The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's latest maternal mortality report found that in 2023, Black women nationally were more than three times more likely than white women to die during or after childbirth. (FatCamera/Getty Images)

Brandie Bishop-Stacker was absent from school the day her little sister was born 24 years ago. Instead, the then-10-year-old went to a Georgia hospital with her mom, rubbing her feet, getting her water, and comforting her during labor pains. She recalled her mother screaming when she initially couldn’t feel her legs after receiving an epidural. And she remembered the nurses and medical staff not offering much in the way of support.

“Nobody gave any extra support seeing that my mom was a single mom, that I was there out of school helping her that day,” said Bishop-Stacker, now a professional doula in Atlanta. “…If she needed something … that was kind of a me thing, even though, of course, there’s nursing staff and I was 10 years old.”

In the two decades since, Bishop-Stacker said she has attended the birth of hundreds of Black babies and has often seen mothers’ needs and concerns be dismissed or ignored, sometimes to the detriment of their maternal care. She was unsurprised by the latest statistics showing rising maternal deaths among U.S. Black women while rates of maternal deaths of other populations have fallen. Research shows these disparities cannot only be explained by education and income levels. And Bishop-Stacker’s experience has taught her that economic advantage does not cancel out racist attitudes in the medical care setting. 

“Here in Atlanta, I have a unique vantage point of being where there are probably the most successful Black women in the United States,” said Bishop-Stacker, who is the CEO of the National Black Doulas Association. But she said Georgia is often among the top states with the worst maternal health outcomes. “Oftentimes, when we’re looking at the money part to it, we’re not taking into consideration the fact that racism is the true issue.”

Doulas are non-medical professionals trained to support people through significant health-related experiences, such as childbirth, miscarriage, abortion and death. Bishop-Stacker said her organization has around 4,000 members and trains doulas around the country on how best to advocate for parents of color.

Increased access to community-based doulas and midwives is one of several potentially effective strategies identified by medical groups and health advocates in recent years to improve Black maternal outcomes and potentially stem a persistently high and rising national Black maternal mortality rate. But in the first three months of President Donald Trump’s administration, some state lawmakers and reproductive health advocates say they’re already seeing a rollback to emerging state and federal measures designed to better understand and improve Black maternal health outcomes.

In conjunction with the annual Black Maternal Health Week campaign founded by the Black Mamas Matter Alliance, which began Friday and ends April 18, lawmakers in dozens of states are calling on their colleagues to address what they say are alarming levels of pregnancy- and childbirth-related deaths and adverse outcomes among Black women.

“When we talk about maternal health, it’s imperative that we center Black women in that conversation, and that we also respond to this maternal health crisis in a way that brings some equity in our policymaking process,” said Democratic Mississippi Rep. Zakiya Summers, who is participating in this year’s campaign coordinated by the State Innovation Exchange (SiX), Black Mamas Matter Alliance, and the National Organization of Black Elected Legislative Women. According to SiX — a progressive nonprofit that provides policy support to state legislators — participating state lawmakers are releasing resolutions or proclamations in Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Summers, whose District 68 includes West Jackson, Pearl and Richland, said the Trump administration’s categorical opposition to discussions of race and identity in policy is also reflected in the Mississippi legislature, which recently banned diversity, equity and inclusion policies from public schools.

During the past legislative session, which ended this month, Summers sponsored bills to mandate cultural competency training for certain physicians, including OB-GYNs; to establish a legal framework for licensing and regulating professional midwifery and requiring insurance companies to cover midwifery services at the same rate as physician services; and to address postpartum depression that would have required screening birth mothers for depression at the time of birth. Those bills died in committees, as did her resolution for the legislature to recognize Black Maternal Health Week and to commit to policies focused on reducing Black maternal mortality and morbidity.

“Our committee was very reluctant to bring anything that had to do with African Americans, and I think that’s due to this national conversation around DEI and Republicans being unwilling to do anything that appears to have something to do with diversity, equity or inclusion,” said Summers, adding she will issue a proclamation instead.

Bishop-Stacker said the National Black Doulas Association has had to walk away from certain partnerships “due to the companies’ change in stance on DEI and the lack of funding available for states to continue with efforts to expand Medicaid to cover doula care.”

Efforts to remove race from federal and state policy are consequential to maternal health, says Jennifer Driver, senior director of reproductive rights at SiX. She said Trump’s policies broadly — mass federal job cuts, restrictions to a national family planning program, and significant cuts to reproductive health research teams within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — will disproportionately affect people of color who have already been disproportionately impacted by abortion bans.

But just as disconcerting for her is how the Trump administration has begun erasing Black people from history, such as the National Park Service’s recently removed reference to Black abolitionist Harriet Tubman and her efforts to resist slavery. 

“If you don’t record our contributions, if you deny our inherent rights … you also absolve yourself and the responsibility from addressing the significant health disparities that exist for Blacks in this country,” Driver said, noting that this year’s initiative will spotlight Black-led community efforts to improve maternal outcomes in the face of what she describes as an “erasure.”

“Black communities have done what we have always done; we have turned to one another,” she said. “We’ve turned to community practices. That’s why you see this emphasis on doulas and midwives, because we know the historical practices and how we have taken care of each other when this country continues or has failed us in the past.”

Driver herself might not be here were it not for the midwife whom she said helped deliver her mother in Alabama in the 1950s. She said her grandmother was barred from giving birth in the white hospital in Birmingham because of segregation and had all 14 of her kids with a midwife.

Vast Black maternal health disparities 

The U.S. has one of the highest maternal mortality rates of any developed nation, but that is partly due to high rates among Black women and people who are nonbinary. Earlier this year the CDC released its latest maternal mortality report showing that between 2022 and 2023, maternal mortality rates went down for white women (from 19 to 14.5 deaths per 100,000 live births), Hispanic women (from 16.9 to 12.4) and Asian women (from 13.2 to 10.7) but rose for Black women (from 49.5 to 50.3), who were nationally more than three times more likely than white women to die during or after childbirth. A brand-new study from the Journal of the American Medical Association analyzing pregnancy-related deaths in the U.S. between 2018 and 2022 found the pregnancy-related death rate was 3.8 times higher among American Indian and Alaska Native women and 2.8 times higher among non-Hispanic Black women, compared with the rate among non-Hispanic white women. Other recent research has found that Black women are disproportionately impacted by rising maternal cardiac deaths and that 30% of Black women report mistreatment by medical staff during maternity care.

But in the backdrop of worsening outcomes for Black women and rising deaths attributed to abortion bans, some state governments, like in Georgia and Texas, have opted to halt or change how maternal mortality data is collected and studied. And as part of sweeping layoffs, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recently placed on administrative leave the entire staff overseeing the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System, designed to better understand infant and maternal health.

Georgia disbanded its maternal mortality committee last year after ProPublica reported on deaths attributed to the state’s abortion ban. The committee has since been reconstructed, but a bill that would have directed the committee to focus specifically on why certain communities are disproportionately impacted failed to pass. Democratic state Rep. Jasmine Clark, who is sponsoring a resolution for Black Maternal Health Week, said she hears a lot from Black women in her district who say their pain concerns are dismissed by providers due to racist beliefs that Black people have a higher pain tolerance or are simply seeking out drugs.

Clark, who’s in her 40s and has two teenagers, said she has considered growing her family but is scared by the stories she regularly hears of Black women having detrimental reproductive health experiences or even being criminalized for their choices.

“It’s scary to hear these stories and not wonder in the back of your mind, ‘What if that were me?’” Clark said. “I worry that the policies that we have in place in the state where I live mean that not only do I have to worry about what happens if I were to go to term and to deliver a baby and what happens in the postpartum, but I also have to worry about what happens if things don’t go according to plan, and what happens in the process of miscarriage care and whether or not I will receive the care.”

Dr. Jamila Perritt, an OB-GYN in Washington, D.C., who specializes in complex family planning and is the CEO of the advocacy group Physicians for Reproductive Health, said more research is needed to combat the Black maternal mortality crisis.

“It’s actually dangerous for the federal government or state government or anyone to suggest that these review committees are not useful,” she said. “If we do not investigate, if we do not evaluate what is happening for folks while they’re dying … then how can we suggest that we care about pregnant people and their families?”

Perritt also advocates for more access to midwifery and doula services in Black communities led by culturally competent providers, which research has shown helps reduce rates of high-risk procedures, like cesarean sections and inductions.

That is clear for Jamarah Amani, who is a midwife and the executive director of the Southern Birth Justice Network based in Miami, whose mission is to increase the number of midwives and doulas throughout the U.S. and to integrate them in hospital systems.

She said that while she was in labor with her second child in a Georgia hospital, she was told by medical staff that “I was going to kill my baby,” if she got out of the bed to labor upright.

“I had a doula that actually physically blocked the door so that I could labor on the toilet, and then as the baby was crowning, I was like, ‘OK, call them in,’” Amani said. “I knew what my body needed, and I knew that that nurse was lying. She was a white nurse. I was a Black woman. When I tried to challenge her, ask questions, she got very defensive and even threatening. And I think, as a Black person, what we often experience is a fear of, you know, DCF [Department of Children and Families] being called … because we’re asserting our rights and that’s looked at as some form of neglect.”

Doula Brandie Bishop-Stacker said her work specializing in Black births has taught her how effective this kind of advocacy can be in improving health outcomes and especially coming from Black and brown doulas. Though she has never given birth herself, she said that when she was 18, she adopted her little sister “due to health concerns that limited my mom’s abilities and the incarceration of our fathers.”

“When you are able to have somebody who has a shared lived experience of not being seen, of not being heard of, not being valued, and they understand what those things feel like, that can help them to care for you in a way that goes a bit further, because they actually walked in your shoes,” she said.

A section of the U.S.-Mexico border wall near El Paso, Texas, on June 6, 2024. (Photo by Ariana Figueroa/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump late Friday signed a memorandum directing several agencies to start militarizing a stretch of the southern border, an escalation of the administration’s use of the U.S. military amid its immigration crackdown.

The move, which The Washington Post first reported last month, could potentially put U.S. military members in direct contact with migrants, a possible violation of federal law.

The memo directs the Interior Department to allow the Defense Department to have jurisdiction over portions of federal land known as the Roosevelt Reservation, excluding any Native American reservations.

By creating a military buffer zone that stretches across the U.S.-Mexico border in Arizona, California and New Mexico, it means any migrant crossing into the United States would be trespassing on a military base, therefore allowing active-duty troops to hold them until U.S. Border Patrol agents arrive.

National and military experts have raised concerns that giving control over the land to the military could violate the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 law that generally prohibits the military from being used in domestic law enforcement.

