U.S. Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, left, and the top Democrat on the committee, Sen. Patty Murray of Washington state, at a committee markup on Thursday, July 31, 2025. (Photos from committee webcast)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations Thursday largely rejected Trump administration proposals to slash funding for education programs, medical research grants, health initiatives and Ukraine security assistance.

Instead, senators from both parties agreed to increase spending in the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education spending bill for fiscal year 2026, as well as the Defense bill, and rebuked the White House’s move to dismantle the Department of Education.

The pushback against President Donald Trump was significant as Congress heads toward a possible standoff and partial government shutdown when the fiscal year expires on Sept. 30.

In response to the Trump administration’s separate cancellation of grants and freezing of funds approved by Congress, senators also included language in the Labor-HHS-Education spending bill to create deadlines for formula grants to be released to states on time.

Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, said the bill to fund the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education “prioritizes funding to make Americans healthier and supports life-saving medical research through targeted funding.”

The measure provides $116.6 billion for HHS, an increase of $446 million in discretionary funding over the previous fiscal year. Included is a $150 million increase for cancer research and a $100 million increase for Alzheimer’s disease research, as well as a ban on an administration cap on indirect costs at the National Institutes of Health, according to a summary from Democrats. The cap on how much NIH pays research universities and medical schools for indirect costs is the subject of a permanent injunction in an ongoing lawsuit.

Trump’s budget proposal also cut funding for the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to $4.2 billion, but senators voted to instead allocate $9.1 billion for the agency.

Also included is $8.8 billion for the Child Care and Development Block Grant and nearly $12.4 billion for Head Start.

The top Democrat on the committee, Sen. Patty Murray of Washington state, said that while the bill rejects many of the funding cuts from the Trump administration, it’s “only half of the equation.”

“We have an administration right now that is intent on ignoring Congress, breaking the law, and doing everything it can without any transparency, to dismantle programs and agencies that help families,” she said. “There is no magic bullet that will change that unfortunate reality.”

Murray also expressed her disappointment that the bill did not fund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Trump sent what is known as a rescissions request to Congress, approved by both chambers, that yanked $1.1 billion in previously approved funding over the next two years for the agency, which funds NPR and PBS.

The Labor-HHS-Education spending bill for fiscal year 2026 passed out of the Senate committee with a bipartisan 26-3 vote.

Senators also passed the Defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 2026 on a 26-3 vote.

Dismantling of Education Department spurned

The bill text tightens requirements so that Education Department staffing levels must be sufficient to carry out the agency’s missions, and its work cannot be outsourced to other agencies or departments to fulfill statutory responsibilities, according to Sen. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, the top Democrat on the spending panel dealing with Labor-HHS-Education spending. 

The agency saw a reduction in force, or RIF, earlier this year that gutted more than 1,300 employees and hit wide swaths of the department. The Supreme Court cleared the way earlier in July for the agency to temporarily proceed with those mass layoffs.

The bill also provides $5.78 billion for School Improvement Programs — which support before- and after-school programs, rural education, STEM education and college and career counseling, among other initiatives.

Trump’s fiscal 2026 budget request had called for $12 billion in spending cuts at the Education Department but the committee allocated $79 billion in discretionary funding.

Education Secretary Linda McMahon defended Trump’s sweeping proposals while appearing in June before the Senate Labor-HHS-Education subcommittee.

During Thursday’s markup, Murray called the president’s proposal to defund the Department of Education “absurd.”

“I still hope we can do more when it comes to demanding accountability, transparency, and that this administration actually follows our laws,” Murray said. “We all know President Trump cannot dismantle the Department of Education or ship education programs to other agencies. Authorizing laws prevent that.”

The agency has witnessed a dizzying array of cuts and changes since Trump took office, as he and his administration look to dramatically overhaul the federal role in education and dismantle the department.

The bill maintains the same maximum annual award for the Pell Grant from the previous award year at $7,395. The government subsidy helps low-income students pay for college.

Trump’s budget request had called for cutting nearly $1,700 from the maximum award.

Health spending

Baldwin said the overall bill is a “compromise.” She pointed to how Republicans and Democrats agreed to increase funds for the 988 Suicide hotline by $2 million and by another $20 million for substance abuse recovery.

The spending bill will also provide $1.6 billion for State Opioid Response grants, which is a formula-based grant for states to address the opioid crisis.

Senators rejected the Trump administration’s request to cut National Institutes of Health research by 40% and instead included a more than $400 million bump in funding for a total of $48.7 billion.

Georgia Sen. Jon Ossoff said that he was grateful that the committee worked on a bipartisan basis to reject major Trump cuts for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in his home state.

“I made (it) very clear that I would not accept the destruction of the CDC,” Ossoff said. “I am grateful that Republicans and Democrats on this committee are coming together to defend this vital institution based in the state of Georgia.”

Advocates for medical research praised the legislation.

“Chair Collins and Vice Chair Murray deserve special recognition for their leadership in making this a priority. Thousands of ACS CAN volunteers from across the country have been writing to their lawmakers on this issue and it’s deeply encouraging to see their voices have been heard loud and clear,” Lisa Lacasse, president of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, said in a statement.

AmeriCorps, Job Corps funding sustained

Trump’s budget request also proposed $4.6 billion in spending cuts at the Department of Labor. 

The spending bill also maintains funding for Job Corps, a residential career training program for young adults, at $1.76 billion.

Trump’s budget request sought to eliminate the program entirely.

The administration says the program is “financially unsustainable, has an exorbitant perparticipant cost, risks the safety of young adults, and has often made participants worse off,” according to a summary of the budget request.

The spending bill also includes $15 billion for the Social Security Administration, an increase of $100 million from the president’s budget request, to address staffing shortages.

The administration also proposed the elimination of AmeriCorps.

However, senators kept funding for AmeriCorps for fiscal year 2026 at $1.25 billion.

Defense spending also increased

The Defense appropriations spending bill for fiscal year 2026 that senators worked on represented an increase from the president’s budget request.

“I think not only the prior administration, but this administration as well, have underestimated the level of challenge that we have,” said Sen. Mitch McConnell, chairman of the Defense appropriations panel.

The Kentucky Republican said the bill provides $851.9 billion for fiscal year 2026.

He said the topline is higher than the president’s budget request because “we cannot seriously address these challenges while artificially constraining our resources” — challenges such as the war in Ukraine and conflicts in the Middle East.

The bill also rejects the Trump administration’s effort to slash funding to aid Ukraine in its war against Russia.

“Shutting off engagement with Ukraine would undermine our military’s efforts to prepare for the modern battlefield,” McConnell said.

During the markup of the defense spending bill, Sen. Dick Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, introduced an amendment to require the Department of Homeland Security to reimburse costs to the Department of Defense for immigration enforcement.

As the Trump administration aims to carry out its plans for mass deportation of people without permanent legal status, it’s intertwined the U.S. military and immigration enforcement, ranging from deploying the National Guard to quell immigration protests in Los Angeles to housing immigrants on the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba military base.

Durbin said that so far, DHS has cost the Defense Department $900 million, from personnel costs to housing immigrants on military bases.

Durbin said the cost to house 180 people on Guantanamo Bay cost the Department of Defense $40 million over three months.

His amendment failed on a 14-15 vote. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, pictured July 31, 2025. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Judges on the U.S. Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit questioned the legality of President Donald Trump’s sweeping emergency tariffs Thursday as the White House pushes on with its Aug. 1 deadline for import taxes at levels not seen since the 1930s.

The case originated from consolidated lawsuits brought by a handful of business owners and a dozen Democratic state attorneys general who argued the president does not have the authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA.

Through nearly two hours of questioning Thursday, the 11-judge panel probed whether the president could use IEEPA authority to set tariffs without approval from Congress.

The U.S. Department of Justice’s Brett Shumate argued the law is “one of the most powerful tools” to protect the economy and national security during emergencies.

Oregon Solicitor General Benjamin Gutman, who argued on behalf of the Democratic states challenging the tariffs, maintained Trump’s reason behind declaring the unilateral emergency tariffs — U.S. trade deficits with other nations — did not actually merit a national emergency.

Trump became the first president to trigger tariffs under the 1977 law when in February and March he ordered punitive import taxes on products from Canada, Mexico and China after declaring illegal fentanyl smuggling from those countries a national emergency.

The president took his tariffs worldwide in an April executive order that declared trade deficits an emergency and slapped what he described as “reciprocal” import taxes on nearly all foreign goods.

In late May, the U.S. Court of International Trade sided with Democratic attorneys general from Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico and Oregon, as well as the business owners from across the country, including in New York, Pennsylvania, Utah, Vermont and Virginia.

The word ‘tariff’

Judges on the panel grilled Shumate about how IEEPA grants the authority to impose tariffs.

“A major concern that I have is IEEPA doesn’t even mention the word tariffs,” said Judge Jimmie V. Reyna, adding that Congress “certainly was aware about tariffs” when it wrote the law.

Existing laws already create “a highly structured … framework” for tariffs, said Reyna, who was appointed to the bench in 2011 by President Barack Obama. “You would agree with me that those statutes do pertain to tariffs?”

“Correct,” replied Shumate, the assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s Civil Division.

Pressed again by Reyna on “tariff” not appearing in the statute, Shumate said “I don’t think that’s unusual.”

“There are at least two examples of statutes that authorize tariffs that don’t use the word ‘tariff’ — Sections 232c and 122, which authorize the president to restrict imports,” Shumate said.

Judge Leonard P. Stark, who was appointed in 2022 by President Joe Biden, jumped in with skepticism.

“Both of those are part of the code that deals expressly with customs and duties, unlike IEEPA, which is not in that chapter,” Stark said.

Dependence on deficits probed

The panel also quizzed legal counsel for the businesses and states, including on the weight and content of Trump’s emergency declaration that launched his April 2 “Liberation Day” tariffs.

The states ignored arguments in Trump’s executive order that an emergency existed because of a hollow manufacturing base, a threat to national security, supply-chain disruptions and other issues, Judge Richard G. Taranto said to Gutman, of Oregon.

“Your arguments in your brief to us are devoted to the more narrow question of trade deficits alone as not amounting to unusual and extraordinary threat,” Taranto, who was appointed by Obama in 2013, said.

Gutman replied that all other matters the order cites are related to trade deficits.

“You can look at the executive order itself, the justification, the unusual and extraordinary threat that it is identifying, is what it calls persistent trade deficits,” he said. “Everything else that’s discussed there is either mentioned as a cause or an effect.”

Stark followed up with, “Is that the only fair reading of the executive orders, though? Can it be read as there are some recent consequences, some recent effects of the long and persistent trade deficit that now are unusual and extraordinary?”

Gutman said those effects are mentioned “in about a sentence in the executive order.”

Chief Judge Kimberly A. Moore fact-checked that answer.

The executive order “goes on for paragraph after paragraph,” Moore said, mentioning production capacity, military equipment, national security concerns and other threats to the U.S. economy, she said.

“How could you stand here and say to me that the president said it’s all about the deficit, and it’s one throwaway sentence at most in this whole order about the rest of these things constituting a threat?” Moore, who was appointed by George W. Bush, asked.

After back and forth, Gutman said, “I will walk back that it was a single sentence. But I think if you read this, the fairest reading of this executive order is that it is about the large and persistent trade deficits.”

Debate continues

Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said after oral arguments the U.S. Department of Justice had a “monster flop” during the arguments when at one point Shumate told Moore that the court did not have authority to review the tariffs.

“I think for those in the audience today, they are concerned when the federal government comes in and says that (judges) have absolutely no role to review what the president does under IEEPA. You actually heard laughter in the room,” Rayfield said.

During the White House daily briefing following the arguments, press secretary Karoline Leavitt defended tariffs as a success, citing that the duties have raised $150 billion in revenue since Trump took office.

“Those revenues will skyrocket even further, starting tomorrow, when new reciprocal tariff rates take effect,” Leavitt said.

Tariffs are paid to the U.S. government by American businesses and individuals who purchase foreign goods.

Critics across the spectrum

The case against Trump’s sweeping emergency tariffs has attracted support from various points on the political spectrum.

Democratic members of Congress filed an amicus brief on behalf of the state attorneys general and small businesses arguing the president’s import taxes under IEEPA usurped Congress’ tariff powers and violated the Constitution.

Congress has “explicitly and specifically” delegated tariff-raising powers to the president, but not under IEEPA, according to the lawmakers.

“Unmoored from the structural safeguards Congress built into actual tariff statutes, the President’s unlawful ‘emergency’ tariffs under IEEPA have led to chaos and uncertainty,” the lawmakers wrote.

The libertarian CATO Institute also filed an amicus brief raising several issues with Trump’s emergency tariffs, including that IEEPA contains “no textual support for tariff authority” and that it violates tariff power granted to Congress in the Constitution.

Brent Skorup, legal fellow at the CATO Institute, said it’s hard to predict the outcome of the case and whether a longstanding judicial branch deference to the executive branch will “win out” over a recent trend of skepticism of the president’s plans.

“In some ways I think this case has many analogies to President Biden’s attempt to forgive student loans,” he said in an interview with States Newsroom. “I mean, almost an identical issue — a vague statute, a president using it in a way that had never been used before for an economically major event.”

U.S. consumers bear costs

Economists are cautioning that the costs of the tariffs will fall on the shoulders of U.S. consumers.

The Yale Budget Lab’s most recent estimate shows the overall average effective tariff rate is 18.4%, the highest since 1933. The analysis, released Wednesday, included Trump’s latest trade announcement that he will impose a 25% duty on goods from India.

The overall price level and distributional effects of the tariffs are projected to cost American households roughly $2,400 in 2025 dollars, Budget Lab projected.

The analysis shows tariffs are expected to disproportionately affect clothing and textiles, with the prices of shoes increasing by 40% in the short run.

The Tax Foundation, a right-leaning think tank that advocates for lower taxes, found that Trump’s Aug. 1 tariff regime will affect nearly 75% of imported foods, with products from the European Union seeing the worst of it.

The five food imports that would be most affected, barring any deal changes, include liqueurs and spirits, baked goods, coffee, fish and beer, according to the foundation’s July 28 review.

Economists and some lawmakers also warn that Trump’s constantly evolving tariff policy is perpetuating an air of uncertainty for businesses. 

Sameera Fazili, the deputy director of the National Economic Council during the Biden administration, said the rapid changes are “undermining our economy.”

“You can see it in CEO surveys, where the Conference Board CEO Sentiment Survey for Q2 reported that a quarter of CEOs now plan to cut back on capital investments,” Fazili, now a senior fellow at the liberal think tank the Roosevelt Institute, said Tuesday during a press call organized by the Economic Speakers Bureau.

The same can be said for mid-sized and small businesses, said Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky.

“When I go home, I’ve yet to come across a businessman or -woman who says, ‘Oh, I love the tariffs.’ It’s the opposite,” Paul said at an event Wednesday at the CATO Institute.

Of the court case, Paul said he thinks the administration is “going to lose.”

“I think there’s a constitutional reason against it,” he said. “And I think there’s, in addition, a statutory reason they may fail.”

Frederick Prehn, seen during a 2021 meeting of the Natural Resources Board. (Screenshot/Wisconsin DNR)

The Wisconsin District I Court of Appeals ruled against former state Natural Resources Board Chair Frederick Prehn this week in a case over a public records request filed while Prehn was refusing to vacate his seat on the board. 

Prehn, a Wausau dentist, was appointed to the NRB by former Republican Gov. Scott Walker to a term that was supposed to expire in May 2021. Despite his term’s expiration, Prehn announced he would refuse to step down, preventing Democratic Gov. Tony Evers from appointing his replacement and flipping ideological control of the board, which sets policy for the Department of Natural Resources. 

Emails obtained through public records requests showed that Prehn was working with legislative Republicans to remain in his seat and maintain influence over state policies on controversial issues such as wolf hunting and water quality standards. 

Prehn ultimately remained on the board for 20 months past the expiration of his term. 

While he was refusing to leave, Midwest Environmental Advocates filed a public records request seeking all communications Prehn made about his refusal to leave — including emails and text messages made on public and personal devices or accounts. Through the DNR, Prehn turned over emails relevant to request but not text messages. A second records request by MEA to another Republican member of the board showed that Prehn had been texting about his decision. 

MEA sued in Dane County Circuit Court to have those text messages released. The circuit court found that Prehn had improperly withheld the text messages and a schedule was set for him to turn over those records. 

MEA filed a motion requesting that Prehn pay damages and attorney’s fees. The circuit court denied that motion under a 2022 state Supreme Court decision which found if a government agency voluntarily turns over records while a lawsuit for those records is pending, the government does not have to pay attorney’s fees to the requesting party. 

That decision, Friends of Frame Park v. Waukesha, has drawn criticism from legislators from both parties and a bill to negate the decision has been working its way through the Legislature. 

On Tuesday, the appeals court ruled that Prehn’s text messages count as public records and therefore should have been turned over under the state’s open records law. The court majority rejected  Prehn’s contention that the texts were about his “purely personal” decision to remain in office. The court also overturned the circuit court decision not to award MEA attorney’s fees. 

“This decision is a win for the people of Wisconsin. It strengthens our democracy by ensuring that government officials conduct their business with openness and transparency,” MEA attorney Adam Voskuil said. “Had Prehn’s arguments been accepted, the public records law and our state’s commitment to open government would have been significantly weakened.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The stormwater pond at the Emerald Sky Dairy in St. Croix County that was polluted after a 2016 manure spill. A new survey finds that waste produced in the St. Croix River watershed is as much as if more than 3 million people lived there. (Wisconsin DNR photo)

The waste produced by livestock in the St. Croix River watershed is equivalent to 3.25 million more people living in the region, according to a study conducted by a retired University of Iowa professor on behalf of local clean water activists. 

The study, conducted by Dr. Chris Jones, who studied water quality and agriculture at Iowa, totals the number of beef cattle, dairy cows, hogs, chickens and turkeys across the river’s watershed in Minnesota and Wisconsin, calculates the amount of waste those animals excrete in terms of nitrogen, phosphorus and solids. It also  projects  how many  humans it would take to produce that much waste. 

“Some of these nutrients from the manure get into our streams, we know that,” says Jones, who has authored a book about the effect of factory hog farming on the water in his home state. “And so, since the waste is not treated, and since the distribution of it on the fields is not very regulated … this volume of waste certainly makes the river and its tributaries more vulnerable to nutrient groups.”

In recent years, western Wisconsin has become the site of the state’s most intense fights over factory farming. Most of the state’s largest farms, known as concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), have been in the eastern part of the state. But large agricultural companies have been working to expand factory farming operations across western Wisconsin’s Driftless Region and the St. Croix watershed. 

That effort to expand has sparked a growth in local opposition. A number of communities have worked to pass local ordinances regulating how and when a factory farm can be built or expanded within their borders. Industry groups have filed lawsuits to block those efforts. 

Community members have also worked to stop or change permitting decisions by the state Department of Natural Resources for the expansion of factory farms. 

“I think it’s very important for citizens to realize that the counties and other local governments retain some power in being able to zone their land for the construction of these CAFOs because, as I said in Iowa, when the counties lost control, that’s when the big expansion occurred,” Jones says.

Despite local opposition, CAFOs have continued to grow, causing increased amounts of nutrients in the local water systems. Runoff and manure spills have caused massive fish kills in local streams, beaches have regularly been closed due to excessively high levels of pollutants and the groundwater — the sources of drinking water for most rural residents — has been found to contain high levels of nitrates. 

The St. Croix River has been part of the National Park System as a Wild and Scenic River since 1968 and listed as an “impaired water” by the Environmental Protection Agency since 2012. 

According to Jones’ study, most of the livestock within the watershed is raised on the Wisconsin side of the border. The waste created by just the livestock in Barron County is equivalent to 1.7 million extra people. The livestock waste in St. Croix County is equivalent to 911,000 more people.

The population of Barron County is about 46,000 and of St. Croix County is about 96,000, according to U.S. Census data. 

Jones says it’s within the capabilities of the regulating agencies and university systems in both Minnesota and Wisconsin to calculate the exact number of livestock the watershed is capable of enduring. He says they should do that, because the industry won’t. 

“This is an approach the state should think about in regulating these areas on a watershed by watershed basis, based on what we assume they can endure,” he says. “And that ought to be done for the Saint Croix to protect it.”

He doesn’t expect the St. Croix River’s designation as a national waterway by itself to influence the agriculture industry to change its practices.

“We have evidence here in Iowa, but any special status that the streams have is not going to affect decision making on the ag side, it’s just not,” Jones says. “So the state’s got to try to get in front of this and get their arms around it, because once the horse leaves a barn, it’s too late.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Anne Chapman (with the microphone), research director for the Wisconsin Association of School Business Officials Association, called the lack of funding “unprecedented" during a panel discussion. From left, WPEN Executive Director Heather DuBois Bourenane moderated the panel with Chapman, Julie Underwood, and Chris Thiel. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

GREEN BAY — After putting in a significant amount of time advocating for school funding during the most recent state budget cycle, public education advocates are looking towards their next effort — helping local communities show how much  private school vouchers cost taxpayers.

Advocates met at Preble High School, the state’s fourth largest high school, for the Wisconsin Public Education Network’s annual summit last week, an opportunity to connect and discuss the state of school funding and an array of other issues schools face. Denise Gaumer Hutchison, northeast regional organizer for the network and mother of two Green Bay students, told the Wisconsin Examiner that the importance of advocacy and working together is “at an all time high.” 

“It’s not just one type of people that are understanding that we have to have high quality public schools and we have to advocate for it now,” said Hutchison, a member of a variety of advocacy groups including Citizen Action and the League of Women Voters. “The Wisconsin State Legislature showed us that they are not advocates for public schools.”

Wisconsin Superintendent of Public Instruction Jill Underly told attendees in a video message she was grateful for the partnership with WPEN and advocates during the budget cycle that concluded in early July, when Gov. Tony Evers signed the 2025-27 state budget. 

“You are without question the strongest and most consistent advocates for public schools in our state. You are the link between policy and practice. You lift up what’s working and you fight for what’s needed,” Underly said. “Your voices have been loud, clear and grounded in what matters most kids, and you’ve reminded Wisconsin that public education isn’t just a line item. It’s a promise.” 

The budget set state aid for districts for the next two years. To the disappointment of many, however, it  included no general aid increases. Increases to the special education reimbursement rate didn’t reach the goal advocates had set.

“This is the gas you put in the tank,” Milwaukee Public Schools Legislative Policy Manager Chris Thiel said about the lack of general state aid during a panel discussion. “You can’t say the funding system is broken, if you didn’t fund it.”

Anne Chapman, research director for the Wisconsin Association of School Business Officials, called the lack of funding “unprecedented.” School districts have a $325 per pupil revenue limit increase, but without state funding, school districts will have to raise property taxes to benefit from it. 

Chapman noted that the state did significantly increase the special education reimbursement rate, but said the actual reimbursement would likely fall below the estimated rate of 42% in the first year and 45% in the second year. 

“When you hear the governor and others say that this budget provides $1.4 billion in spendable resources for schools, that is not state money,” Chapman said. “About $577 million of that is state money. The rest is mostly going to be borne by property taxpayers.”

Thiel noted that a recent Wisconsin Policy Forum report found that the state’s national ranking for school funding has fallen from 11th place in 2002 to 26th place now. 

“Were it not for local communities lifting their school districts up against these cuts from the state, we conceivably will be worse than 26th,” Thiel said, noting that increased local property taxes made the difference. “We didn’t get into this to do referenda every year, and we’ve got a really concerning situation.” 

Green Bay Area Public School Board Vice President James Lyerly said at the conference that without general aid and without a 60% special education reimbursement rate from the state budget, the district will have to go to referendum again. The district currently gets funding through a 10-year operating referendum that voters approved in 2017.

“It ensures that the district will once again need to seek voter support for a referendum to replace our current $16.5 million dollar per year non-recurring operational referendum that ends in 2027,” Lyerly said. The district’s current operational and recent building referendums, including one in November 2024, have ensured “our students are able to attend schools that meet their instructional needs and provide for safe learning spaces,” he said. 

“The continued underfunding of public education at the same time that there is an increased funding and expansion of unaccountable choice schools, not only creates these budget challenges, but it widens the opportunity gaps for students who rely on the comprehensive support systems that public schools provide,” Lyerly said.

The new state budget did include increases in per-pupil funding for voucher schools in Wisconsin, along with a $325 annual per-pupil revenue limit adjustment to keep parity with public schools.

Publicizing voucher programs’ cost

Advocates are turning to transparency on the cost of the voucher schools programs as the next item on their agenda.

Green Bay recently became the first municipality in the state to add the cost of private voucher schools as a line on residents’ property tax bills. 

Private school vouchers are paid out of school districts’ general state aid, and school districts have the option of raising property taxes to make up for the lost revenue. Property tax bills currently include information on the money going towards the town, the county, the technical college and local public school districts, but costs for private voucher schools are lumped in with public school costs.

A handful of Wisconsin municipalities have added inserts about voucher costs to their tax bills, but Hutchison said having it on the tax bill will be more effective at informing people, who often throw inserts away.

“[People] were totally appalled that they didn’t know that their taxes were going to support private schools and it wasn’t so much that they objected to supporting private schools, it was the lack of transparency and the knowledge they didn’t have the knowledge of where their tax dollars were going,” Hutchison said. 

The proposal to add a printed line on private voucher costs was introduced by Ald. Alyssa Proffitt. The city council voted 6-6 in April, with Green Bay Mayor Eric Genrich breaking the tie to approve it. The council worked with the school district administrative staff, the school board, Brown County, the Wisconsin Department of Revenue and the City Legal department to determine the legality and feasibility of adding another line to the printed city tax bill.

Genrich said at the conference that Green Bay residents will have a better understanding of how much they are paying for private schools, and he hopes the practice spreads.

“We really believe that we’ve created a template that other communities across the state of Wisconsin can use and adopt,” Genrich said at the conference. “I’ve been a supporter of this at the state level for some time. That is what we’re hoping to build towards, so we create some momentum within municipalities across the state of Wisconsin and actually get it done at the state level hopefully here in the near future.”

Genrich, a former state representative, supported a similar policy in the Wisconsin Assembly, but a bill authored by former Democratic Rep. Dana Wachs never received a public hearing. Similar bills have faced the same fate in recent years under the Republican-led Legislature.

WPEN is planning to launch an effort in the fall to help communities interested in going through a similar process. 

“If the Legislature won’t support transparency on tax bills for communities, then the communities are going to support transparency on their tax bills, and it’s going to go municipality by municipality by municipality,” Hutchison, the network’s Northeast regional organizer, said in an interview. “We’re not going to wait any longer, because this has been needed for a very long time, and we have some momentum now.”

Transparency on voucher costs is essential, she said, especially as public school districts continue to rely on property taxes for funding and must seek increases by referendum.

“We have a constitutional responsibility to fund our public schools, and people think in their communities that they’re doing that,” Hutchison said. “They’ve been misled, because the private school dollars are hidden inside of the tax bill, and all we’re asking for is to be transparent so that people can make informed decisions.” 

She said it can be difficult to ask taxpayers to vote to increase taxes if they don’t understand their tax bills.

“If you’re going to somebody’s door saying, ‘Hey, the Green Bay Area public school district or XYZ school district is going to referenda to help pay their bills because there’s no new money from the state of Wisconsin… and they say, ‘Look at my tax bill. Look how much money I’m paying in taxes to support schools.’ That’s not really the whole story,” Hutchison said.

“It’s a challenging conversation to have at somebody’s door. If I now can go to somebody’s door and say, ‘Did you see your latest tax bill? Did you see what percentage is being taken out and what dollar amount is being taken out of that amount to go to private schools?’ you may get somebody to say yes to increase their taxes because now they have a clearer picture of what’s really happening.” 

Hutchison said WPEN has a tool kit with resources on the issue. Changing the tax bill information has to start with a resolution from the school board asking the city or the township to support the effort, she said, and it then has to get approval from the city or local government. 

“We’re doing it district by district, community by community, and we’re having conversations with people that have come to us to see what we’ve done in other communities,” Hutchison said. “So we’re going to support them in how they approach this.” 

Hutchison said she has been having early conversations with some communities, including having three communities reach out following the summit. One superintendent, Amy Starzecki of Superior Public Schools, thanked the Green Bay community for its work around voucher transparency at the conference, saying Superior would be looking into the issue.

The effort to publicize private voucher costs comes as caps on Wisconsin’s school voucher programs are set to lift in the 2026-27 school year. Since 2017, the cap, which limits the percentage of students in a district who can participate, has been increasing by 1% until it hit 9% this year.

“Next year, there will be no limit. Those caps come off,” said Julie Mead, a professor emerita in UW-Madison’s department of educational leadership and policy analysis, during a session titled “It’s just not fair: Unpacking Fairness from Special Education to Funding-by-Referendum to Privatization.”

Eliminating the caps could make it hard for districts to plan, Mead said. 

“The ability of Green Bay superintendent to predict what’s going to happen next year in terms of the money coming in and going on and what their membership will be is going to be really, really difficult,” she said, “and it means our school districts are frankly going to be in a world of hurt.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

U.S. Deputy Agriculture Secretary Stephen Alexander Vaden testifies before the U.S. Senate Agriculture Committee on July 30, 2025. (Photo via committee livestream)

Members of both parties on the U.S. Senate Agriculture Committee chastised a U.S. Department of Agriculture official Wednesday for not consulting Congress before proposing to shift thousands of jobs out of the Washington, D.C., area.

USDA Deputy Secretary Stephen Alexander Vaden defended the sweeping proposal, which Secretary Brooke Rollins announced with a five-page memo last week, saying it would help bring the department closer to the people the government oversees and lower the cost of living for federal workers, while pledging to work with members of the committee over the next month of planning.

“The secretary’s memorandum was the first step, not the last step,” Vaden told Minnesota’s Amy Klobuchar, the top Democrat on the panel, who criticized several aspects of the plan.

The proposal calls for cutting 2,600 of the 4,600 USDA jobs in the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia and expanding the department’s footprint in five regional hubs: Raleigh, North Carolina; Indianapolis; Kansas City, Missouri; Fort Collins, Colorado; and Salt Lake City.

Klobuchar said moving workers out of the capital region hurts the constituencies USDA serves. Agency officials should be nearby to meet with members of Congress, other executive branch offices and trade groups that are based in the nation’s capital, she said.

“Whittling down USDA’s resources to do this crucial work puts rural America at a disadvantage when they don’t have people in the room where it happens,” Klobuchar said.

“We have differences across the aisle,” she continued. “But I think every one of my colleagues understands that you need people that can meet with you, you need people that can go over to the White House so that you don’t have people that don’t have the interests of rural America in mind making all the decisions.”

Vaden said the USDA would keep employees in all of the department’s mission areas in the Washington area.

No advance notice

Even Republicans who said they generally agreed with the aims of the proposal indicated they did not appreciate the lack of notice before it was announced.

“I support finding cost savings where you can, I support the idea of moving people out of the D.C. area and out into the field and closer to the farmer,” North Dakota Republican John Hoeven said. “We support the goals, but we want it to be a process where you work with Congress, with the Senate, both the authorizing committee and the Appropriations Committee on it, and we achieve those results together. And I think that’ll help garner a lot more support for the effort.”

In an opening statement, Chairman John Boozman, an Arkansas Republican, thanked Vaden for being available for the hearing on “very, very short notice”

Klobuchar took issue with that description.

“The reason it’s short notice is because the administration put out a half-baked plan with no notice and without consulting agricultural leaders,” she said.

Interest groups were not told ahead of the announcement, Vaden told Klobuchar, though the White House Office of Management and Budget did receive notice.

In response to complaints about the lack of engagement with Congress, Vaden said that lawmakers were notified at the same time as USDA employees, shortly before the announcement was public, and he emphasized that the announcement started a 30-day engagement period that would involve Congress.

He also compared the reorganization plan to the remote work that the department’s workforce used well past the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“From January 2021 to January 2025, the Biden administration, 2,200 employees left Washington, D.C.,” he said. “There was no congressional notice, there was no outcry, there was no committee hearing. For more than 1,700 days, extending well beyond any fair definition of the COVID pandemic, USDA was on a maximum telework footing.”

Midwest Republicans miffed

Some Republicans on the panel offered hearty endorsements to the proposal, including Jim Justice of West Virginia, who used his time to promote the plan instead of questioning Vader.

“I don’t have any questions,” Justice said. “All I’m telling you is, we absolutely need to move and do the very best that we can for these great people.”

But the issue transcended party lines in several cases. Some Republicans whose states were passed over in selecting the proposed hubs had sharp questions for Vaden, while some Democrats who would gain a federal presence under the proposal were less critical.

Hoeven questioned the proposed siting selections, noting Fargo, North Dakota, didn’t have a hub within 600 miles. Fargo is “in the heart of ag country,” Hoeven said.

“What’s magic about five hubs?” he asked. “How much agriculture is there in the state of Utah? We can go through all those things and whether, in fact, it’s actually easier or better for our farmers and our ranchers in North Dakota, given the five hubs you’ve selected.”

Utah ranked 37th in total agricultural income, according to the USDA’s 2023 statistics.

No Nebraska hub

Nebraska Republican Deb Fischer said she had discussed with Vaden, prior to his confirmation hearing this year, the possibility of moving some of the USDA’s workforce outside the Beltway, and advocated for Nebraska as a suitable location.

Because of that, she was underwhelmed by the proposal and its introduction.

“I would have liked to see a process that allowed for Nebraska to demonstrate its strong value proposition,” she said. “So while I do agree with the overreaching goal here, I have to express disappointment in how this has been rolled out and the lack of engagement with Congress prior to the announcement.”

Meanwhile, Colorado Democrat Michael Bennet, whose state would see a regional hub that would also house a consolidated U.S. Forest Service office, said he agreed with the plan’s goals.

“I have long called for the idea of trying to relocate people from Washington, D.C., to parts of the country, to partly to get out of the insulation of this place, to just be closer to, in this case, producers, but others as well,” Bennet said. “So philosophically, that’s where I’ve been.” 

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center in Aurora, operated by private prison firm GEO Group, is pictured on Jan. 30, 2025. U.S. Rep.  Jason Crow said he was denied entry to the facility while attempting an oversight visit. (Chase Woodruff/Colorado Newsline)

WASHINGTON — A dozen Democratic members of Congress filed a lawsuit Wednesday charging that the Trump administration is blocking lawmakers from conducting congressional oversight of federal immigration detention centers.

The suit in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia argues that the Department of Homeland Security’s new policy to limit or block lawmakers from visiting immigrant detention facilities is unlawful. The members cite an appropriations law in effect since 2019 that grants a lawmaker the ability to conduct oversight of such centers without prior approval from the department or Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

“This oversight informs potential legislation on the subject of immigration detention, ensures that administration officials are carrying out their responsibilities consistent with federal law, and ensures that funds appropriated to DHS and ICE are being used appropriately on the ground,” according to the suit.

DHS did not respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment.

As the Trump administration aims to carry out mass deportations, one of the few tools Democrats, who are in the minority in both chambers of Congress, have is oversight of immigration detention centers.

It’s already led to clashes between Democratic lawmakers and immigration officers after New Jersey Democrats protested the reopening of a detention center.

The lawmakers said that since June, they have tried to obtain information about conditions at DHS facilities “for the purpose of conducting real-time oversight of that facility” and each “of those attempted oversight visits has been blocked by” DHS.

For example, Colorado’s Jason Crow, who is part of the suit, said this month he was denied entry to an ICE facility to conduct oversight.

“​​As part of its campaign of mass deportation, the Trump-Vance administration has stretched the U.S. immigration detention system far beyond its capacity,” the suit said.

The suit cites the deaths of 11 people while in immigration custody in the past five months and the unlawful detainment of U.S. citizens, often without access to legal counsel.

“More people are being held by the United States in immigration detention than ever before, with many facilities housing more individuals than they were built to contain,” according to the suit. “Reports of mistreatment have been widespread and have included disturbing details of overcrowding, food shortages, lack of adequate medical care, and unsanitary conditions.”

The suit is being led by the advocacy group Democracy Forward, which is representing the House lawmakers, most of whom are in leadership roles or top Democrats on committees, such as Bennie Thompson of Mississippi on Homeland Security, Jamie Raskin of Maryland on Judiciary and Robert Garcia of California on Oversight and Government Reform.

The other Democrats include Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chair Adriano Espaillat and Dan Goldman of New York; J. Luis Correa, Jimmy Gomez, Raul Ruiz and Norma Torres of California; Crow and Joe Neguse of Colorado; and Veronica Escobar of Texas.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., speaks during a news conference with Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee member Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., demanding the release of the Epstein files at the U.S. Capitol on July 30, 2025 in Washington, DC.  (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Democrats on Wednesday began charting a little-known legal path to force President Donald Trump’s administration to release the investigative files on the now deceased Florida sex offender and financier Jeffrey Epstein.

In a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Democratic members of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, along with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, requested the “full and complete Epstein files” by Aug. 15.

“After missteps and failed promises by your Department regarding these files, it is essential that the Trump Administration provide full transparency. In 2024, President Trump stated on the campaign trail that he would declassify the Epstein files, with his political account on X stating, ‘President Trump says he will DECLASSIFY the 9/11 Files, JFK Files, and Epstein Files,’” according to the three-page letter led by Sen. Gary Peters of Michigan, the committee’s top Democrat.

“We call on you to fulfill those promises of transparency,” the letter, dated July 29, continued.

In addition to Schumer, other co-signers included Sens. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire, John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, Andy Kim of New Jersey and Ruben Gallego of Arizona.

Five senators

The senators are invoking a nearly century-old law that compels the executive branch to comply if at least five senators on the committee sign on to a request, Schumer told reporters at a Wednesday press conference.

“While protecting the victim’s identities can and must be of top importance, the public has a right to know who enabled, knew of or participated in one of the most heinous sex trafficking operations in history,” Schumer said.

Blumenthal added that any notes and recordings of Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s interviews last week in Tallahassee, Florida, with Ghislaine Maxwell should also be made public. Maxwell was convicted in 2021 and is now serving a 20-year sentence in a Florida federal prison for conspiring with Epstein to secure and transport minors for sexual abuse.

Along with requesting all investigative materials by mid-August, the senators also demanded a briefing for committee staff by Aug. 29.

Schumer said committee Democrats are “still talking” to Republican colleagues to urge them to join the request.

“And that may help get this public, but if not, there’s recourse in the courts. This is the law,” Schumer said.

A Justice Department spokesperson confirmed to States Newsroom that it received the letter but declined to comment further.

Ghislaine Maxwell subpoenaed

The Justice Department’s decision in early July to keep what are described as the Epstein files out of public view sparked uproar and division among Republicans in Congress, administration officials and Trump’s base.

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chair James Comer, a Kentucky Republican, issued a subpoena for an Aug. 11 deposition with Maxwell. Committee leadership rejected the convicted sex trafficker’s request Tuesday for the condition of immunity, according to media reports.

The continued noise led House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican and Trump ally, to release members early for the six-week August break to avoid votes related to compelling the release of Epstein material.

The DOJ’s unsigned memo on July 7 stated that a review of the files did not reveal an “incriminating ‘client list’” and that no further disclosure of the investigative materials “would be appropriate or warranted.”

Since the memo’s release, the Wall Street Journal revealed that Bondi briefed Trump in May that his name appeared in the Epstein materials. The context in which his name appears remains unknown.

The Journal also reported the existence of a 50th-birthday greeting that Trump drew and wrote for Epstein that featured the outline of a naked woman with Trump’s signature as pubic hair. Trump has denied he made the drawing and sued the Wall Street Journal.

The reports have further fueled calls for the files to be released.

Falling-out between Trump and Epstein

Trump told reporters Tuesday that he had a falling-out with Epstein after the financier began “taking” spa workers, whom Trump said were young women, from his Mar-a-Lago estate. Trump said Epstein “stole” Virginia Giuffre who worked at the Palm Beach, Florida, resort in 2000 at age 16, according to a 2016 deposition.

Giuffre alleged Maxwell and Epstein trafficked her as a teen for illegal sex with influential men, including Britain’s Prince Andrew, who settled with Giuffre and stepped down from his royal duties.

Giuffre became an advocate for victims of sex trafficking. She died by suicide in April.

The Justice Department concluded Epstein harmed more than 1,000 victims.

Epstein was found hanged in August 2019 in his New York City jail cell, where he was awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges.

This story mentions suicide.  If you or a loved one are suffering with thoughts of suicide, call or text 988. An online chat option is also available at 988lifeline.org.

A SNAP sign at a farm market in St. Petersburg, Florida. A coalition of state attorneys general is suing the Trump administration to block it from mining personal data from SNAP accounts. (Photo by Lance Cheung/USDA).

A lawsuit filed against the Trump administration by a coalition of attorneys general, including Michigan’s Dana Nessel and Wisconsin’s Josh Kaul, alleges that personal data mined from federal agencies could be used illegally to build a surveillance state unlike the nation has ever seen – putting recipients for things like food assistance at risk if they are being targeted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The suit, filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that the president’s U.S. Department of Agriculture is illegally demanding states turn over personal and sensitive information about millions of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, recipients.

SNAP, known as FoodShare in Wisconsin, is a state-administered, federally-funded program that provides billions of dollars in food assistance to tens of millions of low-income families. Personal information is provided to state and federal administrators in order to receive assistance, with an understanding that the information will only be used for SNAP purposes.

Moves by the Trump administration to force various departments to share that data with unrelated agencies, like ICE, sets up a system where the latter could potentially track deportation targets through information provided for SNAP. The USDA has also suggested that it would withhold state funding if states fail to comply with the information sharing mandate, effectively creating a gambit where states must choose residents’ privacy over vital assistance.

“Sensitive information about people shouldn’t be turned over to the federal government simply because they applied for or received assistance through SNAP,” Kaul said in a news release Tuesday. “It’s troubling that the federal government is working to compile this kind of information.”

Nessel, speaking to reporters in a news conference this week that included California Attorney General Rob Bonta and New York Attorney General Letitia James, said the episode was yet another attempt by the Trump administration to illegally use personal and sensitive data under the guise of fighting abuse and fraud.

“My colleagues and I will not allow this administration to trample on constitutional protections or unlawfully exploit the SNAP program in this way,” Nessel said. “Michigan families deserve to have their personal information protected, and I will keep fighting until they receive exactly that.”

Since taking office, reports have indicated that Trump is amassing a huge database of personal information on Americans using that data for undisclosed purposes, much like immigration enforcement. The USDA demands regarding SNAP information appear to be another step toward that goal, the lawsuit posits.

Bonta touched on the consequences of Trump’s White House having that much personal data on Americans at its fingertips.

“It’s a bait and switch of the worst kind,” Bonta said. “SNAP recipients provided this information to get help feeding their families, not to be entered into a government surveillance database or be used as targets in the president’s inhumane immigration agenda. That’s the reality here. This isn’t about oversight and transparency. This is about establishing widespread surveillance under the guise of fighting fraud.”

Bonta added that the attorneys general in the lawsuit are calling the issue what it is: An illegal data grab designed to scare people away from public assistance programs.

James said the entire framework of Trump’s immigration policies was cruelty on public display, but the new demand regarding SNAP was a new low.

“It is outrageous. It is unacceptable,” James said. “This is not for research or to improve a service that millions count on. They are basically trying to weaponize the SNAP program against immigrant communities in violation of the law, and we collectively will not stand for it. That is the administration’s plans, and they have made it abundantly clear.”

States participating in the lawsuit include Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia.

Erik Gunn of the Wisconsin Examiner contributed to this report.

Michigan Advance is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Michigan Advance maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jon King for questions: info@michiganadvance.com.

The Waukesha County Sheriff Department, one of the agencies that participate in the 287(g) program. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

The number of Wisconsin county sheriff’s offices participating in a collaborative program with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has jumped from nine to 12 this year, with other forms of cooperation with ICE growing across the state, according to a report by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Wisconsin. 

The report shows more sheriff offices joining the 287(g) program over the last three years. The program carves out dedicated immigration operations within the sheriff’s offices, shares data with ICE and increases local participation in ICE detention requests. 

The ACLU report, released Tuesday, is an update from its 2022 report on Wisconsin’s “Jail-to-deportation pipeline.” 

“Immigrants have been an important part of the fabric of Wisconsin for many years,” said Tim Muth, senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Wisconsin, in a statement released by the ACLU, along with the updated report. “They are a part of our families. They are our coworkers, friends, and neighbors, and the public should know what their local law enforcement agencies are doing.”

In 2022, there were eight law enforcement across the state participating in the 287(g). The program allows ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) to partner with state and local law enforcement agencies, who are empowered to dedicate their own resources to pursuing people living without legal immigration paperwork in the United States. 

“ICE recognizes the importance of its relationships with law enforcement partners to carry out its critical mission,” states a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) webpage. 

Agencies can participate in 287(g) under a few different models including a “jail enforcement” model that focuses on people without legal immigration status already in local jails on other criminal charges, a “task force” model that gives local law enforcement officers limited authority to enforce immigration law and a warrant service program which allows local law enforcement to serve administrative warrants to people without legal status within county jails.

The participants in 287(g) include the sheriff’s offices of Brown, Fond du Lac, Kewaunee, Manitowoc, Marquette, Outagamie, Sheboygan, Washington, Waukesha (which is listed twice on the DHS website’s “pending agencies” portion), Waupaca, Wood, and Winnebago counties. 

Six of those sheriffs (Kewaunee, Outagamie, Washington, Waupaca, Winnebago, and Wood counties) joined the program between from March to June of this year. The rest began participating in 287(g) in 2020, according to the ACLU report,

While some law enforcement agencies have joined the program, others have distanced themselves from immigration enforcement. The Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Office does not participate in the 287(g) program, and both that office and the Dane County Sheriff limit or prohibit their participation in immigration activities. The Milwaukee Police Department (MPD) also has policies limiting its own involvement in immigration enforcement in the interest of preserving a trusting and cooperative relationship with the community, the policies state.

“The expansion of these agreements enables ICE to further embed its enforcement presence within local jurisdictions, often circumventing community-driven policies against immigration enforcement,” the report states. “These partnerships not only divert local resources from community safety initiatives but also significantly heighten the risk of racial profiling and erode trust between law enforcement and immigrant communities.”

The ACLU has also found that between 2021 and 2024, the Wisconsin Department of Corrections (DOC), along with 29 counties, received over $7 million in federal funds through the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP). The ACLU states that the funds were “in exchange” for data sharing with ICE. Wisconsin Examiner reached out to DOC, the story will be updated with any reply from the the state agency regarding data sharing.

That data is just part of a growing immigration enforcement and detention network across the state. From Oct. 2021 to June 2025, according to the report, ICE sent over 3,300 immigration detainers to Wisconsin. These are situations in which ICE requests that a local jail hold individuals for up to 48 hours beyond their scheduled release, the ACLU report states. “Although these detainers are often not accompanied by a warrant signed by a neutral judicial official and lack authority under Wisconsin law,” it explains, “most sheriffs across the state continue to honor them.”

Although over 3,300 individuals have been held between Oct. 2021 and June 2025, the biggest jump in detainer requests occurred this year. Between Jan. 1 and June 10, there were 1,065 ICE detainers in Wisconsin. By comparison there were 942 ICE detainers during all of 2024, 853 detainers during a 12-month period between October 2022 and September 2023 and 474 in the 12 months before that. 

“These numbers demonstrate that even without a judge-signed warrant, ICE continues to issue these ‘requests,’ and a significant number of Wisconsin jails continue to comply,” the ACLU’s report states. “This practice is problematic as federal deportation proceedings are civil, not criminal, matters and Wisconsin law does not provide legal authority for law enforcement to act on civil immigration detainers.”

Some sheriff offices are even taking it a step further than 287(g) and SCAAP. New financial agreements have also been arranged with counties such as Brown, Sauk and Ozaukee. In Brown County, the sheriff maintains a $90,000 contract for detention and transportation services, carrying a $70.00 per detainee, per day reimbursement, and another $36.00 per hour, with mileage and funding, for transportation services. Sauk County receives a $106.00 per-diem rate for housing ICE detainees, and Ozaukee County gave ICE the ability to purchase cell space in its jail by building off an existing contract with the U.S. Marshall Service. The ACLU calls this a “concerning trend” of local sheriffs “not only passively complying with ICE requests” but also “actively entering into benefiting from direct financial arrangements to house and transport immigrants for ICE removal activities.”

The report also highlights recent legislation which would require more cooperation with ICE. Republican lawmakers have introduced bills that would compel sheriffs to work with ICE regardless of their own priorities, mandate citizenship investigations of jail detainees, mandate compliance with detainer requests, and other policies.

To counter these advancements, the ACLU is calling on community members to reach out to their local sheriffs and police chiefs to learn more about where they stand on ICE cooperation, push agencies to prioritize community trust over obedience, and engage with lawmakers on the proposed bills. 

“These cozy relationships between ICE and many sheriffs are disrupting our communities and funneling immigrant community members into the federal deportation machine,” said Muth.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

At a news conference Tuesday in the state Capitol, Rachel Smith of New Berlin speaks in favor of a bill that would make app-based drivers independent contractors and allow the businesses they drive for to provide some benefits. The bill was authored by Sen. Julian Bradly, on the right. (Photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner)

Backers of legislation that would block drivers from app-based rideshare and delivery businesses from being declared employees are making a full-court press to persuade Gov. Tony Evers to sign the measure into law.

If enacted, AB 269 would automatically classify drivers for Uber, Lyft, DoorDash and similar businesses as independent contractors — bypassing current Wisconsin laws that differentiate independent contractors from direct employees. It would exclude those drivers from Wisconsin’s unemployment insurance, workers compensation and minimum wage laws.

The bill would also allow those businesses to set up payroll plans to fund benefit programs for drivers, but it would not require them to do so.

Along with other bills that passed both houses after May 8, the Legislature’s calendar requires the independent contractor measure to go to Evers on Thursday, Aug. 7. Evers hasn’t spoken publicly about the bill, but opponents contend it deprives drivers of worker protections in return for meager benefits.

“It just seems to be a PR move to entrench drivers’ status as independent contractors,” said state Rep. Ryan Clancy (D-Milwaukee), who drives for Lyft and who voted against the bill in the Assembly. 

A heavy lobbying campaign for which DoorDash has been the most visible sponsor has put all the attention on the benefits provision. On Tuesday, Chamber for Progress, a tech business lobbying group, organized a press conference in the state Capitol to urge Evers to sign the bill.

State Sen. Julian Bradley (R-New Berlin), the bill’s Senate author, said it would allow the driving-app companies “to voluntarily contribute to portable benefit accounts that travel with the worker and allow them to use the funds for health care, sick time or retirement without stripping workers of their independence.”

Gig workers “want to be independent,” said Ruth Whittaker, of Chamber for Progress. “We should protect their independence and the flexibility of gig work, and we should also give them access to benefits.”

Joe DeRose, a retired state employee, said his work driving for DoorDash provided “flexible income to help with rising costs” without tying him to a fixed schedule.

“I strongly support portable benefits,” DeRose said. “These accounts would let app-based workers save for unforeseen events or retirement without giving up the flexibility that makes this work so appealing.”

Rachel Smith of New Berlin said she delivers for DoorDash while building an online wellness business.

“The reality is, like many entrepreneurs and independent workers, I don’t have access to traditional benefits, so this portable benefits legislation would change that,” Smith said. “Portable benefits would let me plan for my future without giving up the freedom that makes this work possible in the first place.”

“Without this offer, there are no portable benefits,” said state Rep. Sylvia Velez-Ortiz (D-Milwaukee), who cast the only Democratic vote for the bill in the Assembly. “This is something that the platforms are wanting to do on their own, and government should not stand in their way of doing what they know is right.”

While Evers hasn’t said whether he’ll sign or veto the bill, its passage with only Republican votes — besides that of Ortiz-Velez — has almost always been a precursor to a veto.

Wisconsin labor laws include a series of tests to determine if a worker is an independent contractor or an employee.

An employee is covered by unemployment insurance, workers compensation insurance and state labor standards that include minimum wage, work hours and overtime regulations. An independent contractor is not.

The worker-business relationship must meet each one of nine qualifications to be exempt from workers comp law. It must meet 6 out of 9 qualifications to be exempt from unemployment insurance. And it must meet all six qualifications to be exempt from the state’s wage and hour laws.

The bill would make the app-based rideshare and delivery companies automatically exempt from all three areas of employment law. 

They could lose the exemption only if they flunked all four parts of a new four-part test — by prescribing when drivers must be logged in; terminating a driver for turning down an assignment; restricting drivers from working for other app-based companies; and restricting drivers from any other lawful job or business.

“This is a dangerous bill for working people,” Stephanie Bloomingdale, president of the Wisconsin AFL-CIO, said Tuesday.

“It is a bill that will carve out our existing tests to determine unemployment, workers’ comp, wage and hour [standards] with a very simplistic four-part test that would forever remove drivers’ ability to access those kind of benefits that we fought for for decades,” Bloomingdale said in an interview.

“They could offer benefits without taking away these tests,” she added. “And what they’re really after is taking away these tests.

Although Bradley described the bill as giving Wisconsin gig drivers “access to benefits like health care, dental and retirement savings,” critics say that those kinds of benefits are unlikely to accrue under the system the law describes. 

In Pennsylvania, DoorDash has established a trial benefits program without a law in place there. A report commissioned for the program found that participants on average were able to save about $400 over the course of a year.

“It’s just a savings account with a very meager contribution from the companies,” said Laura Padin, director of Work Structures at the National Employment Law Project (NELP), who sent a letter to Evers urging him to veto the bill. “Real employment-based benefits are worth so much more than that.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., is pictured on Tuesday, April 9, 2024. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

States led by Democrats should resist the temptation to conduct their own mid-decade redistricting in response to Republicans in the Texas Legislature moving to redraw U.S. House lines before the 2026 elections, officials with the nonpartisan election integrity group Common Cause said on a press call Tuesday.

While blasting Texas Republicans’ effort to remake congressional districts in the middle of a decade — instead of after the decennial census, as is typical — the officials said the creation of  nonpartisan redistricting commissions that take the job out of politicians’ hands was a better policy than joining a redistricting arms race.

Common Cause, a national organization with several state chapters, is often aligned with progressive causes, but advocates for fair redistricting regardless of party.

Emily Eby French, the policy director for Common Cause Texas, said election infrastructure should be neutral, arguing against the suggestion from California Gov. Gavin Newsom and other Democrats that blue states pursue mid-decade redistricting for partisan advantage.

“Our election infrastructure is not supposed to have a thumb on the scale for either side,” French said.

“In Texas, conservatives press their thumbs so hard on the scale that it feels impossible to overcome,” she continued. “Maybe a quick fix would be to have Democrats press their thumbs on their own scales. But then it’s just rigged elections across America. The real solution is for Democrats to help us lift the Republican thumb off of the Texas scale and every other scale in America until we reach free and fair elections for everyone.”

Russia Chavis Cardenas, the deputy director for Common Cause California, added that Newsom should not “fight fire with fire.” Partisan redistricting processes inherently disadvantage communities of color, she said.

California’s independent redistricting commission, made up of five Democrats, five Republicans and four nonpartisan members, is the “gold standard … (an) independent and community-led process,” Dan Vicuna, senior policy director for voting and fair representation at Common Cause’s national office, said.

The state should not sacrifice that model for short-term political gain, he said.

Texas redistricting

Republicans held a 220-215 advantage in the U.S. House following the 2024 elections. Those elections happened on district maps drawn after the 2020 census.

The GOP House majority was helped in part by Texas’ 2020 district map, which produced Republican wins in nearly two-thirds of the state’s districts.

Civil rights groups sued over the new lines, claiming that some districts discriminated against Black and Latino voters.

Texas Republicans resisted calls to redraw the lines, but the U.S. Justice Department this month sent a letter urging state leaders to reconsider.

The letter “was sloppily and transparently creating a pretext for Texas legislators to redraw the state’s gerrymandered congressional map and somehow gerrymander it even more in favor of Republicans,” Vicuna said Tuesday.

President Donald Trump quickly dissolved that pretext, putting the issue in nakedly political terms on a call with Texas Republicans. Trump said the state’s lines should be redrawn to create five additional U.S. House seats, the Texas Tribune reported. A president’s party typically loses congressional seats during midterm elections.

Following the letter, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, called a special session to address redistricting, among other things.

Dem states respond

In addition to Newsom, leaders in the Democratic strongholds of New York and Illinois are considering retaliating by initiating their own mid-decade redistricting processes, according to a New York Times report.

Other prominent national Democrats are calling for the party to be more aggressive in redistricting.

U.S. Sen. Ruben Gallego wrote on X last week that Democrats should break some heavily Democratic majority-minority districts to help win more seats.

In follow-up posts responding to replies, Gallego, an Arizona Democrat, wrote that Democrats should gerrymander districts in their favor.

“It’s bad when everyone does it,” the first-term senator and former House member wrote about gerrymandering. “But Dems should not unilaterally disarm till GOP does.”

Gallego’s post was retweeted by Jessica Post, a campaign strategist who previously led Democrats’ state legislative campaign arm. But the party’s current establishment is largely not commenting.

A July 23 memo to Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee contributors from Heather Williams, who succeeded Post as the group’s president, mentioned the Texas redistricting, but said it only raised the stakes for statehouse races in the next three election cycles in advance of 2030 redistricting.

“Today, as Donald Trump and his allies in the states are openly pushing to draw new, gerrymandered seats in Texas to protect the GOP’s meager House majority leading up to 2026, it’s clear this is just a preview of what’s to come,” Williams wrote. “The 2030 redistricting fight has already begun.”

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the official campaign arm for House Democrats, did not respond to a message seeking comment Tuesday.

Vicuna, with Common Cause, urged reporters to see redistricting not as a partisan conflict, but as an issue of voter representation.

“This familiar framing that makes redistricting entirely about a political fight between parties is also kind of the problem,” he said. “This is ultimately about fair representation for communities, getting to have a say, being at the table when decisions are made about whether they can have fair representation. And I think that’s what we’re really talking about here, not just the food fight between the parties.”

Emil Bove, President Donald Trump's nominee to be a judge for the 3rd Circuit, testifies during his Senate Judiciary Committee nomination hearing on June 25, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate on Tuesday night confirmed President Donald Trump’s former criminal defense attorney, Emil Bove, to a lifetime position on the federal appeals bench, in the face of whistleblower allegations and criticism from former judges and advocates.

Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine broke with their party and joined all Democrats in a 50-49 vote to oppose Bove’s confirmation to the U.S. Appeals Court for the 3rd Circuit, which handles cases for Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Bove, 44, currently holds the position of principal associate deputy attorney general at the U.S. Justice Department. Trump initially appointed Bove as acting attorney general at the start of the president’s second term.

The former federal prosecutor and private defense attorney faced numerous accusations of misconduct throughout his confirmation process.

Democrats walked out of a July 17 committee vote to advance Bove’s nomination, largely protesting the GOP-led panel’s refusal to hear further testimony from a whistleblower who alleged Bove suggested defying a federal court order.

Longtime Justice Department senior official Erez Reuveni, who served in the first Trump administration, blew the whistle on Bove for a March 14 meeting during which he allegedly suggested subordinates tell the federal courts “f— you” if a judge ordered a halt to Trump’s deportation flights to El Salvador. A second whistleblower corroborated the alleged comment, according to a CNN report Sunday.

Senate Democrats, former judges and advocates also voiced concern over Bove’s alleged unethical behavior, including questions about his role as a top Justice official in the dismissal of federal bribery charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams and in the firing of prosecutors who worked on cases probing the Jan. 6, 2021, storming of the U.S. Capitol.

Bove has denied any wrongdoing.

Critics also pointed to a trail of allegations from Bove’s former colleagues in the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York that he created a hostile work environment, as first reported by Politico in February.

‘Unfair accusations and abuse’

On Monday, the Washington Post reported that a third whistleblower had come forward, this time alleging the top Justice Department office misled the Senate Committee on the Judiciary in testimony regarding the dropped charges against Adams.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, who chairs the committee tasked with vetting judicial nominees, said on the floor ahead of the vote that Democrats “grossly mischaracterized” allegations against Bove.

“I have serious concerns with how my Democratic colleagues have conducted themselves — the vicious rhetoric, unfair accusations and abuse directed at Mr. Bove,” the Iowa Republican said.

Grassley said he asked Bove to put in writing his response to the latest whistleblower accusations.

“In his letter, Mr. Bove flatly denies the allegations that he misled the committee,” Grassley said.

In the seven-page letter made public by Grassley Tuesday evening, Bove dismissed the accusations as a “partisan smear campaign” and a “sham.”

“I understand that a lifetime appointment to a federal court of appeals is a serious matter. I welcome serious scrutiny of my record and my service to this country. My record includes 32 appeals, 13 trials, nearly a decade as a federal prosecutor, clerkships in federal trial and appellate courts, successfully defending the President of the United States, and helping lead the Department of Justice,” Bove wrote.

“Principled evaluation of that record, separated from the raw political warfare by Democrats that has tainted this process, confirms that I will be a fearless, independent judge committed to justice and the rule of law,” he continued.

‘So wrong, so unusual’

Senate Democrats railed against the nomination Tuesday.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said ahead of the vote the allegations against Bove “were not minor episodes of prosecutorial misconduct.”

“What we’re about to do is so wrong, so unusual, that even if these remarks will have no effect whatsoever, I feel obliged to come to the floor,” the Rhode Island lawmaker said.

Sen. Dick Durbin, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, wrote in a social media post that “Three credible whistleblowers have come forward with serious allegations against Emil Bove, a Trump judicial nominee. Republicans are ignoring them and rushing to confirm Bove anyway.”

“They’re afraid of the truth… and Donald Trump’s wrath. Shameful,” Durbin, of Illinois, continued.

In a statement issued Tuesday afternoon by the Not Above the Law Coalition, the organization’s leaders said Bove is “unfit for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench.”

“His record of misconduct and disdain for the rule of law is a direct threat to judicial independence and Americans’ rights and freedoms. Any senator who votes to confirm Bove is making clear that their loyalty lies with Donald Trump, not the people they serve or the Constitution they swore to uphold,” the statement continued from the coalition’s co-chairs, including Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen; Praveen Fernandes, vice president of the Constitutional Accountability Center; Kelsey Herbert, campaign director at MoveOn; and Brett Edkins, managing director for policy and political affairs at Stand Up America.

Susan Monarez, President Donald Trump’s nominee to be the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, testifies during her confirmation hearing before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions on June 25, 2025. (Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate voted to confirm Susan Monarez as director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Tuesday.

Monarez — whom the Senate confirmed on a party-line vote, 51-47 — will now be responsible for the national public health agency within the Department of Health and Human Services. The Atlanta-based agency has faced backlash as HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. pursues a vaccine-skeptical agenda.

GOP Sens. Bill Hagerty of Tennessee and Dan Sullivan of Alaska did not vote.

Monarez was the acting director of the CDC between January and March. She previously served as the deputy director of the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health, which is part of HHS.

Monarez, who has a Ph.D. in microbiology and immunology, will be the first person without a medical degree to hold the title since 1953.

The White House originally selected former Florida U.S. Rep. Dave Weldon to lead the CDC but withdrew the nomination in March.

Monarez’s confirmation followed a procedural vote earlier Tuesday that saw her advance, 52-47, along party lines.

Kennedy continues to face scrutiny after he fired all 17 members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, in June and named eight new members — a number of whom are viewed as skeptical of vaccines.

Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, ranking member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, launched an investigation alongside seven Democratic members of the committee Tuesday regarding Kennedy’s firings and replacements within the critical vaccine panel.

“By removing all 17 of ACIP’s members and replacing them with eight individuals handpicked to advance your anti-vaccine agenda, you have put decades of non-partisan, science-backed work — and, as a result, Americans’ lives — at risk,” the senators wrote in a letter to Kennedy.

Those seven Democratic committee members include Sens. John Hickenlooper of Colorado, Lisa Blunt Rochester of Delaware, Angela Alsobrooks of Maryland, Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire, Andy Kim of New Jersey and Tim Kaine of Virginia. 

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, center, announces his agency's plans for deregulation from an Indianapolis trucking facility on Tuesday, July 29, 2025. At left is Indiana Gov. Mike Braun and at right is Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita.  (Photo by Leslie Bonilla Muñiz/Indiana Capital Chronicle)

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency submitted a proposal Tuesday to rescind a 2009 finding that has provided the foundation for the agency’s regulation of greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change, drawing strong opposition from Democrats and climate groups.

Administrator Lee Zeldin said the EPA would scrap what is known as its endangerment finding, established under President Barack Obama. The determination called climate change a danger to human health and therefore gave the EPA power to regulate the greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide from cars and trucks.

The finding provided the framework for numerous EPA regulations, including a 2024 rule requiring increasingly strict tailpipe emissions standards.

But Zeldin, who announced the proposal during an appearance in Indianapolis, said that framework created uncertainty for auto manufacturers and buyers and hurt the wider economy.

President Donald Trump’s EPA would eliminate the finding, he said.

“With this proposal, the Trump EPA is proposing to end sixteen years of uncertainty for automakers and American consumers,” Zeldin said in a written statement. Under Obama and President Joe Biden, the agency “twisted the law, ignored precedent, and warped science to achieve their preferred ends and stick American families with hundreds of billions of dollars in hidden taxes every single year.”

The announcement touched off outrage from congressional Democrats and groups that advocate for strong action to curb the climate crisis.

“With this action, Trump and EPA Administrator Zeldin are putting massive corporate polluters in the driver’s seat at EPA and it will be everyday Americans who pay the price – with their health, their energy bills, their jobs, their homes, and even with their lives,” House Energy and Commerce ranking Democrat Frank Pallone of New Jersey wrote in a statement.

“The only winners from this proposal are corporate polluters who will be allowed to dump unlimited pollution into our communities without any consequences.”

EPA denies it has authority

In a Tuesday notice in the Federal Register, the EPA said it would rescind all greenhouse gas emissions standards for vehicles, consistent with its opinion that the endangerment finding was unlawful.

“The EPA no longer believes that we have the statutory authority and record basis required to maintain this novel and transformative regulatory program,” the agency said.

Supreme Court cases in recent years, including a decision that limited the EPA’s power to regulate power plants and a decision that denied federal agencies were due deference in drafting regulations, indicated the endangerment finding overstepped, the EPA said in a news release.

Repealing the finding would increase consumer choice, lower prices for goods delivered by truck and save $54 billion annually in associated taxes, the EPA said.

The agency will accept public comments on the proposal until Sept. 21.

Health and economic impact

Despite the Trump EPA’s assertion that the move would save money for Americans, climate groups said the opposite was true, and that the finding would hurt access to alternative energy sources. 

“The reason (Trump) is doing this is not scientific,” former Washington Gov. Jay Inslee said in an interview with States Newsroom. “It’s just his slavish devotion to his billionaire friends in the oil and gas industry that he wants to help, and destroy the ability of Americans to get clean and cheap — I want to emphasize cheap — electricity. This is not just a health issue. It’s a financial health issue, basically denying Americans the ability to get the most reasonably priced electricity in America.”

Inslee, a Democrat who sought his party’s presidential nomination in 2020 on a platform that emphasized climate issues, is a national spokesperson and executive with the advocacy group Climate Power.

“It’s a reckless move that will make Americans less safe and hurt our economy by slowing the growth of affordable clean energy and fueling the heat waves, storms, floods, and wildfires that threaten people’s homes and communities,” U.S. House Natural Resources ranking Democrat Jared Huffman, of California, said in a statement.

Democrats and environmental groups also argued the scientific evidence clearly showed greenhouse gas emissions were harmful.

“You can’t with a straight face argue that pollution is not endangering human health,” Inslee said. “Look at the deaths that are piling up. Flash floods and heat domes, asthma and cardiovascular events. This stuff is bad for human health. I don’t know how you can make the argument otherwise.”

Lawsuits ahead

Legal challenges from Democratic attorney generals are almost certainly imminent, Inslee said Tuesday afternoon.

“If a lawsuit hasn’t been filed yet, I’ll have to call (Washington Attorney General) Nick Brown and tell him to hurry up,” he said. “It’s been a couple hours now.”

In a statement, Brown said he would “consider all options if EPA continues down this cynical path. We won’t stand by as our children’s future is sacrificed to appease fossil fuel interests.”

U.S. Reps. Adriano Espaillat and Nydia Velazquez, both New York Democrats, speak to the media opposite the Jacob K. Javitz Federal Building, where they unsuccessfully attempted to gain access to Immigration and Customs Enforcement holding facilities to observe on June 8, 2025 in New York City. (Photo by Adam Gray/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The massive tax and spending cuts package signed into law by President Donald Trump earlier this month will affect not only Latinos using federal safety net programs but also those living in communities vulnerable to environmental pollution, Democrats and advocates said during a Tuesday virtual press conference.

The president’s domestic policy agenda bill that congressional Republicans passed without Democrats’ approval, through a process known as reconciliation, made permanent the 2017 tax cuts and provided billions of dollars for immigration enforcement by cutting funds for clean energy, environmental justice grants, food assistance and Medicaid, a health care insurance program for low-income people.

The bill will add $3.394 trillion to deficits during the next decade and lead 10 million people to lose access to health insurance, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Adriano Espaillat, Democrat of New York, said the bill passed through reconciliation reduces spending on “Medicaid dramatically and (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) dramatically.”

He said Democrats in their messaging should focus on the changes coming for Medicaid and how the cuts will impact people across the United States. Republicans’ numerous changes to health programs, predominantly Medicaid, will reduce federal spending during the next decade by $1.058 trillion.

“It’s really a conversation about life and death, because if you’re on Medicaid and now they’re cutting your benefits, the treatment that you receive to save your life could be in jeopardy,” Espaillat said. 

Rural hospitals and Latinos

Rep. Raul Ruiz, a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, said the cuts to Medicaid are “devastating,” especially to hospitals in rural communities.

“First, what hospitals will do is they will close services that aren’t the money-making services for a hospital, like pediatrics, labor delivery and mental health, and then beyond that, they’ll eventually just close their hospital,” said the California Democrat, a former emergency room doctor.

“This is devastating because usually these rural hospitals serve a high Latino population, medically underserved, resource-poor areas,” Ruiz said. “If you have a medical emergency and you don’t have a local emergency department or hospital to go to, chances of your survivability during an emergency greatly drops.”

Antonieta Cádiz, the executive director of Climate Power En Acción, said that most of those effects, such as new reporting requirements for Medicaid patients that could result in people losing coverage, won’t be felt until after the midterm elections in 2026, when those changes go into effect.

Climate Power En Acción is an arm of the clean energy advocacy group Climate Power that focuses on reaching out to Latinos about the impacts of climate change.

$170 billion for immigration crackdown

Vanessa Cárdenas, executive director of the immigration advocacy group America’s Voice, said the bill will also affect Latino communities because of its more than $170 billion increase for immigration enforcement.

She said Democrats should lean into immigration policy and push back against the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration crackdown and plans for mass deportations.

“Democrats need to take this opportunity and need to be able to bring people in to share in their vision of what a functional immigration system is,” she said. “It is very frustrating that we are not seeing again, more Democrats really leaning in on this issue.”

Espaillat acknowledged that Democrats’ communication strategy on immigration “has been one of our weaknesses.”

“We at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus have done a good job at first, exposing the inequities and irregularities and discriminatory practices of immigration to the degree that now we’re seeing,” he said.

“In addition to that, I think it’s important that we message on Medicaid …  SNAP, and then, of course, environmental justice is one that’s also a real path for which we are working on having a very structured and disciplined message,” Espaillat continued.

Higher energy bills

Cádiz said the bill Republicans passed will lead to a loss of clean energy jobs and it also lessens incentives for energy efficient appliances, which will lead to higher energy bills for Latinos. Compared to the average U.S. family, Latino households pay roughly 20% more in energy costs, according to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.

“It guts clean energy programs crucial for savings amid rising heat and energy demand, leaving us with higher bills,” she said of the bill. “This is a direct attack on Latino families, workers and every person struggling with rising costs to meet essential needs.”

She added that environmental justice grants totaling $300 million were eliminated, while roughly 15 million Latinos live in communities with high levels of air pollution.

Espaillat said that the cuts to clean energy programs provided by the Biden administration’s massive climate and clean energy bill, which also passed through the process of reconciliation but under Democratic control, benefited local communities.

“Now there’s going to be a major disinvestment for these programs,” he said. 

 

A medical worker prepares to vaccinate people at a pop-up COVID-19 vaccination clinic in a rural Delta community in April 2021 in Leland, Miss. The Mississippi State Department of Health, like other state health departments, is concerned about the potential loss of federal funding. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Between 2016 and 2022, as congenital syphilis cases rose nationally and especially in the South, Mississippi saw a one thousand percent increase — from 10 to 110 — in the number of newborn babies who were hospitalized after contracting the disease, known to cause developmental issues, intellectual disabilities, and even death.

So in 2023, the state Department of Health mandated that all medical practitioners screen for the disease in pregnant mothers, and it has been running advertisements to spread awareness.

Annual congenital syphilis cases in Mississippi rose from 62 in 2021 to 132 in 2023, according to state data. The number fell to 114 last year. There have been 33 cases so far this year.

That work won’t stop despite potential budget cuts, Dr. Daniel Edney, Mississippi’s state health officer, said in an interview. “We’re going to keep doing what we have to do, you know, to keep it under control.”

State by state, public health departments take a similar approach: They monitor, treat and try to stem preventable diseases, alongside their host of other duties. But in the coming year, health department officials — with their agencies already strapped for cash — fear they’ll find it much more difficult to do their jobs.

President Donald Trump’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2026 would cut the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention budget by more than half, from $9.3 billion to $4.2 billion. The proposal serves as a wish list from the administration, a blueprint for the Republican-controlled Congress as it works through upcoming spending legislation.

If lawmakers hew to Trump’s vision, then state and county public health departments would be hit hard. States contribute to their own health departments, but a lot of them rely heavily on federal funding.

And around half of local public health department funding comes from federal sources, primarily the CDC, as noted in a 2022 report from the National Association of County & City Health Officials.

Medicaid cuts are likely to worsen mental health care in rural America

“The federal government provides a lot of funding, but the actual implementation of public health programs happens at the state and local level,” said Josh Michaud, associate director of global health policy at KFF, a health policy research group. “Each state has its own approach, in many ways, to how public health programs are overseen, how they’re funded, how they are implemented.”

In announcing his department’s share of the proposed budget, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said Trump’s goals align with “new priorities in reversing the chronic disease epidemic.”

But many local health leaders point to the longtime mission of state public health departments in preventing the spread of disease.

“Local public health is on the front lines preventing communicable disease, operating programs to prevent chronic disease, ensuring our septic and well water systems are safe,” said Dr. Kelly Kimple, acting director of North Carolina’s Division of Public Health within the Department of Health and Human Services.

“I’m very concerned,” Kimple said, “especially given the magnitude of funding that we’re talking about, as we can’t keep doing more with less.”

Clawing back COVID-era grants

Other federal budget cuts also have states worried.

Many state public health departments grew alarmed when the Trump administration announced in March that it would be clawing back $11.4 billion in COVID-era funding for grants that were slated to extend into 2026.

Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia sued. A federal district court in Rhode Island temporarily blocked the cuts, and the case remains tied up in court.

The court’s preliminary injunction may not protect temporary staff or contractors, though. Public health departments have been laying off staff, cutting lab capacity and reducing immunization clinics, said Dr. Susan Kansagra, chief medical officer for the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials.

Historically, public health departments receive funding in “boom and bust” cycles, meaning they tend to get more federal support during emergencies, said Michaud, of KFF. But “since the Great Recession of 2008, there was a general decline in public health support funding until the COVID pandemic.”

For example, KHN and The Associated Press reported that between 2010 and 2019, spending on state public health departments declined by 16% per capita and spending for local health departments fell by 18%.

Nationally, syphilis cases reached historic lows in the 2000s, thanks to robust prevention efforts and education from public health officials. By 2022, however, cases reached their highest numbers nationally since the 1950s.

“In the wake of the COVID emergency, you’ve seen a sort of backlash to what people had been calling the overreach of public health and imposing vaccination requirements and lockdowns and other public health measures,” Michaud told Stateline.

Smallpox, cholera and typhoid

Public health departments and officials go back to the 19th century, when there was a greater emphasis on sanitation efforts to prevent spread of diseases such as smallpox, cholera and typhoid, which were rampant at the time.

By the end of the century, 40 states had established health departments, which to this day are responsible for water sanitation, tracking the spread of disease, administering vaccinations, furnishing health education, providing screenings for infants and some prenatal care for moms at local clinics, offering family planning services, and tracking and treating sexually transmitted infections, among other things.

Kimple pointed to measles as a current example of a disease that’s spreading fast. When North Carolina’s health department detected a case in the state, she said, the department “identified and contacted everyone who might have been exposed, helped people get tested, worked with doctors to make sure they knew how to respond.”

That’s the legacy of local public health, Michaud said.

“The federal government cannot decide, ‘This public health program will happen in this state, but not that state,’ that kind of thing. And cannot declare a national lockdown. The COVID pandemic tested a lot of those boundaries. It really is a state and local responsibility to protect public health. And that’s always been the case, since the beginning of our country,” Michaud said.

“And what we’re seeing now is a complete upheaval of the funding going into public health.”

A major cut in services

Kimple said she’s seen recent progress in her state in the support for funding public health.

“North Carolinians viewed our work as highly important to improving health and well-being in the state, and appreciated the local presence, the reliable information, the role in prevention and efforts to protect, in particular, vulnerable communities,” she said.

Similarly, Edney said that Mississippi state lawmakers were showing more support, despite some setbacks in 2016 and 2017. New federal cuts could throw a wrench in the health department’s economic plans and its ability to reach small communities.

“Now the federal rug is being pulled out from under us,” he said.

Edney said he expects the federal share of his department’s public health funding to fall from its current 65% to around 50%.

Edney said he’s been trying to strengthen Mississippi health department’s longevity by diversifying its revenue streams by, for example, accepting private donations.

The state will not stop doing its “core” work, he said, regardless of federal funding.

“We’re not going to cut back on services at the county health department, because what we do now is all mission critical,” Edney said.

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

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org.

Children, with one of their teachers, at the Waunakee child care center operated by Heather Murray. (Photo courtesy of Heather Murray)

I have owned and operated a child care center for the past 19 years. Not only do I make sure staff and the bills are paid, I clean toilets, clean windows and change diapers.  I have devoted my life to educating and caring for young children. I didn’t go into this profession to line my pockets with money. But everyone in my field deserves a living wage and to know they are supported in their community. My goal is to create a safe and nurturing learning environment for the children who enter my center.  My belief is that their parents have decided to partner with us to make sure their children are getting the best possible environment to learn and grow.  

Creating  this high-quality environment for children has become increasingly hard over the years for child care providers in Wisconsin. Parents can’t pay more and providers need to keep qualified staff and pay them a liveable wage. For my center, wages for employees went up by $4 an hour recently  to keep up with the other businesses in my community.  

I started advocating and organizing around child care and early education right before the latest state  budget cycle. I found  there were some pretty big hurdles to jump over to get our legislators to listen to child care providers.

 I’ve heard legislators tell providers “all you want is money.” I’ve heard them say   “these women just need to learn how to run their business.”  My favorite observation is: “We don’t need child care.  Women should just stay home and take care of their children.”  It wasn’t easy to get anyone at the Capitol to take providers seriously. In the last state budget child care received no funding.  Wisconsin was  one of six states that did not put any state money into child care or early education. Gov. Evers did find a way to support providers with direct payments using federal money, which  helped keep many providers’ doors open throughout the state.  

Meanwhile, advocates and early educators kept coming to hearings,  talking about what we do on a daily basis and how that is important to our communities and the state.

Providers across Wisconsin held Community Conversations and Day Without Childcare events. Many elected officials from both sides of the aisle received tours of centers.  Providers also sent letters to the editor and talked with every type of news outlet that would listen. I am so proud of all the providers who stepped up and continued to push this message that what we do is important and we deserve support. As a result,  ideas at the Capitol started to shift.  

I spoke to legislators from both sides of the aisle. I heard legislators starting to talk about the “child care crisis” and realize that it wasn’t happening just because we didn’t know how to run our businesses. They started to say out loud that parents shouldn’t have to pay 25% of their income for  child care. Legislators who previously wouldn’t have said they supported child care investment said they would try and get something done.

In the end, the new state budget  wasn’t ideal but it did do two things: Direct payments will continue to go to providers for the next year and early education is finally funded with state dollars in the Wisconsin budget.

Does this budget solve everything? No. Does it provide the $330 million Evers sought in direct payments  to providers? No. Did Wisconsin for the first time  put state money into  early education? Yes — including $110 million in direct payments to providers Does it deregulate child care, increasing the number of  infants and toddlers one staff person can care for and allowing 16-year-olds to count as full-time assistants? Yes.

I absolutely do not think deregulation is the answer to the child care crisis. I believe it is harmful to children. I will not be participating in the deregulated infant/toddler program outlined in this budget.  I know I cannot get staff in my center to continue work when I ask them to take care of three more toddlers on their own. A single teacher in this proposed program would take care of seven toddlers ages 18 months and up. Right now that same teacher is expected to care for four toddlers that age. Even though some states have this ratio,  the National Association for the Education of Young Children clearly states best practice is 1:4 for this age group.

I would also not hire a 16-year-old as an assistant teacher to add to my staff. I don’t believe 16-year-olds are ready to handle large groups of small  children and provide the  quality time and interaction they need; 16-year-olds are still children themselves. And since they are in school themselves, they are not that much help with the labor  shortages centers experience all day long.

I’m grateful that Gov. Evers made child care a priority, and that our state finally joined the majority of other states in providing some support for this essential resource in the state budget.

Advocating for policy changes is a constant back and forth. Much of the time you don’t get  what you want. This means that we must go back in two years, to make Wisconsin’s child care support better and  more durable.  Child care advocates have created a strong network and we are not done advocating for the change needed for providers to keep their doors open and for educators to earn a living wage. I believe child care is infrastructure and a public good.  Together with other child care providers, I will continue to advocate and educate our leaders about how a well supported child care system is essential to  our community and our economy.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

President Donald Trump and European Union leaders announced a trade framework over the weekend that will set 15% import taxes on EU goods. (Photo by Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump and European Union leaders announced a trade framework over the weekend, just days ahead of Trump’s self-imposed Friday deadline to increase import taxes and his emergency tariffs come under scrutiny in federal appeals court Thursday.

Under the agreement, a 15% tariff will be applied to all products, with some exceptions, coming into the U.S. from the 27 member nations that make up the EU.

The 15% rate will also apply to automobiles, down from the 25% levy on foreign vehicles that Trump ordered in April. Trump’s 50% sectoral tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum will remain unchanged for the EU. The deal exempts certain products, including aircraft, from tariffs altogether.

Tariffs are import taxes paid to the U.S. government by businesses and other buyers that import foreign goods.

“Fifteen percent is not to be underestimated, but it was the best we could get,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told reporters during a press conference Sunday.

Similar to the deal Trump announced with Japan on July 23, the EU has agreed to invest $600 billion in the United States over Trump’s term. The bloc of nations has also agreed to purchase $750 billion in U.S. energy, including liquid natural gas, over the next three years as a way to wean off of Russian fossil fuels.

‘Fundamentally rebalancing’

The White House touted the deal as “fundamentally rebalancing the economic relationship between the world’s two largest economies,” in a press release issued Monday.

The U.S. imported more goods from the EU than it exported by about $235.8 billion in 2024, according to Census data.

Trump had threatened to raise what he describes as “reciprocal” tariffs — tariffs on products outside sectoral categories of steel, aluminum and vehicles —  to 30% by Aug. 1 on products from Europe, Japan and numerous other trading partners.

Trump set the date as the new deadline for his “Liberation Day” tariffs to take effect. The president announced the tariffs in early April and then promptly paused them after markets plummeted around the globe. The episode triggered a trade war with China, during which U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods peaked at 145% before the two parties agreed to negotiate.

Appeals case looms

On what the president described as “Liberation Day” on April 2, Trump heralded a universal 10% tariff on all foreign products, plus staggering additional so-called reciprocal import taxes on countries across the globe that carry trade imbalances with the U.S.

Trump justified the steep duties by declaring trade imbalances a national emergency under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

In February, Trump became the first president to trigger tariffs under the 1977 emergency powers law when he increased import taxes on Canada, Mexico and China in response to illegal fentanyl smuggling.

The emergency tariffs are at the center of a case that will go before the U.S. Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit Thursday.

The case stems from two lawsuits, now consolidated, filed by a handful of businesses and a dozen Democratic state attorneys general who argued the president doesn’t have authority to impose tariffs under the emergency law.

The U.S. Court of International Trade struck down Trump’s emergency tariffs as unconstitutional on May 28.

Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico and Oregon were among the states that brought the suit.

V.O.S. Selections, a New York-based company that imports wine and spirits from 16 countries, led the business plaintiffs. Others 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.

Upon appeal from the White House, the Federal Circuit allowed Trump’s tariffs to remain in place while the case moved forward.

University of Wisconsin Oshkosh. (Miles Maguire | courtesy of the photographer)

Republican lawmakers are proposing a state law to  limit tuition increases after the University of Wisconsin system approved another tuition hike earlier this month. 

The Board of Regents voted earlier this month to increase tuition by 5% at most UW campuses. UW-Green Bay is the exception with a 4% tuition increase after opting out of an additional 1%. UW-River Falls received a 5.8% increase in tuition to help support student success initiatives. 

According to the UW system, the increase will be an average of about $382. 

The draft bill, coauthored by Sen. Andre Jacque (R-New Franken) and Rep. David Murphy (R-Greenville), would prohibit the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents from increasing undergraduate tuition by more than the consumer price index increase in a given year. The authors said the latest increases were “roughly double the increase in the Consumer Price Index over the past year.” 

“Now more than ever, the Legislature must implement a common sense law placing controls on these types of skyrocketing tuition increases,” the lawmakers wrote in a cosponsorship memo. “That’s why we are again introducing legislation to cap tuition and fee increases for in-state Wisconsin undergraduates at levels no higher than the rate of inflation.”

UW spokesperson Mark Pitsch said in a statement responding to the bill that the UW is “among the most affordable across the U.S.” 

“It is critical that we have the flexibility to maintain the quality that students deserve and parents expect,” Pitsch said. 

UW President Jay Rothman proposed the tuition increases earlier this month following the signing of the new state budget, which provided a little over $250 million to the UW system — an amount that fell below the requests the system had said would be necessary to avoid tuition increases. 

“After a decade of a tuition freeze and lagging state aid, we believe we have struck a balance for students and families with this proposal and the recent state investments in the UWs as part of the 2025-27 biennial budget,” Rothman said in a statement at the time.

This is the third consecutive tuition increase since the end of the 10-year tuition freeze — a trend that comes as state funding makes up a smaller portion of the UW system’s budget.

State funding currently makes up about a fifth of the UW’s total revenue. In contrast, state general purpose revenue made up 41.8% of the UW System’s budget in 1984-85. 

Regent Ashok Rai said that even with the state investment, there continues to be a gap between the funding and the UW system’s ability to keep up with inflation and compensation increases for faculty and staff. 

“The proposed tuition rates will ensure that UWs remain affordable compared to our neighboring peers,” Rai said.

According to the UW, its tuition increased just 7.7% from 2015 to 2025 — a rate below the tuition increases for its peers in other states, which had tuition increases ranging from 21.7% to 28.8% over the 10 years.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE