint Committee on Legislative Organization voted to provide $50,000 to the nonprofit to cover its month of expenses. 

The Assembly proposal, which was announced in a joint press conference with Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) and Minority Leader Greta Neubauer (D-Racine), passed in a 96-0 vote. 

“Donors view this approach with confidence, knowing that while WisconsinEye must continue to raise private dollars, that requirement becomes an achievable goal to meet because it is coupled with a solid state commitment of financial partnership,” WisconsinEye said in a statement.

WisconsinEye said in an update this week that without an additional infusion of $50,000 in state funds for the month of March that it won’t be able to continue its coverage throughout the remainder of the legislative session. The state Assembly plans to wrap its work up this month, but the Senate plans to continue its work next month. 

The organization said it would also be “happy” to submit a proposal to the DOA should that be the path that lawmakers choose. But the statement said a request for proposal would take “considerable time” and there is “also the question from what appropriation an eventual contract might be funded.” 

“Further, WisconsinEye has funding to carry operations through February. An outstanding question is whether WisconsinEye would be in a position to maintain operations for any time period through which an RFP process might require,” WisconsinEye stated. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Members of the WEBB gather at Walnut Way with Lindsay Heights residents on Feb. 10 to publicly demand that the state's utility regulators not allow We Energies to charge residential customers for the explosive, unprecedented growth in electricity demand to power hyperscale data centers. (Photo courtesy Walnut Way Conservation Corps.)

Data centers, artificial intelligence and fossil fuels are dominating headlines. Across the  United States, more than $350 billion was invested in AI and data-center infrastructure, with  tens of billions of dollars proposed in Wisconsin. Investment and economic development are  often framed as unequivocal wins, but energy infrastructure is different. If built without  foresight, the consequences will reshape the future. 

Growth is certain; however the balance between positive and negative growth is yet to be  determined. 

I have worked in Wisconsin’s energy sector since 2019, beginning in residential and  commercial solar. Over the years, I’ve seen energy debates around renewable energy become  increasingly politicized, even as their original purpose remains unchanged: to produce reliable  electricity, reduce dependence on fragile infrastructure, and give communities more control  over their energy supply. Yet, the existing industry stakeholders have blocked deployment and  ownership for everyone but themselves. While homeowners, farmers, tribal nations and  small businesses face mounting restrictions on deploying their own power systems, the state  has moved quickly to approve massive new energy loads for data centers. These agreements  are also accompanied by preferential rate structures, infrastructure guarantees and the ability  to negotiate. 

That contradiction should concern all of us. 

Wisconsin residents have grown accustomed to electric rate increases justified by grid  maintenance, system upgrades and long-term reliability. According to federal energy data,  Wisconsin already ranks among the top 15 states for electricity costs, and utilities have  signaled additional increases in the years ahead. At the same time, power reliability has  deteriorated in both rural and urban areas. 

In parts of Milwaukee, aging poles lean precariously, and low-hanging lines form tangled  webs that look untouched for decades. In rural Wisconsin, the impacts are similar. Tribal  nations such as the Sokaogon Chippewa and the Menominee Nation have experienced  long-duration outages lasting days or even weeks, disrupting health care, food systems and  economic activity. These are not isolated incidents; they are symptoms of an overstretched  and unevenly maintained grid. 

Against this backdrop, Wisconsin is welcoming some of the most energy-intensive facilities  on the planet. A single large data center can consume as much electricity as a small city,  operating around the clock, every day of the year. The rise of AI only accelerates this demand.  Unlike the rest of the state, these facilities do not proceed without firm assurances of power  availability, reliability, transmission access,and cost certainty. 

Data centers operate under a different set of rules.  

Utilities and regulators are willing to negotiate specialized rate structures, accelerate  infrastructure investments, and prioritize reliability. Meanwhile, everyday ratepayers, who  collectively use far less power and have far less leverage, are asked to shoulder rising costs  and accept declining service quality.  

This is not a free market. Wisconsin’s energy industry has become an unregulated monopoly.  Large utilities control generation, transmission and distribution, and they largely determine  who is allowed to produce power and under what terms. While utilities have invested heavily  in renewable energy they own, they continue to restrict external ownership and  community-scale generation knowing that distributed energy can reduce peak demand,  improve resilience, and lower long-term system costs.  

If utilities can justify new power plants, substations and transmission lines for data centers,  they must also explain why a similar urgency does not apply to grid reliability, ownership  opportunities for distributed energy systems and lower rates for Wisconsin residents. Why is  Wisconsin able to deliver gigawatts of electricity to data centers, yet unable to address  persistent grid failures in communities that have been struggling for decades?  

This moment calls for accountability, not ideology. Wisconsin deserves transparency in how  data center energy deals are structured, who bears the costs of new infrastructure and how  reliability risks are distributed. Ratepayers deserve to know why the largest electricity users  receive the greatest assurances, while households, businesses and communities are told to  accept less while paying more. Economic growth should not come at the expense of affordability,  resilience or fairness. If Wisconsin is going to power the future of AI and digital  infrastructure, it must also protect the people and communities that power Wisconsin itself.  

This energy crisis is not inevitable. It is the result of choices. And those choices will  determine whether Wisconsin’s energy future delivers reliable power for all, or a system  defined by higher costs, more frequent outages and growing divides between communities. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Colorado Republican state Sen. Rod Pelton, left, and Senate President James Coleman, a Democrat, speak during the sixth day of the special legislative session in August 2025. Colorado is among the states using state funds to help residents buy health coverage on Obamacare exchanges. (Photo by Delilah Brumer/Colorado Newsline)

Ten Democratic-leaning states are using their own money to help people buy Obamacare health plans, at least partially replacing the federal tax credits that expired at the end of last year.

The state assistance, some of it offered through programs that existed before the federal subsidies expired, is helping hundreds of thousands of people lower their monthly premium payments, which otherwise would have surged to double or even triple what they were before the expiration of the federal aid. The savings can total hundreds of dollars per month.

But only New Mexico is completely filling the gap left by the expiration of the federal help by offering it to people of all incomes; for most Americans buying Obamacare plans, the end of the federal aid means much higher prices. And New Mexico and the other states that are trying to cushion the blow for their residents will face increasing budget pressures as health care costs continue their inexorable rise.

In addition to the expiration of the federal subsidies, the cost of Obamacare coverage has increased because of other factors, including labor shortages and the rising cost of prescription drugs, driven in part by the growing demand for GLP-1 drugs such as Ozempic and Wegovy.

The enhanced federal subsidies were made available by the American Rescue Plan Act in 2021 and later extended through the end of 2025 by the Inflation Reduction Act. Designed as a temporary pandemic-era measure, they helped boost the number of people buying health coverage from the insurance marketplaces created under the Affordable Care Act — Obamacare’s formal name — from 11.4 million people in 2020 to 24.3 million last year.

The enhanced subsidies were available to everyone, regardless of income. Additional federal aid provided to some of the lowest-income households entirely eliminated premium payments for some people.

Congressional leaders let the subsidies expire on Dec. 31. As of the end of last month, the number of people enrolled in marketplace coverage was down by about 1.2 million compared with last year, according to federal data.

Last year, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the expiration of the federal subsidies would increase the number of people without insurance by 4.2 million by 2034.

Under the Affordable Care Act, each state can either use the federal government’s online insurance marketplace, HealthCare.gov, or operate its own state-run exchange. Only the 21 states plus the District of Columbia with state-run marketplaces can offer state-funded tax credits or subsidies, and at least 10 of them (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Vermont and Washington) are doing so.

Matt McGough, a policy analyst at health care research group KFF, said many of the people who buy Obamacare plans “have fallen between the cracks of the health care system.”

“They might not work a job or work enough hours at a job to be eligible for health benefits. They are too young for Medicare. They make too much to be eligible for Medicaid, and they really have no other option but to go to the marketplace,” McGough said.

He warned that relatively healthy people are the ones most likely to forgo marketplace coverage rather than pay more for it. That will leave the exchanges with the people who have the greatest health needs, raising costs and premiums for everyone. To avoid that scenario, he said, states “want to be able to keep as many people in the marketplace as possible.”

A big commitment in New Mexico

In New Mexico, Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham and state lawmakers earlier this year tapped the state’s 5-year-old Health Care Affordability Fund for an additional $17.3 million so they could entirely replace the expired federal subsidies through June 30 for all enrollees, regardless of income.

The vast majority of the 82,400 New Mexicans who buy coverage from the state marketplace are eligible for state help. Perhaps as a result, New Mexico is one of only a handful of states where the number of people buying Obamacare plans has increased this year: Enrollment is up 18% in New Mexico, while there have been single-digit increases in the District of Columbia, Maryland and Texas.

“We feel really great about having come together to really focus on these affordability challenges for New Mexicans, and really proud of the gains that we’ve made in coverage while we’re seeing losses elsewhere,” said Kari Armijo, cabinet secretary for the New Mexico Health Care Authority. She noted that a handful of Republican state lawmakers have joined Democrats in supporting the aid.

The money in New Mexico’s Health Care Affordability Fund comes from a 3.75% surtax levied on insurance companies. When the fund was created, the surtax was expected to generate about $165 million in new revenue annually.

Currently, the state uses nearly half of the revenue from the surtax to fund other parts of its budget. But the New Mexico House earlier this month approved a bill that would gradually increase the portion of the surtax allocated to the Health Care Affordability Fund, from the current 55% to 100% in 2028.

Legislative financial analysts recently questioned the long-term sustainability of that approach. Armijo acknowledged that continuing to replace the expired federal subsidies “will deplete the fund over time.”

“It is a pretty substantial amount of money, and it is going to strain the programs that we can provide with that funding,” Armijo said.

Paul Gessing, president of the Rio Grande Foundation, a conservative-leaning think tank in New Mexico, said the state is “flush with oil and gas money” now, enabling it to “spend money in ways that don’t make a great deal of sense for the population as a whole and instead benefits a small sliver of relatively well-off New Mexicans.”

Gessing said the state should focus on reducing health care spending by recruiting and retaining more doctors and nurses to lessen its shortage of providers and by overhauling medical malpractice laws.

“I don’t think the state should make it a practice to use state funds to fill in the gap when federal funding is shifted or eliminated,” Gessing said.

Other states

In California, where 1.9 million people were enrolled on the state’s exchange in 2025, enrollment is already down by 32% from last year, according to state figures.

The state has opted this year to spend $190 million to fully replace the lost federal subsidies for people earning up to 150% of the federal poverty level ($23,940 for an individual), and partially replace them for people making between 150% and 165% of the federal poverty level — just above eligibility for Medicaid in the state. About 390,000 enrollees are receiving the state-based subsidies this year.

Like New Mexico, California in 2021 created a Health Care Affordability Reserve Fund, funded through general revenue and penalties some people have to pay when they file their taxes.

The state budget Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed last month envisions a “modest projected deficit” of $2.9 billion for fiscal year 2026-2027, but that could grow to $22 billion the next year. California has a total annual budget of about $350 billion.

“Any amount of money that you can put into affordability is meaningful,” said Jessica Altman, executive director of California’s marketplace. “Thinking about those trade-offs is a challenging conversation, but an important one at the state level.”

In Colorado, the state is offering financial help through a new program called the Colorado Premium Assistance program. It came together during an August 2025 special session, when Colorado lawmakers approved up to $110 million this year to partially replace the federal subsidies. Help will be available to anyone making between 133% and 400% of the federal poverty level, or between $43,890 and $132,000 for a family of four.

“It is clear that this is a value for Coloradans. And having a state based marketplace like we do in Colorado, it really allows us to develop state-specific solutions and have our policies and changes driven by the needs of the people who live here,” said Nina Schwartz, chief policy and external affairs officer for Colorado’s marketplace.

Schwartz emphasized, however, that the state help won’t entirely replace the expired federal aid, and that as a result, the number of people buying coverage on the exchange is declining. Cancellations are up 83% compared with last year.

“We’re seeing an increase in the number of cancellations, with the number of people nearly doubling who canceled their plans during open enrollment compared to last year,” she said.

Other states also are opting for limited assistance. Connecticut, for example, is offering aid to households with incomes up to 200% of the federal poverty level, and the state announced it would spend $115 million in 2026 to partially offset the expiration of the federal subsidies.

Massachusetts has set aside $250 million to enhance its existing state subsidy program, helping to keep around 270,000 enrollees with incomes below 400% of the federal poverty level enrolled with stable premiums. As of early January, around 25,000 people in Massachusetts had already canceled their marketplace plans.

Maryland has a new premium assistance program that fully replaces the federal aid for enrollees earning below 200% of the federal poverty level and partly replaces it for those earning between 200% and 400% of the federal poverty level. Since last year, New York has offered help to marketplace enrollees with incomes up to 400% of the federal poverty level. And since 2023, Washington has offered state subsidies to anyone earning below 250% of the federal poverty level.

Stateline reporter Shalina Chatlani can be reached at schatlani@stateline.org. 

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

The broadly popular Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Grant program is on life support after Wisconsin Senate Republicans canceled a vote on a GOP-authored bill to extend the program during the body’s floor session Wednesday. 

For nearly four decades, the program has allowed the state Department of Natural Resources to support the acquisition of land for conservation purposes. The program is set to expire June 30 when its funding runs out. 

Lawmakers have been working for nearly a year to reach an agreement on an extension. A Knowles-Nelson extension in Gov. Tony Evers’ proposed budget last year was stripped out by Republicans and a Democratic-authored bill supported by all 60 legislative Democrats has languished in a Republican-controlled committee. 

In recent years, a handful of legislative Republicans have become increasingly hostile to the stewardship program, complaining that it has taken too much land off local property tax rolls in the northern part of the state and that a state Supreme Court decision last year removed the Legislature’s oversight authority over the program’s spending. 

In January, Assembly Republicans passed a bill that would extend the program without any funding for land acquisition. With the Assembly holding its final scheduled floor session of the year on Thursday, the Senate’s failure to hold a vote on its version of the bill Wednesday means it’s unlikely a bill will make it to Evers’ desk. 

Democrats have said they won’t support a version of the bill that ends land acquisition under the program. 

In recent weeks, Republicans have begun to lay the groundwork for claiming that any failure to extend the program would be the Democrats’ fault. 

But Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point), the author of the Republican proposal, said Wednesday after the bill was dropped from the schedule that the Senate needs to pass a version of the bill with 17 Republican votes.  With supporters and opponents of the program divided within the Republican caucus, advocates for the program have said for months it’s been clear that any version of stewardship extension would require bipartisan support. 

“This has been one of these bills that’s been very difficult to thread the needle on,” Testin said after the Wednesday floor session. “So it’s been sort of a tug of war, you do X, Y, and Z on one provision of the bill. You have members that raise concerns, and if you do X, Y and Z a different way, they’ve got concerns as well.”

Sen. Jodi Habush Sinykin (D-Whitefish Bay), who wrote the Democratic proposal and has been involved in legislative negotiations over the program, said it’s disingenuous for Republicans to point fingers at Democrats, when Democrats are united in their support for the program and have tried to compromise. 

The initial bill proposed by Habush Sinykin included a provision to provide independent oversight of the program as a response to Republican concerns and in recent days offered a compromise of extending the program with $5-6 million in land acquisition funding — about $10 million less than budgeted currently. On the floor on Wednesday, Democrats attempted to force a vote on a motion that would have extended the program for one year at current funding levels. 

“Their efforts to try to cast blame or aspersions on the Democrats when it is apparent that they have too many members of their caucus who are strongly opposed to this program … they have not been shy or reticent about voicing publicly strong opposition to the continuity of this program,” Habush Sinykin said. “So it takes not just a lot of nerve, but a questionable honesty, to try to pin this on Democrats.” 

Habush Sinykin said the Assembly version of the bill was “not even tempting” because it doesn’t include any land acquisition funds. 

“What they are looking for and needing are more Democratic votes, which is a big responsibility, because we care about the integrity of the program,” she said. “So you don’t want to give votes for something that doesn’t have value and isn’t true to the purpose.”

“Everyone in the building knows, and many outside the building know, that Republicans don’t like Knowles-Nelson,” she continued, “that they can’t get it done in their caucus.”

Baylor Spears contributed reporting to this story.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Marathon Petroleum Company’s Salt Lake City Refinery in Salt Lake City on Jan. 3, 2024. (Photo by Spenser Heaps for Utah News Dispatch)

A coalition of public health and environmental groups filed a suit Wednesday challenging the Trump administration’s recent finding that the Environmental Protection Agency could not regulate climate-warming greenhouse gases.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and President Donald Trump announced last week the administration was finalizing a repeal of the 2009 endangerment finding, which declared the agency could regulate greenhouse gas emissions, particularly from vehicle emissions, because climate change posed a danger to human health.

The 17 groups who jointly filed the suit Wednesday include the American Public Health Association, Clean Wisconsin, Union of Concerned Scientists, Earthjustice and Natural Resources Defense Council. 

‘Required by law to protect us’

Their two-page filing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit does not detail any of the groups’ legal arguments against the repeal, but lawyers and officials for the groups said the EPA was legally bound, under the Clean Air Act, to protect people from greenhouse gas emissions. 

“They are required by law to protect us from air pollution that endangers public health and welfare,” Dr. Georges C. Benjamin, the CEO of the American Public Health Association, said on a video call with reporters. “And that includes greenhouse gases that are driving climate change.”

The law requires challenges to new nationwide agency actions on emissions to be filed in the D.C. Circuit.

In an email, EPA press secretary Brigit Hirsch said the agency had reviewed the endangerment finding, the Clean Air Act and related court decisions, including “robust analysis” of recent Supreme Court decisions. The agency concluded it did not have authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

“Unlike our predecessors, the Trump EPA is committed to following the law exactly as it is written and as Congress intended—not as others might wish it to be,” Hirsch said. 

“In the absence of such authority, the Endangerment Finding is not valid, and EPA cannot retain the regulations that resulted from it,” she continued. “EPA is bound by the laws established by Congress, including under the CAA. Congress never intended to give EPA authority to impose GHG regulations for cars and trucks.”

Emissions are pollutants, opponents say

But the groups said the EPA’s reasoning ignored that the agency has long regulated emissions as part of its mandate to protect clear air. The omission of the term “greenhouse gases” in the Clean Air Act is “a manufactured problem” by opponents of regulation, Hana Vizcarra, a senior attorney at Earthjustice, said.

“The Clean Air Act was intended to cover air pollutants, full stop. Air pollutants include greenhouse gases,” she said. “This argument that Congress needs to do something different to be able to regulate greenhouse gases… it’s just a way to avoid the issue and avoid regulation.”

The matter is “settled law,” the groups said, as federal courts have affirmed and reaffirmed the EPA’s power to regulate emissions.

A 2007 U.S. Supreme Court case established that the Clean Air Act “was unambiguous” in authorizing the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants, Meredith Hankins, a senior attorney at NRDC, said. 

That decision led to the EPA’s so-called endangerment finding two years later, during President Barack Obama’s first year in office.

Attorneys general likely to weigh in

Wednesday’s challenge will likely be consolidated with other challenges, including those from “blue-state attorneys general,” Hankins said.

In the announcement last week, Trump said the endangerment finding, and the tailpipe emissions standards that relied on it, had dragged down the automotive sector and the broader economy nationwide.

The administration has said the move will save Americans more than $1 trillion by reducing regulations.

The repeal’s opponents, though, said Wednesday that projection ignored more than $100 billion in additional costs American drivers would see if fuel efficiency standards are relaxed or the enormous public health costs from worsened air quality and increased climate risks.