The Friday memo instructs its “phased” implementation within 45 days, and says it could be expanded over time.

The memo is directed at the secretaries of the departments of Defense, Interior, Agriculture and Homeland Security.

“The complexity of the current situation requires that our military take a more direct role in securing our southern border than in the recent past,” according to the memo.

Friday’s announcement comes ahead of a report that is due to Trump by April 20 from the secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security with recommendations on whether or not to use the Insurrection Act of 1807 to aid in mass deportations.

The memo states: “At any time, the Secretary of Defense may extend activities under this memorandum to additional Federal lands along the southern border in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Assistant to the President and Homeland Security Advisor, and other executive departments and agencies as appropriate.”

The memo also says that it’s part of an executive order Trump earlier this year signed, “Clarifying the Military’s Role in Protecting the Territorial Integrity of the United States.”

That executive order is one of five that lay out the use of military forces within the U.S. borders and extend other executive powers to speed up the president’s immigration crackdown. 

Minister of Justice and Public Security Héctor Villatoro, right, accompanies Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, center, during a tour of the Terrorist Confinement Center, or CECOT on March 26, 2025 in Tecoluca, El Salvador. (Photo by Alex Brandon-Pool/Getty Images)

GREENBELT, MARYLAND — A federal judge Friday demanded daily reports from the Trump administration on how it is working to return an erroneously deported Maryland man from an El Salvador prison, despite objections from a Department of Justice lawyer who insisted the Trump administration could not immediately obey a U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

The Maryland judge’s order came after the high court Thursday night ruled the Trump administration must try to “facilitate” the return of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, of Beltsville, but stopped short of requiring he be brought back from the notorious mega-prison.

The unsigned order from the Supreme Court said the district court also needs to clarify what it meant by saying the administration must “effectuate” the return of Abrego Garcia and the scope of that term is “unclear” and may exceed the district court’s authority.

Immigration officials admitted to an “administrative error” in the March 15 deportation of Abrego Garcia to El Salvador, despite protections from removal to his home country placed in 2019 by an immigration judge.

U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis of the District of Maryland grilled DOJ attorney Drew Ensign on where Abrego Garcia was currently and what steps President Donald Trump’s administration had taken to return him to the United States.

Ensign said he could not answer those questions and instead requested more time because the administration is currently “vetting what we can say” in court. 

He also objected to the requirement to submit daily updates.

Xinis, who earlier set a deadline, now expired, for the government to bring back Abrego Garcia, was critical of that response.

“The record as it stands is, despite this court’s directive … your clients have done nothing to facilitate the return of Mr. Abrego Garcia,” she said.

Xinis said she would schedule a hearing for early next week.

“We’re not going to slow walk this,” she said.

She continued to ask Ensign where Abrego Garcia was located.

Ensign said he had no information.

“It’s quite basic,” she said. “I’m not asking for state secrets.”

CECOT prison

Administration officials have said Abrego Garcia is in the custody of El Salvador’s government at the notorious prison known as Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, or CECOT.  The Beltsville man was apprehended by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement while driving his 5-year-old son home.

El Salvador’s president, Nayib Bukele, is visiting the White House Monday to meet with President Donald Trump.

The attorney representing Abrego Garcia’s family, Simon Y. Sandoval-Moshenberg, said he would welcome daily updates on what the Trump administration is doing to facilitate his client’s return.

“It’s quite clear that the government is playing a game with their own lawyers,” he said, noting that this is the second time he has faced a DOJ attorney who claimed he had little information for Xinis.

Attorney General Pam Bondi said the attorney that originally argued on behalf of the government, Erez Reuveni, was placed on administrative leave for not “vigorously” defending the Trump administration.

Reuveni was candid with Xinis about how the Trump administration gave him no information as to why Abrego Garcia could not be returned, despite admitting to his deportation as a mistake.

Administration official rejects district court authority

Meanwhile, Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff for policy and homeland security adviser, rejected the judge’s authority to require the return of Abrego Garcio in a social media post after the high court decision.

“SCOTUS rejected the lower court and made clear that a district court judge cannot exercise Article II foreign affairs powers. The illegal alien terrorist is in the custody and control of a sovereign foreign nation,” Miller wrote.

While the Trump administration has labeled Abrego Garcia as a member of the MS-13 gang, he has no criminal record in the U.S. or any country.

Before Friday’s hearing, the Department of Justice had sought a delay until Wednesday, which Xinis rejected in a searing order.

“First, the Defendants’ act of sending Abrego Garcia to El Salvador was wholly illegal from the moment it happened, and Defendants have been on notice of the same,” she wrote. “Second, the Defendants’ suggestion that they need time to meaningfully review a four-page (Supreme Court) Order that reaffirms this basic principle blinks at reality.”

She said the Department of Justice should have been making efforts to return Abrego Garcia after her decision last week ordering them to do so.

During the hearing she asked Ensign what progress the Trump administration made before the Supreme Court stayed the deadline she had set — so from April 4 until April 7.

Ensign said that the Trump administration was “not yet prepared to share that information.”

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem walks past reporters after doing a TV interview outside of the White House on March 10, 2025. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images) 

WASHINGTON — Millions of immigrants in the country without legal authorization are required as of Friday to register with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security after a federal judge rejected advocacy groups’ request to pause the requirement.

They’ll also have to carry documents proving their registration.

The Thursday decision from U.S. District Court Judge Trevor Neil McFadden of the District of Columbia allows the Trump administration to issue hefty fines and potential prison sentences if those subject to the registration requirement do not comply.

McFadden, who was appointed by President Donald Trump in 2017, said in his ruling that the advocacy groups lacked legal standing – meaning they had not shown how they would be harmed by the requirement – to bring the suit.

“As organizations, many of their harms are too speculative, and they have failed to show that the Rule will erode their core missions,” McFadden wrote in his order.

In a statement, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem cheered the order.

“President Trump and I have a clear message for those in our country illegally: leave now. If you leave now, you may have the opportunity to return and enjoy our freedom and live the American dream,” Noem said.

The Migration Policy Institute, an immigration think tank, estimates that between 2.2 million and 3.2 million immigrants will have to register. The registration requirement could be a powerful tool in the Trump administration’s efforts to carry out mass deportations.

Registration requirements

DHS announced the new requirement in February. Under the rule, immigrants aged 14 and older who are required to register will need to carry registration documents at all times or risk potential prison terms or fines of up to $5,000.

Immigrants covered by the requirement must submit fingerprints and other biometric and personal information through an online application handled by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Once an application is approved, the agency will provide documentation that immigrants must carry at all times.

The suit, brought by immigration advocacy groups, argued the Trump administration violated proper rulemaking procedures in creating the application. The groups also warned in court documents that use of the application “will lead to racial profiling and the mistaken targeting of U.S. citizens.”

The registration requirement is authorized under a wartime act known as the Alien Registration Act of 1940 that was first used in World War II.

The requirement was rarely used until the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. During that time, any noncitizen males older than 16 who hailed from 25 Muslim-majority countries had to register with the U.S. government.

The program, the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System, led to no terrorism convictions and was dissolved in 2016.

Under the requirement in place Friday, those who are required to register include immigrants who entered the U.S. without legal authority and Canadian visitors in the U.S. for more than 30 days.

Those who do not have to register include lawful permanent residents, immigrants with work visas or certain other visas and those in removal proceedings.  

In a new survey of Wisconsin child care providers, 25% said they could close without renewed state support. Corrine Hendrickson, shown here at a 2023 event to support the child care sector, said her New Glarus family care will likely have to raise fees. (Photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner)

One in four Wisconsin child care providers could close their doors if the state’s ongoing support isn’t replaced after it ends in June, according to a state-commissioned report released Thursday.

More than one in three providers expect to reduce their capacity for children or the hours they operate, or both, according to the report, based on a survey of most of the state’s licensed child care providers.

The report was commissioned by the state Department of Children and Families (DCF) and produced by the Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

It was released by the office of Gov. Tony Evers to support $480 million for child care providers in his 2025-27 proposed budget — a successor to the state’s Child Care Counts program that was funded with federal pandemic relief money. 

“It underscores what those of us in the field have known for a long time — that is, the need for public investment in order to stave off closures and rate increases,” said Ruth Schmidt, executive director of the Wisconsin Early Childhood Association.

The association supports Evers’ $480 million budget proposal and is holding an advocacy day at the state Capitol on April 16, with plans to meet lawmakers.

In a statement announcing the survey findings, Evers underscored his proposal.

“The cost of child care is too darn high, wait lists are too long, and providers are already struggling to keep the lights on, their doors open, and meet demand for child care across our state,” Evers said.

“The results of this survey are crystal clear: if we don’t make needed investments to support our child care providers and industry, programs will close, wait lists will get even longer, providers will be forced to raise prices, and parents and loved ones who can’t afford for [their] costs to get any higher may have to leave our workforce.”

Child Care Counts has provided monthly payments to state child care providers since 2021. From November 2021 to January 2024, it was funded from Wisconsin’s share of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), the federal pandemic relief legislation enacted in 2021. The program paid out more than $479 million to providers. After that money ran out, Evers directed another $170 million additional pandemic relief funds to carry the program through June 2025.

Child Care Counts paid out $20 million a month until mid-2023, when it was cut to $10 million a month, with providers getting half of what they had previously received.

The Republican majority in the state Legislature rejected Evers’ proposal to put up to $360 million in the 2023-25 budget to continue the subsidy program at its earlier monthly amount.

Providers have credited the Child Care Counts program with making it possible for them to increase pay for child care workers in the face of competition from other employers without being forced to raise the fees they charge parents.  

About 80% of the state’s more than 4,500 child care providers received and took part in the survey, which was included in providers’ November application for Child Care Counts payments.

The survey included questions about providers’ experiences before and after the Child Care Counts reduction. It also asked about their expectations after the program ends in June, as well as the potential impact of a continued program.

Two-thirds of providers surveyed reported that after the payments were reduced, they raised fees.

Responding to questions about the impact of state support ending in June, 25% or more of providers in the survey said they would be somewhat or more likely to close. Fully 10% of providers said closing their program “was very or extremely likely,” the report found.

“That’s an incredibly concerning statistic,” said Schmidt. “That’s a lot of child care programs that could be pulling up stakes. It’s going to hit rural communities super hard, but across the state we’re going to see significant closures.”

More than one-third of providers — 37% — said they were “at least somewhat likely” to close some of their classrooms or reduce the number of children they serve. Almost that many, 36%, said they were likely to reduce the number of hours they provide care.

By 59%, providers also expect their waiting lists to grow without continued state support.

Providers also expect to have a harder time hiring and keeping employees, with 66% saying that it was “at least somewhat likely” they will have to cut compensation, including their own. Fully half of providers “said this was very or extremely likely,” the report states.

More than half of providers — 56% — said it was at least somewhat likely that more employees would quit, and 46% said staff cuts were somewhat or more likely.

Of providers in the survey, 69% said “that it was at least somewhat likely” they would have a harder time hiring qualified employees.

About half of providers surveyed — 51% — said they thought it would be “at least somewhat likely” that they would find it harder to provide high quality care.

Between one-fourth and nearly half of providers said they expected to have more trouble being able to meet some parents’ specific needs. Those include providing care earlier or later in the day, serving families in the state’s Wisconsin Shares subsidy child care program for low-income families, caring for infants and toddlers or caring for children with special needs.

“With families already struggling to afford child care, respondents repeatedly described how continued funding — whether at the original or at current levels—would help prevent further tuition rate increases,” the survey report notes. Some providers said it would allow them to hold rates at their current level or reduce them, while others said it would keep the rate of tuition increases down.

Corrine Hendrickson, a New Glarus child care provider and organizer of an advocacy group for providers and families, Wisconsin Early Childhood Action Needed (WECAN), said the survey points out “the disastrous results for children and families after the initial [Child Care Counts] funding wasn’t replaced in the state budget.”

Rural areas, where families are younger and have lower incomes, may be hit the most dramatically if the child care sector contracts, Hendrickson said.

Hendrickson said she is likely to have to raise the rates she charges for her family child care center, which has a capacity of eight children. A $30 increase “will put me out of reach for too many families,” Hendrickson said. “If I lose two children and can’t replace them within a month or two, I will have to close.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Chad Sobieck testifies in opposition to a bill introduced in the Wisconsin Assembly that would place new limitations on the process to establish if a person is eligible for Medicaid. (Wisconsin Examiner photo)

State legislation that would require the Wisconsin health department to verify that all Medicaid recipients are eligible twice a year was met with resounding opposition at a public hearing Thursday.

The bill, AB 163, also would add restrictions on the verification process. With a few differences, the legislation echoed a bill that failed to pass two years ago.

Only one witness testified in favor of the measure: its Assembly author, state Rep. William Penterman (R-Columbus).  

“It will create a balance, an important balance, in preserving a strong safety net for our most vulnerable residents while curbing inappropriate long-term reliance on public assistance,” Penterman said.

The legislation would prohibit the Wisconsin Department of Health Services (DHS) from renewing Medicaid recipients automatically and require DHS to reconsider a person’s eligibility every six months instead of annually, the federal standard.

It would cut off eligibility for six months for Medicaid recipients who don’t report a change, such as higher income, that would make them ineligible for the program. It also prescribes additional requirements for checking databases of other agencies to confirm information about a Medicaid recipient’s qualifications.

Over the course of a 2-1/2-hour hearing, witnesses said the bill would impose significant administrative burdens on Medicaid recipients and likely lead some to be kicked off the rolls, not because they were not eligible but because of mistakes, whether made by the recipient in the process of trying to requalify or by state officials processing their paperwork.

“Its reason seems to be purposely causing difficulty for people whose lives are already a monumental struggle in an attempt to make it too difficult for them to access the services they are entitled to,” said Karel Oliveras, who has two grandchildren with Angelman syndrome, a genetic disorder that causes developmental delays and other problems.

Referring to Oliveras’ comments about the process of establishing eligibility for the program, Rep. Ryan Clancy (D-Milwaukee) asked, “Would you characterize it as too easy?”

“It’s my daughter and her husband who do that,” Oliveras said. “But the stress of that [on them] was very, very obvious.”

Both Clancy and Rep. Christian Phelps (D-Eau Claire), the committee’s two Democrats, were skeptical about the idea that there were people in Wisconsin who were on Medicaid but didn’t qualify.

In response to lawmakers who had implied that Wisconsin’s Medicaid enrollment — about 20% of the state population — was excessive, Tamara Jackson, the legislative policy representative for the Wisconsin Board for People with Developmental Disabilities, said the percentage is similar in most states.   

According to Jackson, Wisconsin’s Medicaid staff already monitors people’s eligibility rigorously. “They are really checking every application and every renewal to make sure that people meet the income, asset, and other eligibility requirements,” she said.  

Chad Sobieck, who uses a wheelchair, said he has been on Medicaid for his entire life and it has enabled him to live in the community with the help of caregivers covered by the program. When completing paperwork, he has to enlist the help of others because he cannot write due to his physical disability, he said. 

A provision in the bill banning DHS from prepopulating forms for the renewal applicant would make that even more difficult.

If he has to qualify every six months and there’s an error that kicks him off  Medicaid for six months, “that would mean that I don’t have caregivers,” Sobiek said. “If there is a gap in those services, I will not be able to remain independent and it will become a safety and health issue for me.”

Almost all the opposition testimony focused on people with disabilities. Several Wisconsin Medicaid programs enable people with disabilities to live at home or in the community, rather than in an institution, with the program covering their needs for health care and home and personal care that they cannot manage on their own.

Wisconsin patients, families are wary as Congress prepares for Medicaid surgery

Penterman said that after “conversation and collaborating with the stakeholders” he was planning to offer an amendment that would exempt people with developmental disabilities from the legislation.

Critics of the bill, however — including those speaking on behalf of people with developmental disabilities — were largely skeptical about that announcement.

“I am a little offended about the fact that the amendment offered only covers the developmentally disabled,” said Jason Glozier, executive director of the Wisconsin Coalition of Independent Living Centers, arguing that the proposal’s limits would be onerous for people with physical disabilities, too.

“To say that doubling the administrative burden would decrease waste or decrease fraud doesn’t seem to make sense when we have a system that is overburdened and unable to meet its need effectively,” Glozier said.

“Why should somebody who’s been disabled from birth, who’s been paralyzed or acquired a disability, have to consistently re-insist that they have a disability?” he added. “It’s not going to get better.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Sen. Jeff Smith holding up a printout of President Donald Trump's post telling people to buy, which went out just hours before he paused most tariffs. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Wisconsin Democrats are resurrecting a resolution that would allow voters to weigh in on whether the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Citizens United ruling should stand — an effort that comes just a week after historic spending in Wisconsin’s state Supreme Court election.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission found that corporations and unions have a First Amendment right to speech and laws preventing them from spending were unconstitutional. The decision has enabled corporations and other outside groups to spend virtually unlimited amounts of money on elections. 

Lawmakers said the decision is the core of why spending has gotten so out of hand in the last decade and a half. According to the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, preliminary data shows that nearly $100 million was spent during the April race between Justice-elect Susan Crawford and Brad Schimel.

At a press conference, Sen. Jeff Smith (D-Brunswick) called billionaire Elon Musk — who has directed efforts in the Trump administration to slash federal programs and fire federal employees and spent millions trying to influence the outcome of the Wisconsin  Supreme Court — a “carpetbagger.” He criticized Musk for giving money to voters, saying Wisconsinites shouldn’t get accustomed to being paid to vote, but should be voting to make their voices heard.

Smith said money in elections is making voters feel like billionaires are outweighing their voices. He then called specific attention to President Donald Trump telling investors to ‘buy’ on social media — as the stock market was wavering — just hours before he announced that for 90 days he would be lowering U.S. tariffs to 10% on most countries and raising them on China to 125%. The move caused the stock market to rise and, then led to accusations of market manipulation and insider trading. 

“The man in the White House sent this message — ‘A great time to buy! A great time to buy.’ He sent his message to his rich donors and friends,” Smith said. 

“It pays off to put millions of dollars in campaigns because they’re going to make money in the end if they win,” Smith continued. “We need Congress to reevaluate this role of corporations and billionaires and their role in money and politics.”

The advisory referendum would seek an answer from voters on whether Wisconsin’s Congressional delegation should support a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision. Specifically it would ask voters the question whether “only human beings are endowed with constitutional rights — not corporations, unions, nonprofit organizations, or other artificial entities” and whether “money is not speech, and therefore limiting political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.”

Smith said voters sent a message that they won’t be bought last week by rejecting Musk’s preferred candidate.

“We don’t want that money coming in here in Wisconsin to buy our elections and our freedom,” Smith said. “Let’s put this referendum on the ballots, so voters can make their voices heard directly to Congress.

Wisconsin Democracy Campaign Operations and Policy Director Beverly Speer emphasized at the press conference that the issue goes beyond Musk, saying that spending by independent expenditures —  totaling about $51.5 million in April — are often backed by billionaires and operated in shady ways.

“Don’t be mistaken, Musk is just one of a handful of billionaires who contributed to this bipartisan arms race,” Speer said. “Things will continue to escalate… Unless we want to see a $150 million race, and then maybe a $200 million race, we need to cut off this free-for-all.”  

Speer said that voters are mostly opposed to the vast spending in campaigns. 

The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign conducted a survey in February that found about 88% of Wisconsin voters statewide are “extremely concerned” or “very concerned” about the influence of money in politics. The survey also found that 86% of respondents said people and groups shouldn’t be able to spend “unlimited amounts of money” to support political campaigns and 83% of respondents said there should be limits on how much campaigns can spend.

“While working Wisconsinites stretch to pay rent, feed their families, and make ends meet, billionaires treat our elections like a game — pouring millions into a state that they don’t even normally live in, hoping to tip the scales in favor of their special interests,” Speer said. 

A statewide referendum would need to pass the Republican-led Legislature, and Rep. Lisa Subeck (D-Madison) acknowledged that previous attempts have been unsuccessful. She said she welcomes more conversation about the issue and proposal.

“Not once has it even gotten a hearing, and you know, why? Because politicians who are beholden to big money in politics don’t want to hear what the people have to say about it, but we are calling on… our colleagues to join us in this resolution,” Subeck said. 

Subeck said lawmakers were starting with the referendum because any changes in state law are “neutered” by the Citizens United decision. She said Democrats would be introducing more bills to address the issue in the near future, including on disclosure of money in campaigns and on public financing. However, she said pushing Congress for a constitutional amendment will be key to changing the state of money in elections. 

“We cannot fundamentally make wholesale change in this through any state law as long as Citizens United is still law of the land,” Subeck said. “We need to amend our federal Constitution and we need to send that message clear and simple.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Prisoners sit at the Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, or CECOT, a mega-prison in Tecoluca, San Vicente, El Salvador, on April 4, 2025. The Trump administration has acknowledged mistakenly deporting a Maryland resident from El Salvador with protected status to the prison but is arguing against returning him to the U.S. (Photo by Alex Peña/Getty Images)

A disgraced former Milwaukee Police Department (MPD) officer was found to be linked to a high-profile deportation by the Trump Administration. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that Charles Cross Jr. 62, signed a report that claimed Andry José Hernandez, 30, a gay Venezuelan citizen who worked as a make-up artist, was linked to the Tren de Aragua gang and cited his tattoos. Cross, now employed by the private prison company CoreCivic, left MPD under a cloud of conduct and credibility problems, which also landed him on the Brady list of untrustworthy officers maintained by the Milwaukee County district attorney’s office.

In 2012 when he held the rank of sergeant at MPD, Cross was fired after driving his car into a family’s home while he was intoxicated. Cross was allowed to resign after appealing the decision to the Fire and Police Commission (FPC). The Journal Sentinel also reports that Cross was being investigated for claiming overtime he allegedly hadn’t earned when he was fired from the department.

Prior to the crash, Cross had been placed on the Brady list after kicking in the door of an apartment shared with his girlfriend and threatening to kill himself with his service revolver. The incident, in 2007,  cost him his job, but Cross was reinstated after appealing to the FPC. Four months after he separated from MPD in 2012, Cross was hired by CoreCivic, the Journal Sentinel reported. 

According to court filings, Cross identified himself as an “investigator” in a form claiming Hernandez was part of Tren de Aragua, one of the gangs that the Trump administration says it is targeting through mass deportations and detentions of non-citizens. Hernandez had tattoos depicting crowns with the words “dad” and “mom.” Hernandez’s attorneys say the crowns are a reference to the “Three Kings” festival in his hometown of Capacho, Venezuela, and are not connected to Tren de Aragua, as Cross reportedly assumed.  

Hernandez was one of more than 200 mostly Venezuelan migrants sent to El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center. Authorities at the prison have been accused of human rights violations and torture. 

Hernandez fled Venezuela fearing persecution for being a gay man, as well as for his political views. The Journal Sentinel reports that after entering the U.S. illegally, he was apprehended by U.S. Border Patrol agents and sent to Mexico, where he made an appointment and presented himself at a port of entry in San Diego. Hernandez was asked about his tattoos by federal agents, who named him as a “suspect,” but didn’t check any of the other categories on the questionnaire such as “intelligence information received from other agencies” or “group photos.” Since he was deported to El Salvador, Hernandez has not been able to reach his lawyers. 

The developments have raised questions about the involvement of private contractors in immigration and deportation actions, as well as the ability of police officers with problematic histories to be hired by private companies like CoreCivic.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Fox Lake Correctional Institution was the site of a meeting the Wisconsin Department of Corrections held this week with friends and family of incarcerated people. (Wisconsin Department of Corrections photo)

The Wisconsin Department of Corrections held its first friends and family forum at Fox Lake Correctional Institution on Wednesday. The event was closed to the press, but multiple attendees shared their reactions with the Examiner. 

DOC Secretary Jared Hoy and much of the department’s leadership team met with over 40 friends and family members, according to a DOC press release. 

“Family and friends play a huge role in determining whether an individual succeeds in the community,” Hoy said. “With DOC’s mission of safety and rehabilitation, we need to partner with families and friends throughout the process. Their support is crucial to success with rehabilitation.”

Rebecca Aubart, executive director of the prison reform advocacy group Ladies of SCI, said the event gave her hope. 

“We have been a lost, hopeless group of people without a voice for decades,” Aubart said. “And they acknowledged us, they were respectful and kind and compassionate to us. And they gave us hope. The dangerous thing about this is, if you crush our hope, we are going to be devastated and come in full force with whatever we could possibly do to make sure that everybody knows they did not follow through on anything.” 

The prison system has faced scrutiny amid deaths of incarcerated people, lockdowns at state prisons and criminal charges against the former Waupun Correctional Institution warden and members of his staff. In November, the DOC signed a contract with a management and consulting firm for a third-party review. 

People who attended the event broke into small groups to talk about topics such as strengthening families, treatment and health care, classification and life in DOC facilities, complaint systems and reentry, the DOC’s statement said. DOC staff were there to listen and take note of suggestions. 

Amy Rolack said her husband is incarcerated at Fox Lake Correctional Institution. She said she told DOC staff at the forum that her husband was told it would be a year and a half before he would be seen for dental care. 

“I think that it was a really good meeting as far as who all attended it and who were all able to hear all of these loved ones talking about their experiences in each different facility,” Rolack said. 

Betty Ziehme described it as a successful first meeting. 

“I don’t think they were shocked by what they heard,” Ziehme said. “I think that they are aware that there’s issues, and I think they’re looking for input, and that they want to make some corrections. And I have to be hopeful.”

People who attended the event “made valuable suggestions” regarding visiting experiences and helping support families new to the Department of Corrections, Hoy said, according to DOC. 

In an interview with the Examiner, Aubart mentioned the idea of having family orientations. She also pointed to neighboring Minnesota, where the Office of the Ombudsperson for Corrections (OBFC) — a prison oversight body — collaborated with the Minnesota Department of Corrections on a pilot project intended to strengthen loved ones’ support of incarcerated people.

The project included virtual meetings for family and friends of incarcerated people for two prisons. One of the prisons was an intake facility where most incarcerated people would only stay a few months before being transferred to a different facility. In that group, OBFC presented on topics families identified as being helpful, and afterward, staff members gave updates related to the facility and participants asked questions. 

An OBFC report found the meetings were a helpful resource for families and facility staff developed a better understanding of difficulties experienced by families navigating the correctional system.

Prior to the pilot project, a 2021 Minnesota OBFC report found that families “face a wide array of barriers in supporting and staying connected with their loved one while they are incarcerated.” 

After the small groups, Hoy answered some of the questions friends and family had submitted in advance. The answers to additional questions will be available on the DOC’s friends and family webpage in the coming days.

Hoy said it is important for the department to consider the opinions, ideas and feelings of people directly impacted by their work. 

Attendance at forums is limited to friends and family members of people who are currently incarcerated or on active community supervision, a DOC webpage says. The DOC’s website includes an email where questions could be submitted virtually. 

The forum was “the first in a series of efforts designed to continue improving communication” between the department and the loved ones of incarcerated people and people on supervision, according to DOC. 

The department stated that it will continue to receive feedback from attendees for potential forums in the future or other events. Hoy said the department wants to know what family and friends want from events like this. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

State Superintendent Jill Underly said in a statement about the response that Wisconsin schools need support, not threatened cuts to federal funding. Underly at a rally for 2025 Public Schools Week. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction is resisting the Trump administration’s threat that it certify that local school districts put an end to diversity, equity and inclusion programs or lose federal funding.

State Superintendent Jill Underly said in a statement about the response that Wisconsin schools need support, not threatened cuts to federal funding.

“We cannot stand by while the current administration threatens our schools with unnecessary and potentially unlawful mandates based on political beliefs,” Underly said. “Our responsibility is to ensure Wisconsin students receive the best education possible, and that means allowing schools to make local decisions based on what is best for their kids and their communities.”

The federal directive comes as a part of the Trump administration’s crack-down on diversity, equity and inclusion efforts across the country and in K-12 as well as higher education. 

Wisconsin joins several states, most led by Democrats, that are rejecting the demands from the federal government. 

In the letter sent to state agencies last week, the Department of Education told state education departments that they needed to certify their compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard — the landmark Supreme Court decision that found consideration of race in higher education admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Craig Trainor said in a statement that the request includes ensuring that schools aren’t “using DEI programs to discriminate against one group of Americans to favor another based on identity characteristics in clear violation of Title VI.” Trainor said the government has seen “too many schools flout or outright violate these obligations.” The federal agency gave state agencies 10 days to respond and warned that federal funding could be at risk if there was continued use of “illegal DEI.” 

In a response letter to the U.S. Department of Education, DPI said it has already provided the federal agency with compliance assurances required by federal law, including those related to nondiscrimination. It said that it was unclear why the federal agency is requesting another certification and noted that the agency itself had said that recent guidance “does not have the force and effect of law and does not bind the public or create new legal standards.” 

“At best, the [directive] appears to be redundant. At worst, the [directive] appears to be unauthorized, unlawful and unconstitutionally vague,” Wisconsin DPI General Counsel Benjamin Jones wrote in the letter. “We are deeply concerned that the [request] allows the federal bureaucracy to threaten the loss of crucial education funding in order to dictate local education agency policies and decisions on what is best for kids.” 

The state agency asked the federal agency to answer a series of questions before it complies with the request, including the specific purpose of the certification, whether the requested certification seeks to enforce any requirement beyond what is required by federal law and regulation and what legal authority the Education Department is using to make the request a condition of federal aid.

DPI said that while it waits for a response, it will not collect certifications from local education agencies and will not send the requested certification to the U.S. Department of Education.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Mickey Rottinghaus, 70, of Iowa, told a crowd of protesters she's afraid of her adult son losing Medicaid benefits. The demonstrators, organized by the national advocacy group Fair Share America, protested congressional Republicans' proposed spending cuts outside the U.S. Capitol on Thursday, April 10, 2025. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON —  Hundreds demonstrated outside the U.S. Capitol Thursday, urging congressional Republicans to rethink cutting programs vital to millions of Americans as a way to help extend President Donald Trump’s 2017 tax cuts.

The previously scheduled rally, organized by the advocacy coalition Fair Share America, occurred less than an hour after House Republicans, by a narrow margin, adopted a budget resolution that paves the way for negotiations on deep spending cuts as Congress works on an extension of the 2017 tax law.

The advocates, who flew and bused in from 30 states to rally and meet with lawmakers on Capitol Hill, say the cuts would be devastating for low-income Americans who rely on government health care, nutrition and early education programs, among other benefits.

A state-by-state report from Democrats last month projected up to 25 million across the country could lose access to Medicaid, a health program that covers medical costs for some low-income people as well as nursing home care, if Republicans successfully pass their proposed cuts to make room in the budget for a roughly $4.5 trillion tax cut extension.

“This is personal to so many of us, and many of you are here from all over the country, Utah, Iowa, Florida, Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan,” Fair Share America Executive Director Kristen Crowell told the crowd. “This is a national movement where we are the people we’ve been waiting for.”

Lawmakers “need to look us in the eye while they do harm,” Crowell said.

Medicaid ‘was my lifeline’

Cadon Sagendorf of Salt Lake City, Utah, told his story of relying on Medicaid while growing up in the foster care system. Foster youth are automatically eligible for the federally funded health care program administered by the states.

“I was placed into the foster care system at birth and spent 10 days in the NICU withdrawing from meth, marijuana, heroin and cocaine. I was then later adopted seven months later, but at the age of 15, my adoption failed and I was placed back in the foster care system,” said Sagendorf, who is now 23 and studying psychology at the University of Utah.

“Medicaid was not just a policy, it was my lifeline,” Sagendorf said.

In most cases, foster youth who age out of the system at 18 can remain on Medicaid until age 26. Over 100,000 former foster youth received Medicaid in 2023, according to the Government Accountability Office.

Mickey Rottinghaus, 70, of Center Point, Iowa, said she’s scared that her adult son Tucker could lose his Medicaid benefits if Congress follows through with deep spending cuts.

The program pays for a nurse and home health aide to assist him every morning, seven days a week.

Tucker, 50, was left paralyzed after being shot with a .22 caliber handgun at a friend’s apartment in 1994.

“Our family was changed in a matter of moments,” Rottinghaus told the crowd.

For three decades she’s been arranging his care, patching together a daily schedule of nurses paid for by Medicaid, supplementing with care paid for out of pocket and a circle of friends who volunteer to help.

For the past two years, she’s been staying with her son in Waterloo, Iowa, to feed him in the afternoon and get him into bed at night.

“I know that if he didn’t have Medicaid, he wouldn’t be able to have a nurse and a home health aide in the morning,” she told States Newsroom in an interview following her speech.

The ‘hell, no’ Congress

Several House and Senate Democrats spoke to the demonstrators, who wielded signs bearing the messages “Tax the Rich” and “Fair Taxes Now.”

Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon borrowed a sign from the crowd that read “Dangerous Oligarchs Grab Everything,” referring to billionaire White House adviser Elon Musk’s DOGE cost-cutting agenda.

“Well, I’ll tell ya, I’m a member of the ‘hell, no’ Congress. Are you a member?” he yelled to the crowd.

“When Republicans say, ‘We are going to slash Medicaid,’ we say, ‘Hell no,’” he said, prompting the crowd to say it with him.

Sen. Raphael Warnock of Georgia said “a budget is not just a fiscal document, it’s a moral document.”

“Show me your budget and I’ll show you who you think matters and who you think is dispensable. Show me your budget and I’ll show you what you think about children, what you think about workers, what you think made America great. And if this budget that they are trying to pass were an EKG, it would suggest that the Congress has a heart problem and is in need of moral surgery,” Warnock said.

On the hunt for spending cuts

House and Senate Republican leaders announced Thursday they agreed to find $1.5 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade. GOP House lawmakers have been instructed to find $880 billion in cuts to programs under the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which holds jurisdiction over Medicaid, among other areas.

The budget instructions that will guide the coming months of negotiations also direct the House Committee on Education and Workforce to find $330 billion in cuts, and the Agriculture Committee, which has jurisdiction over government food programs, including SNAP, to find $230 billion in cuts.

House Speaker Mike Johnson hailed the passage of the budget blueprint Thursday morning as “a big victory” and “a big day for us.”

Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, maintains that letting the 2017 tax cuts expire would allow “the largest tax increase in U.S. history all at once.”

“We have a responsibility to get our country back on a sound fiscal trajectory and also make sure that we ensure and protect those essential programs,” he said.

Prisoners look out of their cell as Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem tours the Terrorist Confinement Center, or CECOT, on March 26, 2025 in Tecoluca, El Salvador. (Photo by Alex Brandon-Pool/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court Thursday ruled the Trump administration must “facilitate” the return of a Maryland man to the United States after he was wrongly deported to a notorious mega-prison in El Salvador, but stopped short of requiring his return.

The high court said the Trump administration must try to bring back Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, of Beltsville, who was deported due to an “administrative error” admitted by the Trump administration.

The high court did not give the administration a date by which to return Abrego Garcia, saying the deadline in a District of Columbia court order has expired. The Supreme Court said the district court also needs to clarify what it meant by saying the administration must “effectuate” the return of Abrego Garcia and the scope of that term is “unclear” and may exceed the district court’s authority.

The Trump administration has repeatedly rejected retrieving Abrego Garcia from prison.  President Donald Trump and other high-ranking officials have alleged Abrego Garcia is a MS-13 gang member, but produced no evidence and have defended his deportation, despite admitting his removal was a mistake.  

“We don’t want them back,” Trump said April 8, referencing the case. “Can you imagine, you spend all of that time, energy and money on getting them out, and then you have a judge that sits there… (saying), he said, ‘No, bring him back.’”

It’s unclear how long Abrego Garcia will remain in the prison unless he is returned to the U.S., but El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele said based on the $6 million agreement between his country and the U.S., those men at the prison will remain there for at least a year.

Bukele is scheduled to meet with Trump at the White House Monday.

Effect on other prisoners

Thursday’s decision may have ramifications for the 238 Venezuelans who were deported to the same prison, Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, or CECOT.

They were sent there under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a wartime law their attorneys say denied them due process because those subject to it were not able to challenge their removal in court.

The Supreme Court will allow, for now, the continued removal of Venezuelans under the Alien Enemies Act, but those subject to a presidential proclamation issued by Trump citing the Alien Enemies Act must be given notice of their removal under the wartime law and a court hearing. The court action also must be in the locations where they are incarcerated.

Arrested while driving son

The Abrego Garcia case garnered national attention when he was arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement while driving his 5-year-old son home. Abrego Garcia was not charged with an offense, but was apprehended by ICE because his “status had changed.”

In 2019 Abrego Garcia was given a final order of removal, but an immigration judge granted him protection from removal to his home country because it was more “likely than not that he would be persecuted by gangs in El Salvador” if he was returned, according to court documents.

But on March 15 he was placed on one of three deportation flights to El Salvador.

The Trump administration has argued that Abrego Garcia is no longer in U.S. custody and therefore cannot be returned to the United States.

There is precedent from the U.S. government to return an immigrant accidentally deported, including U.S. citizens. Between fiscal year 2015 and fiscal year 2020, ICE accidentally deported 70 U.S. citizens who needed to be returned, according to a 2021 U.S. Government Accountability Office report.  

Voters cast their ballots at Fairmont Junior High in Boise during the Idaho primary on May 17, 2022. (Otto Kitsinger for Idaho Capital Sun)

The U.S. House passed a bill Thursday to require voters to provide proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote, approving a Republican priority over the objections of Democrats who said the bill would only create hurdles for eligible voters without actually improving fraud protection.

The 220-208 vote sent the measure to the U.S. Senate, where it faces an uphill road to overcome the chamber’s 60-vote requirement for most legislation. If enacted, the bill would require states, which are responsible for administering elections, to obtain from people registering to vote in federal elections documents that prove U.S. citizenship.

Acceptable documents under the act include any valid photo ID issued by the federal government, a state or tribe that shows the applicant’s place of birth was the United States, or a combination of a valid government-issued photo ID and another document proving citizenship such as a birth certificate or certificate of naturalization.

Four House Democrats – Jared Golden of Maine, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington, Ed Case of Hawaii and Henry Cuellar of Texas – joined all Republicans present to vote in favor of the bill.

Supporters of the bill say it is needed to keep immigrants in the country without legal status from voting.

It is already illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal elections, though some local governments allow noncitizen residents to vote in local elections.

GOP priority

By tackling fraudulent voting and targeting immigrants in the country illegally, the bill addresses two planks of the Republican platform under President Donald Trump. Trump has consistently positioned himself as a hardliner on immigration and continues to voice the debunked claim that fraud caused his 2020 election loss.

During floor debate this week, the bill’s sponsor, Texas Republican Chip Roy, said the measure, titled the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility, or SAVE, Act, responded to the message voters sent by electing Trump and Republican majorities in both chambers of Congress last year after inaction from Democratic President Joe Biden.

“Republicans are responding to an American people who are tired of the previous administration that was allowing illegals to come into our country, kill our citizens, vote in our elections, undermine our country,” Roy said. “And we are addressing their concerns and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle don’t want to address it.”

Hurdle for citizens

Democrats, though, said the measure was unnecessary to prevent the exceedingly rare cases of noncitizens voting in federal elections and would only make voting harder for citizens who are eligible, including married women who may have changed their name but have not updated their documents.

“I think the gentleman from Texas will be happy to learn that it already is the law that only American citizens can vote in federal elections,” Rep. Jim McGovern, a Massachusetts Democrat, said following Roy’s remarks. “Our problem with the SAVE Act is that it is an attempt to make it more difficult for women in this country, women who are U.S. citizens, to be able to vote.”

At a virtual press conference Thursday, Democratic secretaries of state – the office in most states responsible for elections administration – highlighted the difficulties it could create for eligible voters.

“Losing your driver’s license or birth certificate, letting your passport expire or even getting married and taking your partner’s last name could all prevent a voter from making their voice heard in free and fair elections if the SAVE Act passes,” Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold said. “Replacing just one of those documents – let alone multiple documents that would be needed to register – takes time and money that not every American has.

“Women who are citizens – who are eligible to vote – should not be stopped at the ballot box by (House Speaker) Mike Johnson and Donald Trump.”

Democratic Party of Wisconsin Chair Ben Wikler said he is not running for a fourth term on Thursday. Wikler speaks at a climate rally outside of Sen. Ron Johnson's Madison office on June 8, 2021. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)

Democratic Party of Wisconsin Chair Ben Wikler, who is credited for rebuilding the state party over the last six years, announced Thursday that he will not run for another term in the leadership position, saying it is time for him to “pass the torch” and find a new way to contribute to the “fight.”

The announcement comes a little over a week after a crucial Wisconsin Supreme Court election where the party’s preferred candidate, Justice-elect Susan Crawford, prevailed over Waukesha Judge Brad Schimel, who had the backing of Republicans and billionaire Elon Musk. 

Wikler said that the party is in “extraordinarily strong shape” with a liberal majority on the state Supreme Court for at least the next two years and Democrats in the position to potentially win a both houses of the Legislature and retain the governor’s office in 2026. 

“Now is the right time for me to take a breath, and to find new ways to advance the fight for a country that works for working people, and one that honors every person’s fundamental freedom and dignity,” Wikler wrote in a letter. “When my third term as chair ends this June, I will be passing the torch.” 

Wikler said he would be taking some time to “figure out what’s next” and to spend time with his family. 

The prospect of Wikler stepping down was broached earlier this year as he ran for Democratic National Committee chair. But he lost the race to Ken Martin, who was serving at the time as the Minnesota DFL Party chair. 

Wikler, who grew up in Wisconsin, moved back to the state in 2018 and started volunteering on campaigns. He was elected to be chair in 2019 in a moment where Democrats hadn’t had consistent success in the state for many years, but had just elected Gov. Tony Evers, putting a Democrat in the governor’s mansion for the first time in eight years.

Under his leadership, Democrats reelected Evers in 2022 by a bigger margin of votes than his first term, clawed back seats in the state Legislature under new legislative maps and flipped control of the state Supreme Court. 

In his letter, Wikler noted that the statewide races the Democrats have lost have been “agonizingly close.” This includes former Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes’ loss by one percentage point to U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson in 2022 and former Vice President Kamala Harris’ loss in Wisconsin by less than 30,000 votes  to President Donald Trump last year.

Wikler also helped grow the state party’s fundraising efforts during his time at the helm, including raising more than $63 million during the 2024 election cycle — the most of any state party across the country. 

“This is a wrenching time for our country,” Wikler wrote in his announcement. “But in Wisconsin’s path over the last 15 years, we can see what we need to do to fight through it. It’s on all of us to find ways to contain the damage, look out for one another, and build the strength to end the destruction — and then rebuild. I’ll be looking for new ways to contribute to that vital work. As I do, I know the labor of building a great Democratic Party — the last line of defense of our battered but immeasurably valuable democracy — will continue. We will not let our country fall, and we will continue to write the story of Wisconsin’s resurrection as a bastion of progress.” 

Wisconsin Democrats acknowledged Wikler’s impact on the party after his announcement. 

Senate Minority Leader Dianne Hesselbein said in a statement that “nobody could have dreamed about the lasting, meaningful infrastructure he would go on to build at WisDems.” 

“Through innovation, grit, and a ton of hard work, he transformed our State Party into a national powerhouse – with the results to show for it,” Hesselbein said. 

During Wikler’s time in office, Wisconsin implemented new legislative maps that have given Democrats a chance to control the Senate and Assembly for the first time in 15 years. “While he won’t be at the helm in 2026 when we flip the Legislature, it will be because of Ben’s efforts that we are able to do so,” Hesselbein said.

New chair will be elected in June 

The next chair will be chosen at the state party’s convention in June in Wisconsin Dells and will lead the party through a number of crucial elections, including the 2026 gubernatorial election, another round of state legislative elections and another state Supreme Court race. Some Democrats are already throwing their hat into the ring or announcing that they’re considering a run. 

Devin Remiker, the former executive director of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, quickly announced his campaign for the top position, saying that “now isn’t the time to hit pause or rebuild, it’s time to fight tooth and nail.” Remiker said in a statement that he is grateful for Wikler’s leadership and that he has learned from him and hopes to build on his legacy. 

“I will be ready on Day One to double down on our successes and make needed changes,” Remiker said. “I have the experience working with local party leaders and grassroots activists to provide the partnership they desperately need on the frontlines of this fight.”  

Remiker, a Two Rivers native, has worked for the state party since 2018, including as executive director and currently as a senior advisor. He previously managed western Wisconsin U.S. Rep. Ron Kind’s reelection campaign in 2016.

Democratic strategist Joe Zepecki, a Milwaukee native, said in a statement that in conversations about the party’s future he has heard that “Democrats have got to do better when it comes to how we communicate our message.” 

“We need more effective communicators, period. I’ve given long, serious thought to how we do that and up our game,” Zepecki said. He said he will spend the next week speaking with party members and leaders “about that vision to see if they’re ready to shake things up.” 

Zepecki founded his own company, Zepecki Communications, in 2016, and has worked on three presidential campaigns as well as statewide campaigns for governor and U.S. Senate.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

People demonstrate in support of federal workers outside the main campus of the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention on April 1, 2025, in Atlanta, Georgia. (Photo by Elijah Nouvelage/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Fired federal probationary workers saw setbacks this week, as the U.S. Supreme Court and an appeals court dealt blows in two separate cases, leaving the newly hired or recently promoted employees hit by the administration’s mass firings once again in limbo.

In a case that affected up to 24,000 fired probationary employees across 17 federal agencies, the U.S. Appeals Court for the 4th Circuit on Wednesday blocked a lower court order requiring the government to rehire the workers.

A three-judge panel ruled 2-1 to stay the order, writing that the Trump administration is “likely to succeed in showing the district court lacked jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims.”

Judge Allison Rushing, appointed by President Donald Trump in 2019, directed the order, with Judge James Wilkinson, a President Ronald Reagan appointee, concurring. Judge DeAndrea Benjamin, appointed by President Joe Biden in 2023, dissented.

The case centered on a lawsuit filed by the Democratic attorneys general for 19 states and the District of Columbia, who allege economic harm because the federal government did not provide legally required warning ahead of an influx of unemployed state residents.

Federal Judge James Bredar for the District of Maryland issued a preliminary injunction on April 2 requiring the government to rehire thousands of workers who either lived or reported to work only in the 19 plaintiff states and the District of Columbia while the case moved forward. They included:

• Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin.

The affected agencies included:

• The departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense (civilian employees only), Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, Transportation, Treasury and Veterans Affairs, as well as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, General Services Administration, Office of Personnel Management, Small Business Administration and the U.S. Agency for International Development.

The case marked the first time the government provided the number of probationary employees fired at each agency.

Bredar required the figures from the government to show compliance with his mid-March emergency order that the agencies reinstate the workers. The documents showed that the majority of the employees were not recalled to active duty, but placed on administrative leave.

Supreme Court action

In the second case bearing on fired federal workers, the Supreme Court on Tuesday blocked a lower court order mandating the federal government reinstate the jobs of 16,000 fired probationary federal workers across six agencies.

The unsigned two-page order stated the nine nonprofits that brought the case do not have legal standing. The justices did not address the question at the center of the lawsuit: whether the firings were illegal.

The Trump administration had escalated the case to the Supreme Court’s emergency docket after the U.S. Appeals Court for the 9th Circuit denied the government’s request to block the agencies from rehiring the employees.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup for the Northern District of California extended his temporary emergency order on March 13, mandating the departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior, Treasury and Veterans Affairs reinstate employees who were fired under a directive from the Office of Personnel Management as part of an agenda by President Donald Trump and adviser Elon Musk to slash the federal workforce.

As the case continues on the lower court track, lawyers for the American Federal of Government Employees, AFL-CIO faced the Trump administration in court Wednesday before Alsup, a Clinton appointee. Alsup ordered both to provide more information by the end of the day Friday, including a comprehensive list of those fired and statements about economic harms. 

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

The U.S. Education Department has agreed to delay for nearly two weeks enforcement of a disputed directive seeking to ban diversity, equity and inclusion practices, according to a court filing Thursday in the case challenging the order.

The agreement between the department and the groups suing it over the order pauses enforcement until after April 24. According to the agreement, states and local education agencies until then cannot be investigated or asked to provide certification that they are not using DEI, a term for race- and gender-conscious practices, in admissions, programming, training, hiring or scholarships.

Education Department spokeswoman Madi Biedermann said the department and the groups reached the agreement Monday.

An April 3 letter from the department demanded states and districts provide certifications they were complying with the order within 10 days or risk losing federal funding. That letter followed a February missive introducing the order.

The National Education Association and the American Civil Liberties Union sued in New Hampshire federal court last month to block enforcement of the directive.

“This pause in enforcement provides immediate relief to schools across the country while the broader legal challenge continues,” the NEA said in a Thursday statement.

In a written statement, Biedermann said the extension was due to what the department saw as states’ efforts to comply with the order.

“The Department extended the certification requirement on Monday in response to states’ good-faith inquiries to ensure compliance,” Biedermann wrote. “Having voluntarily extended the deadline, commonsense would dictate the Department would not take enforcement action until the deadline had passed.”

Court battle

The groups asked the court to issue an emergency ruling to block enforcement of the department’s order while the case is ongoing.

The agreement effectively grants that request without a court order.

“No school district, state agency, or higher education institution will face investigation or penalties for failure to return the challenged certification that diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts do not exist within their curriculums,” the NEA said.

The underlying lawsuit remains ongoing.

The suit challenges the department’s authority to impose restrictions on state K-12 curriculum and says the order limits academic freedom and restricts educators’ ability to teach.

Trump and DEI

President Donald Trump campaigned against progressive cultural positions, including how race, gender and sexuality are handled in public schools.

In the early months of his second presidency, the entire executive branch has moved to restrict DEI initiatives and education policy, which has long been a battleground for such issues, has been a focal point.

The administration has used antidiscrimination requirements to pursue restrictions on DEI initiatives in education, arguing that DEI discriminates against white students.

DEI programs “discriminate against one group of Americans to favor another based on identity characteristics in clear violation of Title VI,” Craig Trainor, the Education Department’s acting head of civil rights, said in an April 3 statement.

U.S. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., right, and Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., hold a press conference on the Republican budget resolution at the U.S. Capitol on April 10, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)

This story was updated at 11:54 a.m. EDT.

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Republicans adopted a budget resolution Thursday, clearing the way for both chambers of Congress to write a bill extending 2017 tax cuts and bolstering funding for border security and defense, though the blueprint set vastly different targets for spending cuts.

The cliff-hanger 216-214 vote followed a tumultuous week on Capitol Hill. Far-right members of the GOP Conference said repeatedly they wouldn’t accept the outline, since it requires the House to write a bill that cuts spending by at least $1.5 trillion, while senators set themselves a floor of $4 billion in cuts.

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., was forced to postpone a floor vote on the budget resolution on Wednesday evening. But Johnson was able to secure the votes needed after he and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., announced Thursday morning that they were in agreement about meeting the higher threshold for spending cuts.

Johnson said both chambers of Congress “are committed to finding at least $1.5 trillion in savings for the American people, while also preserving our essential programs.”

“Many of us are going to aim much higher and find those savings because we believe they are there,” Johnson said. “We want to make the government more efficient, effective and leaner for the American people. And I think that will serve every American of every party. And we’re happy to do that.”

Despite the difference in reconciliation instructions, Thune said the Senate is “aligned with the House” when it comes to cutting spending over the next decade.

“The speaker has talked about $1.5 trillion,” Thune said. “We have a lot of United States senators who believe that is a minimum.”

Thune added he believes it’s time for Congress “to get the country on a more sustainable fiscal path and that entails us taking a hard scrub of our government and figuring out where we can find those savings.”

Democrats, and some centrist Republicans, have expressed deep concerns the House’s instructions require the Energy and Commerce Committee, which oversees Medicaid, to cut at least $880 billion.

The panel, which also oversees Medicare and other programs, could not recoup that level of spending without pulling hundreds of billions from Medicaid, the state-federal program for lower-income Americans and some people with disabilities.

The budget resolution has been endorsed by President Donald Trump, who’s repeatedly urged the House to adopt the measure. “Great News! “The Big, Beautiful Bill” is coming along really well. Republicans are working together nicely. Biggest Tax Cuts in USA History!!! Getting close. DJT,” Trump posted on social media Thursday morning prior to the vote.

Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie and Indiana Rep. Victoria Spartz were the only members of the Republican Party to vote against approval.

“If you were trying to hasten financial collapse of our country and bribe voters to go along with it, the strategy wouldn’t look much different than what Congress is doing today,” Massie wrote on social media. “The big beautiful bill cuts taxes while keeping spending on an increasingly unsustainable trajectory.”

Spartz wrote in a social media post of her own that the reconciliation instructions “we voted on today are still setting us up for the largest deficit increase in the history of our Republic, & opening up a ‘pandora’s box’ by changing accounting rules to hide it.

“In good conscience, I couldn’t vote YES.”

Only a beginning

The House adopting the 68-page budget resolution only marks the start of the months-long journey of writing and voting on the reconciliation package.

Republicans hope to use that bill to permanently extend the 2017 tax law, increase spending on border security and defense by hundreds of billions of dollars and rework energy policy.

The budget resolution includes different budget targets for many of those goals, and for raising the debt limit. It calls on the House to increase the country’s borrowing authority by $4 trillion, while the Senate’s instructions say that chamber would lift the debt ceiling by up to $5 trillion.

Writing the various elements of the reconciliation package will fall to 11 committee chairs in the House and 10 committee leaders in the Senate, as well as Johnson, Thune and a lot of staffers.

In the House, the Agriculture Committee needs to slice at least $230 billion; Education and Workforce must reduce spending by a minimum of $330 billion; Energy and Commerce needs to cut no less than $880 billion; Financial Services must find at least $1 billion in savings; Natural Resources has a minimum of $1 billion; Oversight and Government Reform has a floor of $50 billion; and the Transportation Committee needs to reduce deficits by $10 billion or more.

Four Senate committees — Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry; Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs; Energy and Natural Resources; and Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, or HELP — must each find at least $1 billion in spending cuts over the 10-year budget window.

House committees that can increase the federal deficit include the Armed Services Committee with a cap of $100 billion in new spending, Homeland Security with a $90 billion ceiling for new funding for programs it oversees, Judiciary with a maximum of $110 billion and Ways and Means, which can increase deficits up to $4.5 trillion for tax cuts.

Senate committees also got instructions for increasing the deficit, which will allow them to spend up to the dollar amount outlined in the budget resolution. Those committees include Armed Services at $150 billion; Commerce, Science and Transportation with $20 billion; Environment and Public Works at $1 billion; Finance with $1.5 trillion in new deficits, likely for tax cuts; Homeland Security at $175 billion and Judiciary with $175 billion.

The back story

If the process to reach agreement on a final reconciliation package is anything like the path to adopting the budget resolution, it will be long, winding and filled with drama.

The Senate voted for a completely different budget resolution in February that would have set up Congress to enact Republicans’ agenda in two reconciliation bills instead of one.

Budget Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., referred to the reconciliation instructions in that budget proposal as “Plan B.”

That tax-and-spending blueprint would have had lawmakers first write a bill increasing funding for border security and defense, and rewriting energy policy, before debating another bill later in the year to extend the 2017 tax law and cut federal spending.

The House voted about a week later to approve its original budget resolution, but not without a bit of theatrics.

Johnson didn’t originally have the votes and opted to recess the chamber before calling lawmakers back about 15 minutes later to approve that version of the budget resolution.

The Senate made changes to its reconciliation instructions in the House-approved budget resolution, before voting to send it back across the Capitol for their colleagues to vote on final approval, which they did Thursday.

Politically difficult votes ahead

Each time the Senate voted on a budget resolution it undertook a marathon amendment voting session, known as a vote-a-rama, where lawmakers stay on the floor overnight to debate various aspects of the outline.

Senators will need to undertake one more of those when they debate the actual reconciliation package later this year, though the stakes will be much higher.

The budget resolution is a blueprint for how Congress wants to shape tax and spending policy during the 10-year budget window. It’s not a bill so it never becomes law. And it contains no actual money, it’s simply a plan for how lawmakers want to structure policy.

The reconciliation package, once written, will have the chance of becoming law, so any amendments offered during the Senate’s vote-a-rama will carry greater weight than the proposals voted on when the chamber took up the two budget resolutions.

Democrats will have an opportunity to challenge centrist GOP senators on whether they support or want to remove every single policy that Republicans put in their reconciliation package.

That could create real issues for GOP leadership if they include tax policy or spending cuts that cannot garner the backing of senators like Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski, Kentucky’s Mitch McConnell, Maine’s Susan Collins and others.

The final reconciliation package will need support from nearly every Republican in Congress. GOP leaders will not be able to lose more than three House lawmakers or three Republican senators, under their very slender majorities. 

Four or more Republicans opposing the reconciliation package in one chamber, either because it cuts too much spending or doesn’t cut enough, would likely prevent it from becoming law. 

Some of the 40 residents of New London who came out Wednesday morning to support migrants, many of whom work at Tyson Foods across the street from where they held a rally. (Photo by Jason Kerzinkski for the Wisconsin Examiner)

In 2023 a group of Haitian immigrants began arriving in the central Wisconsin community of New London.

The Haitians were admitted to the U.S. through a humanitarian parole program in response to lawlessness and deadly violence in their homeland. The newcomers became part of the community, said immigration attorney Marc Chistopher, a New London resident whose law offices are in Appleton and Milwaukee.

“Their children go to school with our children,” Christopher told the Wisconsin Examiner Wednesday morning. “They worship in the same churches. They eat at the same restaurants. They join the same civic organizations. They’re in the gyms. They’re our friends, more importantly, and they’re our co-workers. So they’re a part of our community and part of our fabric and we welcome them.”

The legal refugee program through which they were admitted includes a work authorization. More than 100 of the new immigrants  ended up working at a Tyson Foods plant in New London, processing and packaging chicken. Others went to work at stores in the community or in other jobs.

In late March, however, the Trump administration told more than a half-million people from Haiti, Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela that they were no longer welcome. The order from the Department of Homeland Security, terminating humanitarian parole for about 532,000 refugees from the four nations, is one of a flurry of orders targeting millions of immigrants in the U.S. since President Donald Trump took office.

Haitians in New London were among those covered by the March 25 order. They were notified through an online account assigned to every  humanitarian parole refugee, Christopher said.

 “Your parole will terminate upon the earlier of (1) your original parole expiration date or (2) April 24, 2025,” states a Homeland Security message to one of Christopher’s clients, shared with the Wisconsin Examiner. “You should depart the United States now, but no later than the date of the termination of your parole. Failure to timely depart may have adverse immigration consequences.”

Since the notices arrived, Christopher has been scrambling, trying to help a handful of people who hope they might qualify to stay in the U.S. Other New London residents have been organizing on behalf of their new Haitian neighbors. 

On Wednesday morning Christopher and his wife, Eloise DeLeon, also an immigration attorney,  joined about 40 residents of New London gathered across the street from the local Tyson plant, carrying signs advertising their support for the Haitian workers there and hoping to send a message to the community.

“The message is intended for everyone,” said one participant, Sue Krejcarek. “There are people who maybe were Republicans, voted Republican, but don’t agree with this. It’s OK to protest against things you don’t agree with, whether you voted Republican, Democrat. When something is wrong, you stand up for it.”

Emily Tseffos helped organize  the demonstration along with a group of New London activists.

“These folks have established life here because they were expecting to be able to stay here,” Tseffos said. “They came here through legal means. And they are working and paying taxes and they are going to schools and they are dreaming of starting businesses.”

School officials have been working closely with the Haitian families, Tseffos said, and teachers who have the children of Haitian parents in their  classrooms participated in the Wednesday morning rally. Community volunteers have been offering financial help with bills and groceries as the immigrant families grapple with the sudden command to go or face deportation.

“They were not planning on having 30 days notice to leave,” Tseffos said. “And so it’s really sad to see that these folks that are doing everything right and everything they’re supposed to be doing are now facing deportation in a couple weeks here.”

In addition to the notification from the federal government, Tyson plant employees who were permitted to work under the humanitarian parole program have received letters from the company telling them that their employment authorization will expire April 23 — the day before their deadline to leave the U.S.

Christopher said that he has sought to put together applications for a small number of people for whom he could make a case for asylum.

“An asylum claim is one of the more difficult and time-consuming things I do as an attorney,” he said. Asylum claims are decided on a case-by-case basis and require extensive factual details. Claims perceived as frivolous can meet with severe penalties.

An asylum applicant cannot get a work authorization for six months, however, Christopher said. That means even if the application is granted, “if they lose their work on April 24, those families have no means for supporting themselves,” he said.

Both DeLeon and Christopher are former prosecutors, and DeLeon is a former municipal judge. “So I understand the rule of law, following rules, right?” DeLeon said. “But this [following rules] is what our clients did.”

Christopher remains outraged at the way his neighbors’ lives have been overturned. “They’ve been promised they could stay here,” he said. “They came through legally, and they’ve been vetted.”

To be suddenly ejected “is not good for them,” Christopher said. “And it’s not good for our community, either.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Jennifer Williamson said she enjoyed the class sizes in Dodgeville. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

The effects of a second failed referendum at Dodgeville School District became immediately apparent this week with the district announcing that 13 staff members along with some programs, including electives and extracurriculars, are to be cut. The April referendum failed last week by 109 votes with 2010 people voting against and 1,901 for.

Ainsley Anderson, a social studies teacher at the middle school, and Ian Sullivan, a third grade teacher at the elementary school, said they heard concerns from voters about there not being an end date to the referendum. 

The school district’s request was for a $2.49 million recurring referendum, meaning it would allow a permanent increase to the amount the district can raise through property taxes annually. It was going to be used for operating costs, filling a gap between the district’s revenue and expenses. The annual cost of the request was more modest than the district’s nonrecurring request in November, which would have allowed an increase of $2.99 million annually for four years, but failed by 113 votes.

“People are scared right now with the economy and everything,” Sullivan said. “It’s a very interesting stock market, and… I mean, eggs are $8.”

The educators said they knew the cuts were a possibility if the referendum failed. 

“The administration and the school board have been very clear… it wasn’t a shock that this was going to happen,” Anderson said. 

“It’s difficult,” Sullivan said. “There’s a lot of emotion, even with it being communicated well to us.” 

“You never want to hear about your colleagues losing their job,” Anderson added. 

The pair of educators met Tuesday with about 10 Democratic lawmakers, including members of the Joint Finance Committee, and about 20 other community members, including parents and school board members, at a community center in Dodgeville. They discussed the situation and the potential for lawmakers to act in the state budget to ease the financial challenges the district and others across the state are facing.

Dodgeville’s situation is a familiar story in Wisconsin as school districts have been relying on property tax hikes that need to be approved by voters for everyday costs while state funding has not kept pace with inflation for the last decade and a half.

“We know that so many families have been forced to raise their own property taxes in order to support their public schools, and that’s a difficult choice,” Rep. Tip McGuire (D-Kenosha) said at the start of the event. 

Democratic lawmakers used the event as a moment to highlight Gov. Tony Evers’ plan for helping school districts escape this trap. His plan would tap the state’s $4 billion budget surplus to increase special education funding by reimbursing public schools for 60% of costs — almost double the current reimbursement rate of 32%, to increase per pupil funding and to invest in other programs, including free school meals and mental health programs. 

Rep. Deb Andraca (D-Whitefish Bay) emphasized that lawmakers wanted to hear about people’s specific stories as a way to help inform their work on the budget committee.

“We know how many referendums there are. We know that some succeed and some fail,” Andraca said. In April, voters approved 52 referendum requests for a total of $952 million in new money for Wisconsin school districts that is funded through property taxes. There were 37 failed referendum requests, including Dodgeville’s. “We want to know the impacts that it’s having with you and your families and your schools on the ground,” Andraca added, “because that’s what makes our work more meaningful.” 

At a table with McGuire, a couple of parents spoke about their concerns about the ways the district will change.

Jennifer Williamson said she has two children in the school district and they’ve appreciated the small class sizes of between 14 and 18 children. Those class sizes on average will grow by four to five students due to financial constraints.

Stephany Marten told the table that she and her husband debated over whether to send their child to the local school district or to a local private school. They decided on Dodgeville. She said she learned more about the district and what it had to offer, including smaller class sizes, reading specialists and opportunities for students that need additional support. 

“It’s accessible and it’s affordable to all families,” Marten said. “Our public school funding is being cut. What are we spending it on?”

McGuire, throughout the conversation, emphasized people should reach their Republican lawmakers. The Democrats brought their conversion about education funding to a school district and area of the state represented by Rep. Todd Novak (R-Dodgeville) and Sen. Howard Marklein (R-Spring Green) — cochair of the powerful Joint Finance Committee.

Republicans hold the majority in the state Senate and Assembly and Marklein has served as cochair on the committee since 2021, meaning he plays a large part in shaping the budget bill that will eventually be sent to Evers if approved by the full Legislature. Marklein said at a recent public hearing on the budget that lawmakers haven’t discussed specifics on education funding in the budget, but will likely take into account what the public shares.

“Your state senator, Howard Marklein, has a tremendous amount of influence,” McGuire said. “So we have to continue to reach out to him.” He added that people should speak with their neighbors as well to encourage them to reach out to the lawmakers.

One person asked McGuire what is keeping Republicans from dedicating more funding to schools.

“I wish I knew,” McGuire said. “If I knew what levers to pull, I would’ve done it four years ago.”

The impacts of the failed referendum in Dodgeville could likely go beyond those announced by the school district administration, Anderson noted. Some staff will say, ”I can’t work with the district that has two failed referendums because of pay cuts, health care,”  he suggested, adding, “We’ve lost people to going elsewhere.”

The Dodgeville educators also participated in a conversation with Sen. LaTonya Johnson (D-Milwaukee), Rep. Randy Udell (D-Fitchburg) and Rep. Andrew Hysell (D-Sun Prairie). 

Another educator at the table, Tom Butusov, formerly taught at the Dodgeville School District but left for a job at Mount Horeb Area School District — a community about a 20-minute drive away — about three years ago.

“When I got a job teaching in Dodgeville, I was very excited,” Butusov, who taught at the district for about three years, said. He grew up in the community and his mom also taught in the district. “But I learned pretty early on that because of just what the district can offer… I had to go elsewhere to best serve my family,” Butusov said. He said Mt. Horeb could pay more and it was close to a new house his family was purchasing. “It made sense, but I still love this community.” 

Butusov said the failed referendum is “heartbreaking.” He said he doesn’t blame the community because they’re being asked to pay for something they’ve already paid for and he isn’t mad at the district because he feels the state has put the district in the spot. 

“We have an entire district that’s falling through the crack and the state is doing nothing — nothing for us, and that’s what’s so frustrating is to see representatives that just aren’t doing anything,” Butusov said.

Anderson and Sullivan, who are also co-presidents of the Dodgeville teacher’s union, have children who go to the district as well. Anderson said she knows that even as budgets have shrunk, teachers are still working to provide a high quality education to students and are going to continue to work to do that even as some opportunities may be cut.

Sullivan said he and his wife have had discussions about whether they’ll leave the district. 

“We’re getting rid of field trips. We’re getting rid of after school clubs, opportunities at the high school and stuff. Do we want that for our kids?” Sullivan said. He added that the community is a big reason he was there and that it is “fighting to get more funding and give more opportunities not only to our own kids,” but to other students, especially those dealing with poverty and other challenges at home. 

Anderson said she would love to have a conversation with “Mr. Marklein and Mr. Novak about what they envision as the future of education in their districts.” She said she was feeling inspired to contact the local lawmakers and to encourage other members of the Dodgeville education association to do the same.

“Obviously, we’re doing everything that we can,” Anderson said. “What are they doing?” 

Sullivan said that he appreciated hearing specific budget plans from Democrats.

“I have not heard that from the other side. I would love that opportunity to hear it,” Sullivan said. “At the moment, I’m only hearing one side. The other is just saying no to everything, which I don’t think is OK.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Wisconsin State Flag | Getty Images

The co-founder of Wisconsin’s progressive, pro-democracy law firm is not ignoring the tsunami of bad news out of Washington. He’s just not letting it drown his optimism. 

“I don’t think any of us fully anticipated how heavy, broad, fast and extreme the onslaught was going to be,” Jeff Mandell concedes, referring to President Donald Trump’s moves to seize unprecedented power, weaponize the federal government against his political enemies, defy court orders, deport people without due process and throw the entire global economy into chaos.

“Some of what we are seeing and hearing is so contrary to our most fundamental understanding of what we believe about our government, I have to believe this is temporary and that people won’t stand for it,” Mandell says.

Since its founding in October 2020, Law Forward has pursued high-profile lawsuits that have helped claw back democracy in Wisconsin. The firm challenged the state’s now-defunct gerrymandered voting maps and uncovered the details of the fake electors scheme that originated here — forcing the Republican officials who posed as members of the Electoral College and cast fraudulent votes for Trump in 2020 to admit they were trying to subvert the will of the voters. On the public website it created to display the details of the scheme, which it obtained as a condition of a settlement, Law Forward stated that it wanted to show “how close our democracy came to toppling and how the freedom to vote must continue to be protected, not taken for granted.”

This week, Law Forward’s grievance against former Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman for misconduct in his ill-conceived “investigation” of voter fraud in the 2020 election led to the suspension of Gableman’s law license.

As a Wisconsin-based organization, Mandell says Law Forward looks for opportunities to pursue cases that are of particular importance to the state and that shine a light on threats to democracy.

“The rest of the time we don’t sit in paralysis because of the news,” he adds. Whatever fresh hell is erupting across the country, “we continue to work here so people see an alternative.” 

“I think building a stronger, more resilient democracy in Wisconsin is its own form of resistance,” he adds.

“When things feel most shocking and unstable at the federal level,” at the state and local level, Mandell says, “we can show our institutions still work and provide some reassurance.” 

Even before Susan Crawford defeated Brad Schimel last week in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race — despite the heavy-handed intervention of Trump and Elon Musk — Mandell was feeling hopeful. He felt Wisconsin showed a “silver lining” after the November 2024 election, despite Trump’s narrow win in the state.

Among his reasons for optimism: New, fair voting maps that replaced the old Republican gerrymander, creating a more balanced Legislature; a governor who supports voting rights and democratic institutions; extraordinarily high voter engagement, with Wisconsinites turning out in bigger numbers than in other states in 2024 and overwhelmingly rejecting the MAGA-backed Supreme Court candidate in 2025. 

With Crawford’s win, “Wisconsin will continue to be a place where we can rely on the courts to protect our fundamental freedoms,” Mandell says.

The 10-point margin in last week’s election also “reinforces my conviction that the majority of Wisconsinites really do believe in democracy,” Mandell says.

All of those things position Wisconsin to be a leader in the struggle to protect democracy from the Trump onslaught.

Wisconsin’s long march to recovery from misrule by Gov. Scott Walker and the rightwing billionaires who backed him has been taking us in the opposite direction from the rest of the country.

Along with his union-busting Act 10 — challenged by Law Forward and soon to be taken up by the Wisconsin Supreme Court — Walker took a sledgehammer to funding for public education, long before Trump and Musk arrived with their chainsaws. Voters here have been pushing back against the billionaire-financed destruction of civil society for more than a decade. Recently, they’ve been gaining traction. Law Forward has played an important role in that fight.

It’s not just that Democrats will pick up more seats in the state Legislature as the un-gerrymandered maps go into full effect next year, Mandell has hope that our closely divided state will maintain its longstanding independence and commitment to bipartisan institutions. He draws encouragement from the fact that Republicans on the Joint Finance Committee are holding budget hearings around the state, even as Republicans in Washington ram through a budget based on Trump’s demands, ignoring the public and ceding their power as members of Congress.

Wisconsin’s long tradition of good government includes a host of bipartisan commissions, a decentralized elections system that is hard to hack and a great university that has managed to survive waves of attacks by McCarthyites and budget cutters for 176 years.

That tradition extends to a bipartisan nominating commission for federal judges, which ought to choose a replacement for 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Diane Sykes, who announced in March that she is taking semi-retirement. Democratic U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin’s office reports it has been in contact with Republican Sen. Ron Johnson’s office to reconstitute the charter for the bipartisan nominating commission, as they have done in every Congress under both Democratic and Republican administrations. Trump could still ignore the process and nominate someone on his own. But three weeks after Sykes’ announcement, he hasn’t done it yet.

If Trump wrecks the economy and steers the whole country into a recession, Wisconsin won’t be spared. Nor can we avoid all the shocks of a national authoritarian regime. But our state’s independent democratic institutions leave us well situated to recover, and to help the rest of the country remember what civil society looks like.

“There is no one silver bullet,” says Mandell. “But the goal is to continue to tend the lamp here in Wisconsin, to shine a light that illuminates the path to balance, order and democracy.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE