A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard arguments at the E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Courthouse on April 17, 2025, over the White House denying The Associated Press journalists from certain spaces open to other journalists. (U.S. General Services Administration photo)

WASHINGTON — The Associated Press and the Trump administration faced tough questioning in court Thursday as the White House fights to block a lower court order mandating officials stop denying the wire outlet entry to spaces where other journalists are permitted.

A three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia grilled the parties at length on how the First Amendment applies to journalists in the Oval Office and other areas, and whether the president can decide which journalists follow him in the press pool and exclude others based on their viewpoint.

The case, playing out at the district court level as well, tests decades of established press access for the AP in the White House, which was curtailed after President Donald Trump declared the term “Gulf of America” should be used rather than “Gulf of Mexico.”

District Judge Trevor McFadden sided with the AP on April 8 on the grounds that the Trump administration violated the wire service’s First Amendment rights when it publicly retaliated against the agency for an editorial decision to continue using “Gulf of Mexico” in its reporting and influential stylebook.

Oval Office not for ‘silent retreat’

Before the appeals court Thursday, Eric D. McArthur, representing the government, argued against McFadden’s “unprecedented” preliminary injunction, saying it interferes with the president’s “autonomy” in “highly restricted spaces.”

Pointing out the AP was not demanding access “when the president wants to concentrate on his writing and his work,” Judge Corenlia Pillard said “it’s a little confusing to me when you say a place of ‘autonomy.’”

“You make the Oval sound like a place of silent retreat,” said Pillard, who was appointed to the appeals bench during President Barack Obama’s second term.

Pillard also highlighted the expectation of privacy is different for people in “high public office.”

“There’s already a dozen people in there, so he’s agreed to have a press pool,” she said during McArthur’s roughly 45-minute questioning.

The administration argued in its emergency appeal to block the ruling that Trump will be “irreparably injured” if the higher court doesn’t stay the lower court order while it adjudicates the case.

Officials also countered that the First Amendment protects the president’s right to choose which journalists enter the Oval Office, Air Force One or Mar-a-Lago based on the content of their coverage.

Where’s the distinction?

Charles Tobin, attorney for the AP, argued that the White House has “brazenly excluded” AP reporters and photographers from opportunities open to other journalists.

McFadden “appropriately and very narrowly tailored” his injunction, Tobin said. The lower judge ruled that, under the First Amendment, once the White House opens doors for all journalists to spaces including the Oval Office and East Room, it cannot then exclude them based on viewpoint.

McFadden explicitly wrote his ruling does not mandate journalists be given access to the president or that the president cannot choose which outlets to grant exclusive interviews.

Judge Neomi Rao said, “the AP concedes he could choose journalists based on viewpoint for exclusive interviews.”

“When you’re talking about 10 or 12 journalists in the Oval or on his plane or in his home at Mar-a-Lago, what is the distinction?” asked Rao, who was appointed during Trump’s first presidency.

Tobin replied that the pool is a system that invites numerous journalists to participate on a rotating basis.

“That’s exactly where the distinction lies,” he said.

Private invitations allowable

Judge Gregory Katsas presented other scenarios when the president could invite only “supportive” members of the public and press, for example in the Cabinet room for a policy rollout.

Tobin argued if the event is open to all press members, the president cannot discriminate based on viewpoint.

“Once you have a system of rotation, that’s when the viewpoint becomes anathema,” Tobin replied.

What if the president “tapped (certain reporters) on the shoulder” and invited only them into the Oval Office, asked Katsas, who was appointed during Trump’s first term.

Tobin replied the president could handpick reporters for a private interview in the Oval Office, as long as it wasn’t an event open to the wider press pool.

“This seems awfully close to what’s happening here,” Katsas said.

Wire position axed

On Wednesday the White House announced a new media policy placing restrictions on all wire services’ access to the Oval Office and other spaces. Other wire services include Bloomberg and AFP.

Despite McFadden’s court order, the White House on Monday denied entry to an AP reporter and photographer to an Oval Office press conference between Trump and El Salvador President Nayib Bukele.

The AP filed a motion in district court Wednesday requesting McFadden to enforce his preliminary injunction.

McFadden has scheduled a hearing for Friday.

The White House began denying the AP entry to the Oval Office, East Room and other places on Feb. 11.

Trump’s press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, announced in late February that White House officials would take over pool rotation decisions from the White House Correspondents Association, a member organization that has self-governed journalist rotations and briefing seats placement since the Eisenhower administration.

Mural depicting workers painted on windows of the Madison-Kipp Corp. by Goodman Community Center students and Madison-Kipp employees with Dane Arts Mural Arts. (Photo by Erik Gunn /Wisconsin Examiner)

The economic uncertainty that has sent the stock market and consumer confidence plummeting in the last month hasn’t yet affected employment in Wisconsin, according to the state’s chief economist.

Wisconsin’s job numbers reached another record high in March, and unemployment, although up slightly, is still close to an all-time low, the Department of Workforce Development (DWD) reported Thursday.

Uncertainty over the impact of tariffs imposed by the Trump administration has contributed to falling consumer confidence as well as business confidence, said Dennis Winters, DWD’s chief economist. So far that hasn’t affected the state’s job market, however, he said.

Based on a monthly federal survey of employers, DWD projected Wisconsin had 3.055 million nonfarm jobs in March — an increase of 10,000 from February and 15,000 from a year ago.

From a separate household survey, the department projected Wisconsin’s March unemployment rate at 3.2%. That’s even with February, but a slight increase from the 2.9% calculated for March of 2024.

The job growth was greatest in service industries, which added more than 21,000 jobs over the last 12 months.

Manufacturing jobs have fallen by 7,000 since March 2024 — all of that in durable goods. Winters said that reflects longstanding challenges in the sector more than specific recent developments. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

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)

U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen said Thursday that soldiers blocked him from entering a notorious mega-prison in El Salvador where the erroneously deported Maryland resident Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia has been held for more than a month.

The Maryland Democrat arrived in the Central American country Wednesday in an effort to help bring Abrego Garcia, whom the Justice Department admitted in court was deported in error, back to the United States, or at least check on his wellness. He met with El Salvador Vice President Félix Ulloa that day, who denied his requests to either visit or speak on the phone with Abrego Garcia.

Van Hollen told reporters Thursday afternoon that he again tried to make contact with Abrego Garcia that morning.

A U.S. immigration judge issued a protective order in 2019 finding that sending Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran citizen, back to his home country would put him in grave danger.

Accompanied by Chris Newman — the lawyer for Abrego Garcia’s wife and his mother — Van Hollen said they tried to enter Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, or CECOT, but soldiers stopped them at a checkpoint about three kilometers from the prison.

“We were told by the soldiers that they’d been ordered not to allow us to proceed any further than that point,” Van Hollen said.

Van Hollen said that since Abrego Garcia was sent to CECOT, he has not spoken with anyone outside of the prison walls, and “this inability to communicate with his lawyers is a violation of international law.”

The senator pointed out that El Salvador is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

“That covenant says, and I quote, ‘A detained or imprisoned person shall be entitled to communicate and consult with his legal counsel,’” he said.

Van Hollen also said he met with the U.S. Embassy in El Salvador and they discussed “the full range of important bilateral relations between the United States and El Salvador.”

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt and other Republicans have criticized Van Hollen for making the trip, repeating the accusation that Abrego Garcia is a gang member.

Representatives for the White House and DHS did not respond to messages seeking comment Thursday.

Appeals court slams administration’s inaction

Meanwhile, Abrego Garcia’s case continues to work its way through U.S. courts as a flashpoint conflict between two branches of government that has led to the precipice of a constitutional crisis.

On Thursday, a federal appeals court panel dismantled the administration’s latest appeal, saying the government had done “essentially nothing” to attempt to return Abrego Garcia in compliance with last week’s Supreme Court order.

A three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit said the executive branch was due deference in conducting foreign policy, but that the administration’s inaction in seeking Abrego Garcia’s return amounted to defiance of a judicial order.

The unanimous ruling was written by Fourth Circuit Chief Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, who was nominated by Republican President Ronald Reagan. The other two judges, Robert Bruce King and Stephanie Thacker, were nominated by Democratic presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

“The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order. Further, it claims in essence that because it has rid itself of custody that there is nothing that can be done,” the panel wrote. “This should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear.”

The appeals ruling responded to the government’s appeal of U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis’ order this week for the Trump administration to offer evidence on how it has sought to help with Abrego Garcia’s release from CECOT.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week that the Trump administration must “facilitate” — but stopped short of requiring — his return to the United States.

In unusually frank language, the Fourth Circuit panel warned Thursday the conflict between the executive and judicial branches threatened the foundation of U.S. government.

“If today the Executive claims the right to deport without due process and in disregard of court orders, what assurance will there be tomorrow that it will not deport American citizens and then disclaim responsibility to bring them home?” the court asked. “And what assurance shall there be that the Executive will not train its broad discretionary powers upon its political enemies? The threat, even if not the actuality, would always be present.”

Near the end of the order, the panel urged the administration to obey the judicial branch.

“We yet cling to the hope that it is not naïve to believe our good brethren in the Executive Branch perceive the rule of law as vital to the American ethos,” the judges wrote. “This case presents their unique chance to vindicate that value and to summon the best that is within us while there is still time.”

Neither country taking action

The Fourth Circuit panel pointed out that the leaders of both the United States and El Salvador claimed they had no power to return Abrego Garcia.

“We are told that neither government has the power to act,” they wrote. “The result will be to leave matters generally and Abrego Garcia specifically in an interminable limbo without recourse to law of any sort.”

During a White House visit this week, El Salvador President Nayib Bukele said he would not bring Abrego Garcia back to the United States.

The Trump administration has admitted in court that Abrego Garcia’s deportation stemmed from an “administrative error.” The administration continues to accuse him of being part of the gang MS-13, despite no charges or convictions of any criminal offenses against him, including gang-related crimes.

Jacob Fischler contributed to this report.

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

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court announced Thursday it will hear oral arguments next month over President Donald Trump’s efforts to restructure birthright citizenship, though the justices won’t decide on the merits of the case just yet. 

Instead, they will choose whether to leave in place nationwide injunctions from lower courts that so far have blocked the Trump administration from implementing the executive order.

The oral arguments, scheduled for May 15, will likely provide the first indication of whether any of the nine justices are interested in revisiting the Court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 following the Civil War.

The amendment states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

The Supreme Court ruled in 1898 in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that the 14th Amendment guarantees any child born in the United States is entitled to U.S. citizenship, even if their parents are not citizens.

Trump disagrees with that ruling and signed an executive order on his first day in office seeking to change which babies born in the United States become citizens. If that order were implemented, babies whose parents were “unlawfully present in the United States” or whose parents’ presence “was lawful but temporary” would not be eligible for citizenship.

Several organizations and Democratic attorneys general filed lawsuits seeking to block the executive order, leading to nationwide injunctions against its implementation.

Last month, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to intervene in the lower court’s nationwide injunctions, limiting them to the organizations and states that filed suit.

The three cases are Trump v. State of Washington, Trump v. CASA, Inc. and Trump v. State of New Jersey.

Legislation

Nationwide injunctions by lower court judges have become an issue for Republicans in Congress as well as the Trump administration.

Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley introduced a bill in Congress that would bar federal district court judges from being able to implement nationwide injunctions.

“We all have to agree to give up the universal injunction as a weapon against policies we disagree with,” Grassley said during a hearing earlier this month. “The damage it causes to the judicial system and to our democracy is too great.”

Wisconsin Elections Commissioner Robert Spindell arrives at Milwaukee Central Count with Sen. Ron Johnson (Photo | Isiah Holmes)

Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) Chair Ann Jacobs said at a meeting Thursday that the body is still investigating how the City of Madison lost nearly 200 ballots during the 2024 presidential election. 

The city of Madison announced in late December that 193 unprocessed absentee ballots had been found in the weeks following the election. The discovered ballots weren’t enough to sway the results of any contests, but WEC began an investigation into the error to determine what caused it and how similar mistakes can be prevented in future elections. 

On Thursday, Jacobs said that she and Republican commissioner Don Millis had already taken depositions of former Madison city clerk Maribeth Witzel-Behl and members of her staff but that there was more work to be done and depositions to conduct with employees of Madison and Dane County. She added that those other interviews were delayed until after the April 1 election. 

Witzel-Behl, who had already been on administrative leave during the spring elections, resigned from her position as Madison city clerk earlier this week after nearly two decades in the role during which time she oversaw more than 60 elections. 

Jacobs said the investigation has already highlighted ways the state can improve its absentee ballot processes. 

“On a positive note, I do think the information we’re learning from the work we’ve done so far will help inform some best practices for tracking absentee ballots, making sure all absentee ballots are counted timely, and as we move to amend our manuals and update them … I really do think that what we’ve learned is going to help us do a better job there on some of that absentee ballot processing,” she said. 

After the update on the investigation, Republican commissioner Robert Spindell began remarks that devolved into a shouting match with Jacobs. 

Spindell began by noting how long Witzel-Behl had been the Madison clerk. 

“I think it’s fine that we’re doing this investigation of the city of Madison, or the misplacement of some [193] ballots and then not properly following through when they were found,” he said. “But I do want to commend the Madison clerk for her 20-plus years service.” 

Spindell then transitioned into what he said he believes is a “more serious problem” — some Milwaukee polling places running out of ballots during the April 1 election. On Election Day earlier this month, seven polling sites ran out of ballots, causing city officials to scramble to replenish supplies. The delay caused long lines to form at some polls. 

City election officials said they generally determine how many ballots to print and distribute to poll locations by assessing voter turnout in previous similar elections. But this year Wisconsin and Milwaukee broke turnout records for a spring election. 

A former member of the Milwaukee Elections Commission who previously sparked controversy when he celebrated and took credit for the low turnout among Black voters in the 2022 midterm elections, Spindell has often been extremely critical of the administration of Milwaukee’s elections. 

Republicans have often attacked Milwaukee’s election administration, resulting in frequent, baseless accusations that the city’s election results are fraudulent. 

Before Spindell could finish his statement, Jacobs banged her gavel, saying she was ruling his comment out of order, but Spindell just got louder and continued. 

Wisconsin open meetings law requires that if a government body such as the elections commission is going to discuss an issue at a meeting, it must have been properly listed on the meeting’s announced agenda. 

“I am not going to let you keep going,” Jacobs said. “I’m going to talk over you until you stop. You must stop. You are out of order, and I will eject you from this meeting. Do you understand the words I am saying? They are simple. You are out of order. The City of Milwaukee is not on this agenda. You do not get to hijack the agenda. You are not the chair. When you are chair you get to put things on the agenda, it’s not on the agenda.” 

Even though most of what he said was inaudible, Spindell ended by saying “I’ve said what I needed to say.” 

During the meeting, the commission also approved the design for a mailer that will be sent to voters who haven’t voted in four years to ask if they still live at the addresses listed in their voter registrations and informing them they risk having their registrations deactivated. The commissioners also  received an update on an audit to determine if any people currently serving felony sentences voted in recent elections and moved forward an administrative rule that would keep the home addresses of judicial candidates off public elections paperwork.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Solar panels in Damariscotta, Maine. (Photo by Evan Houk/ Maine Morning Star)

WASHINGTON — The legal battle over a Biden-era climate program ramped up late Wednesday when an appeals court halted a federal judge’s ruling requiring the disbursement of those funds.

The ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will keep funds frozen in Citibank accounts while a federal suit over the program is ongoing.

The appeals court order reversed a preliminary injunction that U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan of the District of Columbia issued Tuesday that temporarily barred the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from “unlawfully suspending or terminating” grant awards.

The appeals panel said it had not had access to Chutkan’s opinion explaining her order granting an injunction — which came a day after the order itself — and the trial judge had therefore not met the high bar needed to issue a preliminary injunction. The panel’s order “should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits,” the judges said.

“The purpose of this order is to give the court sufficient opportunity to consider the district court’s forthcoming opinion in support of its order granting a preliminary injunction together with” the government’s appeal, the judges wrote.

Chutkan issued her opinion the day after granting the preliminary injunction, pointing out that “for weeks, despite repeated inquiries to Citibank and EPA, Plaintiffs received little to no communication from EPA or Citibank regarding their inability to access their funds.”

“Overnight, billions of dollars appropriated by Congress were frozen. As a result, nationwide projects were halted, workplans were disrupted, and millions of dollars in approved transactions with committed partners could not be disbursed,” she wrote.

On Thursday, the D.C. Circuit panel asked the government to refile its argument responding to Chutkan’s opinion by 5 p.m. Eastern on Saturday.

Fight over funding

Climate United Fund and other organizations sued President Donald Trump’s administration and Citibank in March over money frozen in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.

The $27 billion initiative, which provides funding to organizations building for energy-efficient projects and other measures to tackle climate change, was authorized by Congress as part of the Inflation Reduction Act that Democrats passed along party lines and President Joe Biden signed into law in 2022.

Chutkan’s order blocked the administration from “directly or indirectly impeding” Citibank or causing the bank to “deny, obstruct, delay, or otherwise limit access to funds in accounts established in connection with” the organizations’ grants.

The Trump administration quickly challenged that ruling Wednesday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The higher court temporarily blocked Chutkan’s decision “pending further order.”

The appeals court’s ruling halts Chutkan’s preliminary injunction to the extent that it “enables or requires Citibank to release, disburse, transfer, otherwise move, or allow access to funds.”

The higher court also prevented the Trump administration from having to file a status report with the district court within 24 hours of the preliminary injunction’s entry that confirmed their compliance, as outlined in Chutkan’s ruling.

The appeals court also ordered that “no party take any action, directly or indirectly, with regard to the disputed contracts, grants, awards or funds.”

The EPA said in March it would be terminating $20 billion in grants under the program, and the agency’s administrator Lee Zeldin described the climate initiative as a “gold bar” scheme.

Climate United Fund did not immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday, and the EPA declined to comment. 

Child care providers, parents and advocates arrive at the state Capitol Wednesday, April 16, 2025, for a rally in support of child care funding. (Photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner)

Hundreds of child care providers and parents rallied outside the state Capitol Wednesday, then headed inside to buttonhole lawmakers of both parties, urging support for a $480 million provision in the next state budget for Wisconsin’s child care providers.

“Child care is not a luxury, it’s not a nice-to-have,” said Claire Lindstrom, an Eau Claire parent who addressed the rally. “It is infrastructure.”

“We’re here today because the people who are doing this very important work can no longer afford to hold up a broken system,” said Toshiba Adams, an instructor and instructional chair in early childhood education at Milwaukee Area Technical College.

The rally and afternoon visit with legislators followed a morning gathering of the participants at the nearby Concourse Hotel that included talks by lawmakers, parents and providers. At noon 350 or more people — the largest action by child care advocates in recent memory — marched from the hotel to the rally, with chants of “Kids first, families first, invest in child care now.”

The crowd massed on the Capitol building’s west steps for a half hour of speeches.

Lindstrom broke down the average cost for child care. A single parent paid the minimum wage, $7.25 an hour, “would have to work 43 full-time weeks just to cover one year of infant care,” she said. A family making the median income in Wisconsin — about $75,000 a year — will probably spend 20% of their earnings on care for a single child.

“If they have two kids, an infant and a 4-year-old, they’re spending over a third of their income just to go to work,” Lindstrom said. “This is not a personal budgeting issue. That’s a broken system.”

Gov. Tony Evers has proposed $480 million in the state’s 2025-27 budget that would go to licensed child care providers, replenishing the state’s Child Care Counts program funded from federal pandemic relief. Without that, Child Care Counts will expire for good in June.

At its height between 2021 and 2023, Child Care Counts was credited with stabilizing Wisconsin’s providers, who shared in payments totaling $20 million a month. Providers reported that with the money they were able to raise wages for child care workers while holding down increases in the fees that parents paid.

“Our early childhood educators are trained in how to support brain development, emotional regulation, and school readiness,” Lindstrom said. “We expect them to do this important work and yet we pay them less than workers at Kwik Trip and Culver’s.”

Evers, a Democrat, was unable to persuade the Legislature’s Republican majority to extend the program in the state’s 2023-25 budget. He repurposed other federal funds, and the total payment was reduced to $10 million a month. That will run out in June.

Providers, advocates and early childhood education experts have argued that only with an ongoing investment like Child Care Counts can providers pay child care workers adequately without pricing care out of reach for the average family.

“We need child care for our communities to function,” Lindstrom said. “We can no longer afford to treat this like a personal problem. It’s a public domain. And the solution is clear. We need to fund child care.”

A survey report released April 10 found that up to 25% of Wisconsin providers said they might close without continued support along the lines of Child Care Counts. More than one-third said they might have to reduce the number of children then could serve for lack of staff.

Large majorities said they might have to cut pay and that they expect to have more difficulty recruiting workers. More than half said they expect some employees to quit and that providing high quality care would become more difficult.

“We will see dramatically less care available in virtually every single county in the state,” Ruth Schmidt, executive director of the Wisconsin Early Childhood Association, told the crowd. “Is that acceptable?”

“No!” the crowd roared back in reply.

“Is it acceptable that moms will have to consider leaving the workforce in record numbers because you cannot work if you cannot afford or find child care? Is it acceptable that stressed out parents doing the best they can will have no support from the state to ensure that they can work and contribute to our tax base?”

With each question the rallygoers responded with resounding shouts of “No!”

Sachin Shivaram, CEO of Wisconsin Aluminum Foundry in Manitowoc, told the crowd that businesses should support state funding for child care.

His company pays employees with young children $400 a month toward their child care costs, he said. When the crowd applauded, he thanked them, then added, “but I also feel very embarrassed. … That’s so little, and the cost of child care is, you know, several thousand dollars a month, and this is just barely scratching the surface.”

Shivaram pointed out the state manufacturing tax credit that his company receives, along with all Wisconsin manufacturers.

“And guess what? We have to do absolutely nothing to get that tax credit,” he said. “We don’t have to invest in any capital equipment, we don’t have to train any workers, we don’t have to give back to the community, nothing. You know, how about we make that tax credit contingent on helping the child care situation?”

In an interview after the legislative visits Schmidt of WECA said the hundreds who took part went to almost every state Senate office and about 90% of the Assembly members’ offices as well. WECA organized the event along with Wisconsin Head Start Association and Raising Wisconsin — an advocacy campaign that WECA and allied groups launched in 2022.

“We really wanted this to be nonpartisan,” Schmidt said — “just an opportunity to tell stories and share, from a real perspective, from the heart what’s going on with this industry.”

Some of those conversations — with leaders in the Legislature who advocates have already spoken to about the budget request — were “not necessarily a surprise,” she acknowledged.  

With other lawmakers, she added, including some of the 30 first-term Assembly members elected in November as well as others who have not served on committees where child care has been an agenda item, “there was a lot of interest in just learning,”

The visits were an opportunity for personal testimony to reach lawmakers and their staff, Schmidt said. “The power of having parents tell their stories, and the power of having educators tell their stories about how they’ve been using the public funding when it’s available — it was very compelling.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Democratic U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan speaks with reporters Wednesday in his Madison office. (Photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner)

House Democrats think their most likely strategy to prevent major cuts to Medicaid or other popular federal programs in the current budget reconciliation process will be to win over a few House Republicans.

“We just need three Republicans, basically nationwide, to say no to something,” said U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Black Earth) at a Q-and-A session with reporters Wednesday in his Madison office.

The Republican majorities in both houses of Congress are using the complicated budget reconciliation process to pass a spending plan that will allow them to extend tax cuts enacted in 2017 during President Donald Trump’s first term.

As part of that, House Republicans passed a blueprint calling for $880 billion in cuts to programs overseen by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Medicaid represents the largest expense item in the committee’s purview, and analysts have said Congress could only hit that target by making Medicaid cuts.

Pocan said estimates of the cost of preserving the tax cuts have risen in Washington, from $4.5 trillion in the original House proposal to “more like $7 trillion in tax cuts” in the current proposal combined from House and Senate alternatives.

The objective for House Democrats currently is to make cuts to Medicaid harder for GOP members to go along with, Pocan said. In Wisconsin, about 1.3 million residents are enrolled in Medicaid, including one third of the children in the state and 55% of seniors in nursing homes.

“You know, the more they hear that, at some point they may listen,” Pocan said of Republican members who won swing districts by narrow margins — and, he argues, they could push back against those sorts of cuts.

“I don’t expect them to maybe say it publicly and maybe to hold a town hall and say it, but if they say it privately in their caucus, that’s good enough, as long as three people won’t support something,” Pocan said. “That’s enough to kill something, right? So that’s kind of my goal is to keep facilitating that.”

The focus, though, is not on stopping the tax cuts, but stopping the cuts to Medicaid, SNAP and other federal programs.

“If we could stop that, and we could stop, maybe, some of the education cuts that might otherwise come … funds for low-income [districts], funds for special ed, I think they’re still going to move forward with their tax cut bill,” Pocan said.

He speculated that under those circumstances, the GOP majority would pay for the tax cut with a deficit increase. 

“Is that a good answer? No,” Pocan said. “But is it better than seeing people lose their health care right now or their food assistance through Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program? Yeah. So you know my job is to wake up in the morning and get excited about bad choices rather than the worst choices.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Protesters outside the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in Greenbelt rally on April 4, 2025, in support of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a Maryland father who was deported to El Salvador in an “administrative error,” calling for him to be returned to the U.S. (Photo by Ariana Figueroa/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen said Wednesday he was denied a meeting with Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, an El Salvador-born Maryland resident who was mistakenly deported to a mega-prison in his home country notorious for human rights abuses.

The Maryland Democrat met with El Salvador Vice President Félix Ulloa in the Central American country in an effort to help bring Abrego Garcia back to the United States. Abrego Garcia is a citizen of El Salvador, but a U.S. immigration judge issued a protective order in 2019 finding that sending him back to his home country would put him in grave danger.

After meeting with Ulloa, Van Hollen briefed reporters on the visit and said the Salvadoran vice president rebuffed his requests for contact with Abrego Garcia.

“I asked the vice president if I could meet with Mr. Abrego Garcia and he said, ‘Well, you need to make earlier provisions to go visit CECOT (Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo),’” Van Hollen told reporters in El Salvador, referring to the mega-prison.

“I said, ‘I’m not interested, at this moment, in taking a tour of CECOT, I just want to meet with Mr. Abrego Garcia,’” Van Hollen said.

“He said he was not able to make that happen. He said he’d need a little more time. I asked him if I came back next week, whether I’d be able to see Mr. Abrego Garcia. He said he couldn’t promise that either,” the senator added. 

Van Hollen said he was also denied a phone or video call with Abrego Garcia to ask how he was doing and report that information to his family. 

The senator said he would contact the U.S. Embassy in El Salvador and request they ask the government of El Salvador to connect the two of them via phone, following a suggestion from Ulloa.

Van Hollen’s visit came a day after a federal judge in Maryland ordered the Trump administration to offer evidence on how it has sought to help with Abrego Garcia’s release from CECOT.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week that the Trump administration must “facilitate” — but did not require — his return to the United States. El Salvador President Nayib Bukele also said Monday that he would not bring Abrego Garcia back to the United States.

The Trump administration has acknowledged in court that Abrego Garcia was deported due to an “administrative error.”

The administration accused him of being a member of the gang MS-13. He has not been charged or convicted of any criminal offenses, including gang-related crimes.

Van Hollen, noting that the Trump administration “illegally abducted” Abrego Garcia, said he “won’t stop trying” to get the wrongly deported man out of the prison and back to Maryland and predicted others would follow.

“I can assure the president, the vice president, that I may be the first United States senator to visit El Salvador on this issue, but there will be more, and there will be more members of Congress coming,” he said.

Administration responds

Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security posted on social media Wednesday a copy of a restraining order Abrego Garcia’s wife sought against him in 2021 “claiming he punched, scratched, and ripped off her shirt, among other harm.”

In response, Abrego Garcia’s wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, told Newsweek she had a disagreement with him, but that things did not escalate and she did not continue with the civil court process. 

Late Wednesday afternoon, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt made a statement on the case, displaying the restraining order, repeating the accusation Abrego Garcia is a gang member and objecting to media references to him as a “Maryland father.”

“There is no Maryland father,” she said.

Patty Morin, the mother of a Maryland woman slain by a Salvadoran immigrant in the country without legal status, also appeared at the briefing and spoke in favor of the Trump administration’s aggressive deportation actions.

U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. speaks during a press conference at the department's headquarters in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday, April 16, 2025.  (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced Wednesday the department will shift its research into autism toward potential environmental causes, though he declined to say exactly what the Trump administration would do if certain industries or pollutants were found responsible.

Kennedy, an environmental lawyer with no medical or research training, declared that autism is a preventable disease, argued research into genetic causes is a “dead end” and asserted that “we know it’s environmental exposure,” before saying HHS would fund “a series of new studies to identify precisely what the environmental toxins are that are causing it.”

“This has not been done before,” Kennedy said. “We’re going to do it in a thorough and comprehensive way and we’re going to get back with an answer to the American people very, very quickly.”

Kennedy said during his first press conference since receiving Senate confirmation that he wanted researchers to look into numerous potential factors, including mold, food additives, pesticides, air, water, medicines, ultrasound, age of parents, obesity in parents and diabetes in parents.

He pledged to have “some of the answers by September,” though he added the research will “be an evolving process.”

Kennedy appeared confident in his personal assessment that environmental factors lead to autism, without attributing that belief to any one industry or contaminant.

“This is coming from an environmental toxin and somebody made a profit by putting that environmental toxin into our air, our water, our medicines, our food,” Kennedy said. “And it’s to their benefit to normalize it, to say, ‘This is all normal. It has always been here.’ But that’s not good for our country.”

Autism experts, however, cast doubt on Kennedy’s assertion that environmental factors lead to autism and questioned his proposed timeline to prove such a link.

When asked by a reporter what exactly the Trump administration would do if research found conclusive evidence that one specific industry or pollutant was causing autism, Kennedy didn’t say whether HHS would push to ban it or close down any businesses. 

“I think we’re going to figure out a way to make pressure on them to remove it,” he said. “I think also there will be market forces that also exert pressure on them to remove it.”

Research difficult

Catherine Lord, professor of psychiatry with the school of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, said during an interview with States Newsroom following Kennedy’s remarks that trying to reach a definitive cause of autism before September was an “utterly ridiculous” timeline.

Lord said “the most likely hypothesis is that there may be interactions between genetics and, for example, environmental exposures, or even experiences like extreme prematurity.”

But she noted that studying the impact of environmental contaminants on people’s health, or a complex diagnosis like autism, is challenging because scientists obviously cannot expose people to toxins.

“It’s so difficult to do that work well, and people do it, but they can’t do it quickly,” Lord said. “And so I think that we do need work in that area, and I think it has been funded in the last few years. It just hasn’t come out with anything that is earth-shattering. It’s more the same thing, which is that if you’re exposed to something bad, your chances of having a child with any kind of neurodevelopmental disorder is going to go up.”

Lord expressed concern about moving funding and research away from genetic factors, saying “we do know that autism is genetic, so I think that is not under question.”

“I think the genetic work was moving forward,” she said. “It’s a slow pace, again, because they’re addressing so many different genetic patterns. But I think that at least there’s clear progress within this science.”

Limits funding for genetic research

Eric Fombonne, professor emeritus of psychiatry at Oregon Health and Science University, said during an interview that it was unwise for Kennedy to say there would be some answers about autism within a few months.

“It’s ridiculous to say that he’s going to unravel the etiology of autism in six months,” Fombonne said. “I mean, he could give, like, all the money of the world to any lab or any person. They could never report any results before several years from now, at the minimum.”

The pace of medical research, he said, is slow and Kennedy’s comments show “a complete ignorance and disregard for science and what we do and how complicated it is and the time it takes.”

Directing research dollars toward possible environmental contributors to autism will also limit the amount of funding available for genetic research, which Fombonne said “has been incredibly productive.”

“The pie is limited,” Fombonne said. “So if you move funds from genetic research to environmental research, you’re going to slow down the pace of genetic research.”

Fombonne explained that research into genetics and autism is “quite complicated” and has shown that not all genetic mechanisms are “the same across different families.”

“So it’s a very complex puzzle. And as you know, the brain is a very hard organ to study. So understanding the pathophysiology, which is associated with these gene variants, is a very hard process,” he said. “But we are doing that and we are progressing. And this has been paying off enormously over the last 20 or 30 years.”

Fombonne wouldn’t make the same assessment of potential environmental factors, saying there are no signs of higher rates of autism in certain areas or certain time periods, like scientists have found for some other conditions.

“There is no evidence that there is a cluster of cases of kids who have been living in a polluted area, or exposed to particular environmental circumstances,” Fombonne said. “There is no starting point, which is strong, to start environmental research somewhere we can say is going to pay off.

“So it’s going to be very exploratory initially, which may be a good thing to do. But at least, let’s do it well, and most of the studies so far are short.”

Krish Lal Isserdasani, who is from India, has been studying computer engineering at the UW-Madison since 2021 and plans to graduate on May 10. UW-Madison Engineering Hall. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

A federal judge has temporarily blocked the cancellation of a 21-year-old University of Wisconsin-Madison undergraduate student’s visa and any actions in relation to that by the Trump administration. 

Krish Lal Isserdasani, who is from India, has been studying computer engineering at the UW-Madison since 2021 with plans to graduate on May 10. On April 4, just a month before graduation, Isserdasani received notification from UW-Madison’s International Student Services office that his visa was cancelled and his authorization to be in the country would end on May 2. He received no communication from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or the State Department regarding the visa revocation.  

His cancellation was part of a wave of cancellations at universities across the country as President Donald Trump’s administration targets international students and ramps up deportation efforts in a crackdown on immigration.

U.S. District Judge William Conley wrote in his order Tuesday that Isserdasani has a “reasonable likelihood of success” on his claim that his visa was wrongly terminated and faces “possible devastating irreparable harm” as a result of the cancellation. Conley’s order bans the government from revoking his visa, detaining him or taking any other actions related to the cancellation pending a preliminary hearing April 28.

“The loss of timely academic process alone is sufficient to establish irreparable harm,” Conley wrote. “Given the amount of Isserdasani’s educational expenses and potential losses from having to leave the United States without obtaining his degree, the court concludes that Isserdasani credibly demonstrates that he faces irreparable harm for which he has no adequate remedy at law in the absence of injunctive relief.” 

Since the termination earlier this month, Isserdasani has reported a significant psychological impact on him, according to the order, including “difficulty in sleeping and fear that he will be placed in immediate detention and deportation.” 

“He reports being afraid to leave his apartment for fear of being apprehended at any moment,” the order states.

According to the complaint, Isserdasani and his family have spent about $240,000 on his education in the country. He would lose $17,500 on the current semester’s tuition and would be responsible for four months of rent despite not being able to stay in the country, the complaint states.  

Isserdasani is represented by Madison lawyer Shabnam Lotfi, who said in a statement to the Wisconsin State Journal that the “international students have done absolutely nothing wrong.” 

“They have followed U.S. laws and fully complied with the terms of their student status. They do not deserve this,” Lotfi said. “America must speak out against this injustice and not allow the Administration to distort the facts for their own political purposes.”

Isserdasani is one of dozens of students and alumni at University of Wisconsin institutions to have had their visas canceled by the federal government in recent weeks. There have been at least 26 at UW-Madison, 13 at UW-Milwaukee and several more at other campuses.

UW-Madison first announced cancellations on April 8, saying the university wasn’t notified by the government but had learned about them because staff has been reviewing federal databases every day to see whether students have been affected

According to the Associated Press, the Trump administration’s work to cancel visas has affected  at least 901 students at more than 128 colleges and universities nationwide. Some have been participants in protests about the war in Gaza, and others have had minor infractions, including traffic violations, according to published reports. 

Conley’s order indicates that Isserdasani appears to have had his visa canceled in relation to an arrest for disorderly conduct in November 2024 after he and friends got into an argument with other people while walking home from a bar one night. Madison District Attorney Ismael Ozanne declined to pursue charges after the arrest, and Isserdasani never had to appear in court and thought the issue was dealt with. He has had no other encounters with police, the order says. 

The university’s notification email that Isserdasani received stated that the reason given was “otherwise failing to maintain status” and he was “identified in criminal records check and/or has had their VISA revoked.” It said the termination “does not have a grace period to depart the U.S.” and that “employment benefits, including on-campus employment and any practical training you may have had authorized, end immediately when a SEVIS record is terminated. Therefore, you no longer have authorization to work in the United States.”

The order said Isserdasani “was given no warning, no opportunity to explain or defend himself and no chance to correct any potential misunderstanding.”

The judge’s order also covers the visa cancellation for Hamidreza Khademi, a 34-year-old citizen of Iran and graduate student at Iowa State University, who is also being represented by Lotfi.  Khademi graduated in December 2023, but was working in the country through a visa extension approved in 2024.

Khademi was arrested in February of 2024 and accused of evading arrest in a vehicle in Texas. However, the Texas Department of Public Safety eventually determined that there was no violation and decided against filing charges. His visa was terminated on April 10 and an email notifying him included similar reasoning as the one Isserdasani received. 

The judge reserved a ruling on the motion for a temporary restraining order for Khademi, pending further briefing by the parties, because he questioned whether the western Wisconsin court was the appropriate venue for the case. 

“Plaintiffs include no facts showing that venue is proper for the claims brought by Khademi, who appears to have no ties to the Western District of Wisconsin, nor do the events or omissions giving rise to his claims,” the judge wrote.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Rep. Tony Kurtz (R-Wonewoc) speaks about how advocates can convince Republicans to fund the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship program at the Great Lakes Audubon Society's 2025 advocacy day. (Photo by Henry Redman/Wisconsin Examiner)

Wisconsin Rep. Tony Kurtz (R-Wonewoc) said Wednesday the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship program is “on life support,” adding that some of his Republican colleagues give it a 20% chance of being extended in this year’s budget debate before its expiration next year. 

Kurtz, Assembly Minority Leader Greta Neubauer (D-Racine), Sen. Jodi Habush Sinykin (D-Whitefish Bay) and Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Secretary Karen Hyun spoke Wednesday to a gathering of members of local Audubon Society chapters and staff of Audubon Great Lakes ahead of the organization’s advocacy day to lobby legislators to support conservation funding. 

The Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program was established in 1989 to help preserve local natural environments. Throughout its history, the program has enjoyed mostly bipartisan support as it has provided grants through the DNR to help local governments and nonprofits fund the acquisition, restoration and maintenance of public land, parks and wildlife habitats. 

In recent years, the program has become a flashpoint in the fight over the boundary between the executive and legislative branches of state government. Until a decision by the state Supreme Court last year, any member of the Legislature’s powerful Joint Committee on Finance had the authority to hold up a project funded through the stewardship program by placing an anonymous hold on that spending. 

The Court’s decision entirely removed the Legislature’s oversight of the program, a change that further turned Republicans against its continued existence. 

“We could make that process better, where it was not just one individual not liking something and being able to kill a project. I agree with that,” Kurtz said. “When the court case came in and basically took that entire process away, that was not good either, because there was no oversight. And I understand some of you believe whatever the DNR does is fine. That’s great. Some of my colleagues don’t believe that.”

Especially in the northern part of the state, Republicans have objected to stewardship funds being used to conserve land that then gets taken off of local property tax rolls — taking money away from already struggling small local governments. In other cases, Republicans have complained that proposals for projects under the grants rely too heavily on the state funds without the local governments providing enough of their own money. 

In his proposed 2025-26 budget, Gov. Tony Evers has requested the stewardship program be increased from its current funding of $33 million per year to $100 million per year for 10 years. 

Kurtz said he’s working on a bill that would return some oversight authority over the program to the Legislature without the anonymous objection provision. He added, though,  that if the Audubon members went to Republicans Wednesday saying, “‘It’s the governor’s budget or nothing,’ you already lost.” 

“I don’t need you to do that, because, I’m being very sincere, I’m trying to keep this alive, and if you go over there [saying that], there’s a good chance it’ll die,” he said. “So don’t do that. Let them, especially when you’re meeting with my colleagues, ask them what [their] concerns are. ‘Why don’t you like this? What is it about the program that we can do better so we can have another day to make sure we protect all our wonderful birds and animals.’”

Habush Sinykin noted that 93% of Wisconsinites support the program and said that in her purple district covering Milwaukee’s northwest suburbs, the stewardship program is hugely popular. She said the anonymous hold of a project in the district drew the ire of community members of both parties. 

“There’s a lot of understanding at the legislative level that in these uncertain times, with these newer maps, that our state representatives and senators, including those on the Joint Finance Committee, have to be wary and strategic about issues like this that are bipartisan,” she said. “They’re actually non-partisan. They are successful community building issues. So I think that’s a little bit where your leverage is to lean in hard. How popular these are.”

Aside from the stewardship program, the society members lobbying in the Capitol Wednesday were pushing for the state to increase protections for wetlands and grasslands, advance sustainable practices in the state’s agriculture and forestry industries and grow renewable energy production. 

On Wednesday morning, the administration of President Donald Trump announced a proposed rule that would rescind habitat protections for endangered species across the country. 

Marnie Urso, Audubon Great Lakes’ senior director of policy, said that with the federal government retreating from conservation efforts, state level efforts have become more important. 

“With that uncertainty, this kind of work is even more important, for state lawmakers to be on the path to conserving our natural resources,” Urso said. “The Knowles Nelson project program is bipartisan. It always has been a permanent foundation. So we know it has wide, widespread bipartisan support.”

Urso said leaning into that popularity could help advance the group’s priorities. 

“Even Trump voters like the Knowles Nelson Conservation Fund,” she said. “So we’re confident that by coming and talking, telling our story and getting to understand what’s important to our lawmakers, we can inform those decisions. And now it’s more important than ever to have state conservation programs continue.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

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)

This story was updated at 4:04 p.m. Eastern.

WASHINGTON —  A federal judge in Washington found probable cause Wednesday the Trump administration is in contempt of court for defying his order to stop flights of Venezuelan immigrants headed to a prison in El Salvador.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg gave officials one week to submit a list of steps they have taken, or will take, to comply with his order, or identify the official or officials who chose to send the planes to El Salvador, despite learning of his order, he wrote in a 46-page opinion Wednesday.

Boasberg wrote the government could “purge its contempt,” for example, by voluntarily obeying the order and giving the imprisoned men an opportunity to challenge their cases. Officials could also “propose other methods of coming into compliance.”

If the government does not attempt to remedy the situation, Boasberg will require declarations, or even live witness testimony, to identify who’s responsible for the noncompliance and refer them for criminal prosecution.

The case centers on President Donald Trump’s decision in mid-March to invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport more than 200 Venezuelans – and other nationals – with suspected gang ties. The men were detained at the Salvadoran mega-prison Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, or CECOT.

Despite Boasberg’s order to halt the flights, including returning two planes that were mid-air, immigration officials allowed them to land in El Salvador — and directed a third one to take off.

Boasberg wrote Wednesday that the “Government’s actions on that day demonstrate a willful disregard for its Order, sufficient for the Court to conclude that probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt.”

“The Court does not reach such conclusion lightly or hastily; indeed, it has given Defendants ample opportunity to rectify or explain their actions. None of their responses has been satisfactory,” continued Boasberg, who was appointed to the bench in 2011 by former President Barack Obama and confirmed unanimously by the Senate.

Order ‘gleefully’ violated

Boasberg provided a detailed timeline in a memorandum opinion Wednesday accompanying his probable cause order.

The judge delivered a verbal order at 6:45 p.m. on Saturday, March 15, mandating the government halt any new deportation flights and bring any planes that had taken off back to the U.S. He later entered a written order into the record at 7:25 p.m., according to the court filing.

“By mid-Sunday morning, the picture of what had happened the previous night came into clearer focus,” he wrote. “It appeared that the Government had transferred members of the Plaintiff class into El Salvador’s custody hours after this Court’s injunction prohibited their deportation under the Proclamation.

“Worse, boasts by Defendants intimated that they had defied the Court’s Order deliberately and gleefully,” Boasberg wrote in his opinion.

He highlighted that Secretary of State Marco Rubio reposted on social media a post from El Salvador President Nayib Bukele who highlighted a headline about the judge’s order and wrote “Oopsie … Too late” with a laughing face emoji.

What followed was “obstructionism” and “stonewalling” from the government, according to Boasberg, as officials refused to answer basic questions about the timeline of the flights and whether the plaintiffs who were granted class status in the lawsuit were now in El Salvador’s custody. The government argued such information would compromise national security.

Boasberg denied the government’s motion to block his temporary restraining order, and an appeals court upheld it.

Supreme Court ruling

The Trump administration then appealed to the Supreme Court, and the justices ruled 5-4 on April 8 that Trump could use the wartime Alien Enemies Act to deport immigrants but must provide them a chance to challenge their cases first.

Boasberg addressed that ruling in his opinion Wednesday, writing that even a win on appeal did not negate the government’s responsibility to obey the order while it was active.

“If a party chooses to disobey the order — rather than wait for it to be reversed through the judicial process — such disobedience is punishable as contempt, notwithstanding any later-revealed deficiencies in the order,” he wrote.

Disputed gang membership

Family members and attorneys for many of the deported men have disputed the Trump administration’s claims that those taken to El Salvador were members of the Tren de Aragua gang.

They claim the men were deported because ICE agents misinterpreted their tattoos. Many deportees had no criminal record and were in asylum hearings before an immigration judge, they added.

Among those deported was El Salvadoran native Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, whose wife, a U.S. citizen, has been fighting in a separate federal case for his release from CECOT. Abrego Garcia had a protective order from an immigration judge in 2019 shielding him from removal to his native country because of risks of gang violence.

The Trump administration has not complied with a court order to return him to the U.S. 

Sandra Lomeli testifies at a public hearing April 10, 2025, against a bill imposing new restrictions on the process for confirming eligibility for Medicaid. (Wisconsin Examiner photo)

Legislation that would add new restrictions to the process of qualifying for Medicaid is on hold in the Wisconsin Capitol after meeting with resounding opposition at an Assembly hearing less than a week ago.

At a meeting Tuesday to vote on two other bills, State Rep. Dan Knodl (R-Germantown) told the Assembly Committee on Public Benefit Reform that he chairs that the Medicaid measure “has some work to be done yet.”

The bill’s author, Rep. William Penterman (R-Columbus), told the Wisconsin Examiner in an email message Tuesday that the legislation “is still in the Assembly Committee on Public Benefit Reform. The conversation on how to improve the bill is ongoing.”

An opponent of the measure, however, suggested that opposition testimony had prevailed in keeping it from moving forward.

“I think you all realized how terrible and harmful that legislation was,” said committee member Rep. Ryan Clancy (D-Milwaukee), directing his comment at his four Republican colleagues. “We heard two and a half hours of testimony overwhelmingly against that [bill].”

Clancy spoke before voting against two other bills that the committee passed 4-2 along party lines — one making sweeping revisions to Wisconsin’s unemployment insurance (UI) system, and the other barring local governments from instituting guaranteed basic income programs using tax dollars. 

Recipients marshal opposition to Medicaid measure

Medicaid covers acute and long-term medical care for low-income people as well as people with disabilities. It’s funded jointly with federal and state money and managed by the state under federal rules and guidelines.

With some exceptions, recipients must have incomes at or below the federal poverty guideline. Most Medicaid recipients must be reviewed once a year to confirm they are still eligible for the program.

AB 163 would direct the Wisconsin Department of Health Services (DHS) to conduct eligibility reviews every six months.

It also would add restrictions on the verification process — forbidding the state from automatically renewing Medicaid beneficiaries, forbidding the state from automatically filling in electronic forms with the recipient’s information except for their name and address, and cutting off a person’s ability to enroll in Medicaid for six months for failing to report a change that might make them ineligible.

Penterman, the only witness who testified at the bill’s April 10 public hearing, highlighted the statistic that 20% of Wisconsin residents are on Medicaid. 

He described the legislation as an effort to “reassess and restore integrity to the system by ensuring that only those who are truly needy and truly qualified for this coverage receive benefits.”

But the recurring message from a stream of hearing witnesses — the vast majority of them people with disabilities who rely on Medicaid for long-term health care in their homes or in the community or their family caregivers — was that the current eligibility requirements are already burdensome, and strict enough to keep out people who aren’t eligible.

“We heard from so many people who do a tremendous amount of work to prove to the state that they have low enough income, low enough assets, that they are who they say they are, that they meet the functional screen and all of the other requirements that the department has [for them] to be able to get in or stay in the program,” said Tamara Jackson, legislative policy representative for the Wisconsin Board of People with Developmental Disabilities, in an interview Tuesday.

The hearing came just two days after the bill was introduced April 8. Its fast track prompted an overnight opposition campaign by Medicaid recipients.

“We heard from people across the state who had said that they had contacted their state lawmakers about this particular bill and had really used it as an opportunity to tell them what they do to be allowed in the Medicaid program,” Jackson said.

Federal Medicaid debate draws attention

Recent Congressional action on federal legislation to extend tax cuts enacted in 2017 has included spending targets that would appear to make Medicaid reductions inevitable. Medicaid recipients have been following those debates and making public appeals to oppose cuts in the program — priming them to oppose the state proposal as well.

“I think that people are paying attention, and the reason there were so many contacts is because Medicaid is so important to folks and they’re willing to show up and talk about it,” Jackson said.

At the very start of the April 10 hearing, Penterman alluded to communications he had already received from advocates and said he planned an amendment to exempt people with developmental disabilities from some of the bill’s restrictions. He introduced the amendment later that day.

Several witnesses, however, criticized limiting the amendment to people with developmental disabilities, arguing that the bill’s requirements would be needlessly onerous for many other people.

Sandra Lomeli of Pewaukee was one of the hearing witnesses against the Medicaid bill. She is the mother of two adult children with severe disabilities who are able to get long-term care through Medicaid. One requires 24-hour care as a sexual assault survivor, she said.

Lomeli is also covered by BadgerCare Plus, the Wisconsin Medicaid plan for primary and specialty health care and hospitalization, because being her children’s family caregiver limits her working hours to a part-time nonprofit position.

She told the committee that she fills both sides of a ream’s worth of forms each year to confirm her children’s Medicaid eligibility. She said she spends 54 hours completing those forms and 10 hours confirming her own eligibility each year.

In her testimony Lomeli challenged lawmakers to enlist Medicaid participants and advocates if they wanted to write legislation to improve the program.

It appeared to Lomeli that her suggestion “took people by surprise that we would even be at the table,” she said in an interview Tuesday. “I don’t think they valued that we could add value — because if they did, somebody would have reached out.”

She said she doesn’t consider the legislation dead, however, which concerns her.

“The issue is not off the table yet,” Lomeli said. “They’re just going to reword it. We have won the battle now. We haven’t won the war.

UI change, basic-income ban, both pass on party lines

While setting the Medicaid bill aside Tuesday, the Committee on Public Benefit Reform advanced two others with only Republican votes.

AB 164 would rename Wisconsin’s unemployment insurance system as a “re-employment assistance” program with new requirements for workers and for the state agency that administers it.

Those include requiring recipients, who must currently make four work searches a week, to make two of those in the form of direct contacts with prospective employers. It also adds a variety of additional counseling procedures and requirements for people who receive unemployment benefits.

Department of Workforce Development Secretary-designee Amy Pechacek submitted written testimony expressing “concerns about this proposal due to the anticipated reporting burden for employers, potential costs, bureaucratic requirements, and lack of sustainable funding.”

Gov. Tony Evers vetoed similar legislation in 2023, citing similar complaints as well as the fact that it did not go through the state’s joint labor-management unemployment advisory council.

AB 165 would bar local governments from using tax dollars to create guaranteed income programs without a work or training requirement. Evers vetoed a similar bill to that one in 2023 as well, on the grounds it usurped local control. 

Rep. Christian Phelps (D-Eau Claire) made the same argument against the current legislation.

Knodl defended the both bills as helping to “protect the integrity of these systems, and that’s important if we want them to be sustainable in the future.”

Clancy argued that both should have been put on pause along with the Medicaid bill.

“But all three of those . . . bills are fundamentally the same,” Clancy said. “They are kicking people when they are down. They are hitting people at their most vulnerable, and frankly, in 2025, when national and state Republican policies have meant that people have more needs. We should not be attacking those social safety nets.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Wisconsin State Capitol (Wisconsin Examiner photo)

Wisconsin lawmakers considered new tax incentives meant to encourage the development of more employee-owned businesses and cooperatives and to promote safe gun storage. Both measures drew bipartisan support during a hearing Tuesday in the Assembly Way and Means Committee. 

One bill — AB 17 — would provide a tax credit to businesses that make the transition to a model that gives employees a stake. The credit would cover 70% of the costs for converting a business to a worker-owned cooperative or 50% of the costs for converting the business to an employee stock ownership plan. Businesses could receive a maximum of $100,000 from the tax credit. 

In a worker-owned cooperative, employees jointly own the business and have control over its operations. Employee stock ownership plans give employees partial or full ownership of a company’s stock as an investment for their retirement. 

According to the UW Center for Cooperatives, there are 728 cooperatives across the state, including 33 worker-owned cooperatives. 

The bill would create an individual income tax subtraction and a corporate income and franchise tax deduction for  the capital gain realized from the conversion. It would also instruct the Department of Revenue to create a program to promote employee-owned and cooperative business structures, providing education, outreach, technical assistance and training.

“More than ever, Wisconsin benefits from companies keeping jobs here, investing in their communities and staying locally owned,” bill coauthor Sen. Jesse James (R-Thorp) told lawmakers on the committee. This type of business structure, he said, is a “strong tool” to encourage that goal. 

James said the tax incentive would help businesses considering switching because the conversion process can be complicated and expensive.

According to the National Center for Employee Ownership, a transition to a worker-owned model can initially cost between $10,000 and $30,000. Converting to an employee stock ownership plan can generally cost between $100,000 and $300,000, with ongoing costs of $20,000 to $30,000 a year.

Several Wisconsinites who have benefited from making the switch testified in favor of the bill. 

John Dally, a veterinarian, said it would provide “critical support” for cooperatives in Wisconsin. Dally started a practice about 20 years ago with a colleague in Spring Green, and in 2020, they  acquired another location in Mazomanie. 

As they were getting older, he said, they began considering retirement and the future for their business, Cooperative Veterinary Care.

“We wanted to ensure the practice would stay in these small communities, continue to serve the families and the pets that we just come to know and love — we’ve worked with them for our entire careers — and we also wanted to have some fair and equitable options for our employees and have a return on our investment to sell,” Dally said. 

Dally said historically veterinary practices would be sold to younger associates, but with increasing costs of education, many young veterinarians cannot take on the additional debt that comes with taking it over. Private equity firms and large corporations have also been acquiring small practices in recent years, he said.

According to Brakke Consulting, a veterinary management consulting firm, nearly 25% of general veterinary practices and 75% of specialty practices, such as emergency and surgery care, are owned by large corporations. The issue of consolidation in the pet care field by large corporations has gotten the attention of U.S. Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut. 

“We were looking around and thinking, what could we do, and I came upon this idea of employee ownership and it just made total sense,” Dally said. He said the transition in 2022 to a worker-owned cooperative cost about $30,000. He said a grant helped with the expense, and they also received support from the UW Center for Cooperatives. 

‘Tangible, positive impact’

Dally said that their team of veterinarians, technicians and assistants have been able to take ownership of the business. The employees, he said, range in age from 20 to 58 and come from a variety of backgrounds. 

“We all came together to create bylaws, manage the business, make decisions about how to allocate resources in smart and equitable ways,” Dally said. He said the cooperative has kept these veterinary services in these communities when they might have closed as they retired or sold to a large corporation who may or may not have kept them there. 

In the three years since transitioning, Dally said the worker cooperative has developed a beneficial health insurance program and a mental health program, invested in new equipment, raised wages and distributed additional profits back to the employees.

“It’s just created a tangible, positive impact on our local communities. It provides a clear pathway for employees to not only work for the business, but to own a piece of it and benefit from its success and all their efforts and enthusiasm,” Dally said. “Our experience in transitioning to this model is proof that it works, particularly in small communities.” 

Dally said it would not have been possible without the help they received, and  the bill could provide the necessary support to other businesses looking to make the transition. 

“It will allow businesses like ours to thrive and continue serving their communities while providing meaningful economic benefits for workers. It has the potential to change the landscape of business ownerships in Wisconsin, especially in these rural communities that are often overlooked by larger corporate interests,” Dally said. “We need your support to make this a reality.” 

Kristin Forde with the UW Center for Cooperatives told lawmakers that the center’s staff has  seen greater interest in employee ownership as a succession strategy for retiring owners, but the models remain largely unknown among business owners. 

Forde said the state is likely to face a crisis in business as Baby Boomers prepare to retire. 

“We really see employee ownership as… a solution to that problem,” Forde said. The legislation, she said, would tie together education and financial incentives to ensure that employee-owned cooperatives are a “feasible solution to retaining jobs and services in our communities.” 

Promoting safe gun storage 

Republicans and Democrats also appeared supportive of AB 10, which would eliminate sales taxes on devices meant to ensure safe storage of guns.

According to the CDC, unintentional injury is a top cause of death among children with guns being a leading method for injury. “It was kind of jarring to hear that,” bill coauthor Rep. Adam Neylon (R-Pewaukee) said. 

Neylon said unsecured firearms are a major cause for those deaths and injuries, and that  he wanted to propose a way to make safe storage more affordable. 

“This isn’t about politics,” Neylon said. “This is about saving kids’ lives.”

Neylon said after hearing from constituents and consulting with the state Department of Revenue, he has amended the bill to cover a variety of devices in addition to gun safes. 

The amendment defines  a “firearm storage device” as a locked and fully enclosed container and excludes glass-faced display cabinets. It adds “firearm safety” devices, “installed on a firearm designed to prevent unauthorized access to the firearm or to prevent it from being operated without first deactivating the device.” 

Rep. Joan Fitzgerald (D-Fort Atkinson) said she supports the action, but called for more to be done. 

“Protecting our kids and our communities should be top of mind for many of us… and there are a lot of people that are not responsible gun owners, so I do think we need to do more in this area,” Fitzgerald said. 

Gov. Tony Evers has also included the proposal in his 2025-27 budget, but Republican leaders on the Joint Finance Committee have removed it from his previous budget proposals and have said they plan to write their own budget. Fitzgerald asked Neylon why he proposed the measure if it was included in Evers’ budget. 

“I think, personally, this is at risk of being pulled out of the budget as a public policy item,” Neylon said. While his bill does have a fiscal impact, “I think there’s precedent of doing this through legislation in the past,” he added. “But if it ultimately is in a budget that I support, I would be happy about that.” 

Deductions for teachers’ classroom costs

Lawmakers also considered AB 64, which would allow teachers to claim a tax deduction of up to $300 for expenses, including professional development courses, books and other classroom supplies. It, too, has bipartisan support.

Bill coauthors Sen. Dan Feyen (R-Fond du Lac) and Rep. David Armstrong (R-Rice Lake said) the bill mirrors the deduction that is already available for teachers when they file their federal taxes.

“This would double the potential benefit and bring teachers significantly closer to be made whole,” Armstrong said. 

Armstrong noted that teachers “sometimes find it necessary to purchase books or supplies for their classrooms.”  He added that he has  two daughters who are teachers and remind him about the costs “consistently at the beginning of school.”

CESA 6 CEO Ted Neitzke told lawmakers his wife, a Sheboygan middle school language arts teacher, has a classroom with likely “tens of thousands of dollars worth of Mrs. Neitzke’s investments in books and materials.” 

“This is something that… would be a great tool for local school systems, especially when we’re competing nationally for talent, to be able to support our staff in reimbursing some costs that they spend,” Neitzke said. “Any little bit helps.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Voces de la Frontera gather alongside allies in Milwaukee for a protest on May Day, 2021. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

The Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors passed a resolution Tuesday opposing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents “operating outside the limits of the law in and around the Milwaukee County Courthouse Complex,” while also calling on the sheriff to work with the county executive and chief judge of the First Judicial District to “ensure access to services and safeguard every individual’s constitutional right to due process.” 

During the board committee meeting Chairwoman Marcelia Nicholson called the resolution, which she authored with Supervisors Caroline Gomez-Tom and Juan Miguel Martinez, both “reactive” and “proactive.” The resolution also calls for Milwaukee County residents to be educated on their rights during immigration encounters, such as distributing educational material around the courthouse complex. 

“Let me be clear,” Nicholson said, “everyone regardless of immigration status deserves due process. And that’s not a radical idea, that’s the Constitution. And yet when federal immigration enforcement takes place in our courthouse complex, it sends families into hiding, deters survivors of violence from seeking protection and discourages tenants from asserting their rights.” Nicholson said that “it erodes trust in the very systems we are responsible for upholding.”

In early April, the community learned of two ICE arrests in the county courthouse. The Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Office said in a press statement that ICE had not given prior notice of one of the arrests and that the sheriff’s office was not involved in making the arrests. Days later, the men were identified as Edwin Bustamante-Sierre, 27, and Marco Cruz-Garcia, 24. ICE said that the men had been convicted of violent crimes or were linked to gangs. Online court records show that one of the men, Cruz-Garcia, was arrested the same day he went to family court for a domestic violence-related restraining order, which was dropped that day. 

Nicholson said the arrests took place in the “public hallways of our courthouse and Safety Building.” She added, “That action didn’t just detain individuals, it delivered a message: ‘This space may not be safe for people who look a certain way, or speaks a certain language.’” 

The arrests were widely condemned by local officials and activists. Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley said in a statement that the courthouse “stands as a cornerstone of justice where residents come to seek information, resources and fair participation in the legal process” and that “an attack on this safe, community-serving space undermines public trust, breeds fear among citizens and staff and disrupts the due process essential to our courts.” 

Milwaukee County Chief Judge Carl Ashley, as well as members of the Board of Supervisors also decried the arrests. Local groups from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Wisconsin to Voces de la Frontera, and the Milwaukee Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression also blasted ICE for making arrests in the courthouse.

The ACLU highlighted that ICE enforcement often causes immigrant communities to avoid contacting law enforcement, even when they are in danger of becoming crime victims. On April 10, Congresswoman Gwen Moore said in a statement that “ICE has seemingly front-run Milwaukee’s justice system, potentially denying the city justice and potential victims a remedy.” Moore added, “This Administration’s decision to remove sensitive location protections will stir even more fear in our communities, prevent victims of crime from coming forward, and disrupt houses of worship, schools, and hospitals.”

In a joint statement Nicholson, Gomez-Tom, and Miguel Martinez said that the resolution “puts us on the right side of history and the right side of humanity.” The resolution is “about helping people … protection process…[and] protecting the promise of what our Courthouse is meant to be – a place of fairness, access, and truth.” 

During public testimony on Tuesday, Sup. Willie Johnson Jr. said that he agreed that the arrests “were an erosion of trust”. Echoing Nicholson’s words Johnson said that “we are stewards of Milwaukee County government, we represent the citizens of this county and we should be respectful of the rights of people to go about their business, be where they need to be, and do what they need to do.” 

Sup. Miguel Martinez said “this is just the first step towards creating more action.” The board is expecting a report back from the sheriff and county executive regarding rules around the courthouse, he  said.

“This administration really is descending into 1939 Nazi Germany,” Miguel Martinez continued. “And I’m not saying that with hyperbole because there’s people that are getting deported and people that are citizens, and are not returning. We have people with residency getting their residency stripped away from them. And every single day, it descends into more and more madness.”

He said that it was the responsibility of board members “as local representatives of our communities, that we make sure that we fight every single day against this unlawful administration, and make sure that we let everybody know that we are here to protect them, and we won’t let our country descend into absolute tyrannical madness.”

Sup. Gomez-Tom added that it is the county government’s responsibility “to serve our community, and all inhabitants of our county.” Milwaukee County residents go to the courthouse for many different services besides the justice system, including victim services, child support or obtaining legal documents, “and everyone should have a right to do so, and to do so in peace,” said Gomez-Tom. 

Supervisors Anne O’Connor said that to her knowledge, the Trump administration is the first to pursue immigration arrests in what were once considered “safe places” such as courthouses or churches. 

At a press conference she attended in the days after the arrests, O’Connor said, ICE agents were parked illegally outside and wouldn’t identify themselves further. She described the feeling as “a cloak of anonymity” and said her constituents are concerned about vulnerable communities such as resettled Afghan-U.S. allies, Rohingya, and Congolese communities who get services from nonprofits.

Sup. Patti Logsdon abstained from voting on the resolution’s passage, saying her decision “is not a reflection of indifference or opposition to the values of justice or fairness,” but concern about the legal uncertainty surrounding the passing and implications of this resolution.” 

Logsdon asked for legal guidance as to what policies the county has in place already to guide ICE interactions, as well as the legal jeopardy elected officials who support policies that could conflict with federal immigration law may find themselves. Logsdon also questioned whether Milwaukee County could be sued for going against immigration enforcement, who would pay for it and how much it would cost “in defending and educating undocumented immigrants about their rights.”

Several members of the public also attended the board meeting, expressing support for the resolution, concern for immigrant communities and opposition to  Trump administration immigration policies.

Gomez-Tom noted that she is the daughter of Mexican immigrants.  “I know what that chilling effect looks like when someone in your family is at risk…maybe isn’t even at risk, but is scared that they could be at risk of being detained, of being questioned,” she said. “What happens is people get paralyzed.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Former President Biden speaks about Social Security at a disability conference in Chicago on April 15, 2025. The remarks were his first in public since leaving office in January. (Image via C-SPAN livestream)

Former President Joe Biden on Tuesday used his first public address since leaving office to criticize the current administration for cutting thousands of employees at the Social Security Administration and to rebut those who have questioned the program’s relevance.

“In fewer than 100 days, this new administration has done so much damage and so much destruction. It’s kind of breathtaking it could happen that soon,” Biden said. “They’ve taken a hatchet to the Social Security Administration, pushing 7,000 employees — 7,000 — out the door in that time, including the most seasoned career officials.”

The Social Security Administration announced earlier this year it would cut staffing from 57,000 to 50,000 employees and reduce the number of regional offices from 10 to four.

Biden urged Republicans to preserve Social Security for future generations, arguing during his 30-minute speech to the national conference of Advocates, Counselors, and Representatives for the Disabled in Chicago that people have been able to rely on it throughout wars, recessions and the pandemic.

“Social Security is about more than retirement accounts. It’s about honoring a fundamental trust between government and people,” Biden said. “It’s about peace of mind for those who work their whole lives, so they can rest assured they’ll have a chance to get back some of what they earned and what they deserve.”

Biden, who accepted the organization’s Beacon of Hope award, said protecting Social Security and the federal workers who administer the program is about defending core principles.

“Who are we? What makes us distinct from the rest of the world?” Biden asked. “It comes down to basic, in my view, fundamental American values — nobody’s king, nobody’s the boss. Everybody has a shot.” 

Biden criticized members of President Donald Trump’s Cabinet for making harsh comments about the program. He noted Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said his mother-in-law wouldn’t complain if she missed a Social Security payment and that “the easiest way to find the fraudster is to stop payments and listen because whoever screams is the one stealing.”

Biden also called out billionaire and head of U.S. DOGE Service Elon Musk for calling Social Security a “Ponzi scheme.”

“​​What the hell are they talking about?” Biden said. “People earn these benefits. They paid into that benefit. They rely on that benefit.”

White House pledges to maintain program

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said during a briefing several hours before Biden’s speech the Trump administration doesn’t plan to cut off Americans’ Social Security benefits.

“Let me make it very clear ahead of former President Biden’s remarks: The president, this president, President Trump is absolutely certain about protecting Social Security benefits for law-abiding, tax-paying American citizens and seniors who have paid into this program,” she said. “He will always protect that program. He campaigned on it. He protected it in his first term.”

Leavitt also took a swipe at Biden’s age, saying she didn’t expect him to give a speech during the evening.

“My first reaction when seeing former President Biden was speaking tonight was, I’m shocked that he was speaking at nighttime. I had thought his bedtime was much earlier than his speech tonight,” she said. 

Biden, 82, last year dropped his reelection bid in a rematch against Trump, 78, amid concerns about his age and mental acuity.

Administrator nominee to target errors

Democrats have raised concerns for months that staffing cuts at the Social Security Administration will impact Americans’ ability to get their questions about the program answered or their issues resolved quickly.

Social Security Commissioner nominee Frank Bisignano testified during his hearing in March that, if confirmed, he would try to “ensure that every beneficiary receives their payments on time, that disability claims are processed in the manner they should be.”

Bisignano said he hoped to ensure Social Security recipients could visit an office, use the website, or speak to a real person after calling the 1-800 number.

“On the phone, I’m committed to reducing wait times and providing beneficiaries with a better experience; waiting 20 minutes-plus to get an answer will be of yesteryear,” Bisignano said. “I also believe we can significantly improve the length of the disability claim process.”

Bisignano promised lawmakers he would reduce the 1% error rate in payments, which he said was “five decimal places too high.” And he said repeatedly that personally identifiable information will be “protected.”

The Senate Finance Committee voted along party lines in early April to send Bisignano’s nomination to the floor, but he hasn’t yet been confirmed. 

A crowd gathered outside U.S. District Court in Greenbelt, Maryland, on Tuesday, April 10, 2025, to protest the government's erroneous deportation of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, an El Salvadoran national, to a mega-prison in the Central American country. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

GREENBELT, MARYLAND — A federal judge in Maryland on Tuesday ordered a defiant Trump administration to provide evidence about how it has tried to secure the release of an immigrant mistakenly deported to a brutal mega-prison in El Salvador, saying that to date, the record shows “nothing has been done.”

District Judge Paula Xinis laid out a two-week timeline for the government to produce sworn statements on whether and how immigration officials are complying with her previous court order to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia.

“Discovery will bear out whether you have,” Xinis said, referring to the process through which information is disclosed in court. “And if you haven’t, whether it’s a choice or on justified ground.”

“Cancel vacation, cancel other appointments. I’m usually very good about things like that in my courtroom, but not this time,” she said during a hearing in Greenbelt, Maryland.

Xinis, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, had ordered the administration to bring Abrego Garcia back to the U.S. by April 7.

A federal appeals court swiftly upheld Xinis’ order. The Trump administration appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the justices ruled 9-0 Thursday that the administration must “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return — though they stopped short of requiring it — and provide the El Salvadoran due process through the U.S. immigration courts.

The Supreme Court “could not have been clearer,” Xinis said to Drew Ensign, the deputy assistant attorney general who represented the government Tuesday.

Abrego Garcia, a native of El Salvador, who lived with his wife Jennifer Vasquez Sura, a U.S. citizen, and their 5-year-old child, was apprehended by immigration officials in mid-March.

He was among roughly 260 Venezuelan men the U.S. flew on commercial jets, without due process, to Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, or CECOT.

Garcia has no criminal history in the U.S., El Salvador or any other country, according to court filings in the lawsuit Vasquez Sura brought against the government last month.

An immigration judge issued a protective order in 2019 shielding his return to El Salvador because of near certainty he would face violence and persecution.

White House echoes Bukele

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement admitted in court documents that Abrego Garcia’s removal on March 15 was an “administrative error.”

The White House maintains it has no power to ask El Salvador to release Abrego Garcia from CECOT, and that Xinis overstepped her authority in ordering the administration to conduct foreign affairs.

The White House also asserts Abrego Garcia is a “foreign terrorist” and a member of the El Salvadoran gang MS-13, which the administration designated a foreign terrorist organization in February.

“Deporting him was always going to be the end result,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Tuesday at the daily press briefing.

“There is never going to be a world in which this is an individual who’s going to live a peaceful life in Maryland,” she said.

El Salvador President Nayib Bukele told journalists Monday during a visit to the Oval Office, “I don’t have the power to return him to the United States,” labeling Abrego Garcia as a “terrorist.”

The government echoed Bukele’s comments in its daily status report.

“DHS does not have the authority to forcibly extract an alien from the domestic custody of a foreign sovereign nation,” Joseph Mazarra, acting general counsel for DHS, wrote in Monday’s report.

Following a tense hearing Friday, where the government refused to provide the whereabouts of Abrego Garcia, Xinis ordered the administration to provide the daily updates.

On Tuesday, Xinis told Ensign that the government has provided “very little information of any value” in the reports.

“As a factual matter, I do need evidence in this record because to date what the record shows is nothing has been done,” Xinis said.

Ruling requested on contempt

Prior to Tuesday’s hearing, Vasquez Sura asked the court to order immigration officials to arrange for her husband’s return by the end of April 14.

She also asked the court to mandate government officials provide documents and depositions related to Abrego Garcia’s release, and to show cause as to why Xinis should not hold the government in contempt of court for not complying with orders to bring Abrego Garcia back.

Xinis said she will not make a decision on contempt until she reviews a record of evidence.

The government maintains the Supreme Court’s decision does not mean they must work with El Salvador to release Abrego Garcia because the president, not federal courts, has jurisdiction over foreign affairs.

The administration also contends that the Supreme Court’s use of the term “facilitate” only means that they need to remove “domestic” barriers to bringing Abrego back to the U.S. — not that they would have to work with El Salvador to secure his release.

“Indeed, no other reading of ‘facilitate’ is tenable — or constitutional — here,” they wrote in a response to Vasquez Sura’s request.

In the Oval Office Monday, Attorney General Pam Bondi said the U.S. would provide a plane, but cannot force Bukele to release Abrego Garcia.

Ensign provided a transcript of the Oval Office meeting to the court 15 minutes prior to Tuesday’s hearing, according to Xinis.

“I don’t consider what happened yesterday as evidence before this court yet,” Xinis said.

Ensign pushed back on Xinis’ order for expedited discovery, saying that the issue is a “narrow interpretative dispute” of what the word facilitate means that “does not require discovery.”

After pushing back again, Xinis responded, “I just don’t think it’s that difficult. I think you want to make it that difficult because getting to the facts may not be that favorable.”

Seized while looking for work

Abrego Garcia came to the U.S. without legal authorization in 2011, fleeing violence in his home country of El Salvador, according to court records.

Six years later while he was looking for work at a Home Depot in Hyattsville, Maryland, he was taken into custody by Prince George’s County Police Department.

While there, he was questioned about gang affiliation and law enforcement did not believe he was not a member of the MS-13 gang, according to court records.

The evidence officers submitted included Abrego Garcia wearing a Chicago Bulls hat, a hoodie and a statement from a confidential informant that stated he was a member of MS-13, according to court documents.

While he was never charged with, or convicted of being, in a gang, he was kept in ICE detention while his case proceeded before an immigration judge.

Deported migrants queue to receive an essential items bag during the arrival of a group of deported Salvadorans at Gerencia de Atención al Migrante on Feb. 12, 2025, in San Salvador, El Salvador. (Photo by Alex Peña/Getty Images)

Immigrant rights groups are cautioning migrants without legal status about the dangers of obeying the Department of Homeland Security’s directive to register with authorities, group leaders told reporters during a virtual press conference Tuesday.

Representatives from immigrant groups across the country said the requirement, which a federal judge upheld last week, is an enforcement tool for President Donald Trump’s administration and that following the directive to register could lead to unlawful detention and deportation.

Participants on the call did not explicitly say they were counseling migrants without legal status against complying with the directive, but said people affected should seek legal counsel first.

“This tool is to identify individuals for detention, deportation and to threaten with imprisonment if they do not comply,” Angelica Salas, the executive director of the advocacy group the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, said.

“These actions are abhorrent to the values of this country, and we will not stand silent to see cruelty as the official immigration policy of this administration. To our community, our message is that you’re not alone, you have rights, seek legal guidance, and you’re not obligated to provide information that can hurt you or your family.”

Under Trump and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, the administration has sent “innocent people” to detention facilities at the U.S. Navy base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the notorious mega-prison in El Salvador known as Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, or CECOT, Salas said.

The administration has detained immigrants of all legal statuses without due process, and ignored court orders to reverse those actions. Advocates on the press call Tuesday said that defies the law.

Immigrants, even without legal status in the country, are “entitled to their day in immigration court,” Nicole Melaku, the executive director of National Partnership for New Americans, said.

The directive, which requires immigrants who have registered with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to always carry with them proof of their registration, would also lead to racial profiling of U.S. citizens, advocates have said.

No reported registrants

Salas said her organization, which is based in Southern California, does not know of anyone who has completed the registration.

The people who are required to register are unclear about whether it is in their interest to comply, and distrust of Trump – who campaigned on an anti-immigration platform and has routinely flouted due process for immigrants – is a major obstacle.

“We don’t have anybody who has – that we know – yet registered,” she said. “There’s a lot of confusion in our community as to whether to do this or not. What does it mean? What are the risks? And I also want to say that … everything that has come from this administration has actually been harmful, so people are taking that into account.”

Legal fight continuing

U.S. Judge Trevor Neil McFadden, whom Trump appointed to the federal bench in 2017, rejected advocacy groups’ attempt to block the directive, saying in an order last week that the groups hadn’t shown they’d been harmed by it.

But the legal fight against the directive will continue, George Escobar, the chief of programs and services at the immigrant services organization CASA, said.

In addition to a possible appeal of McFadden’s ruling, Escobar said his organizations would watch “very, very closely” how the administration conducts the operation, with special attention to racial profiling, and would not hesitate to bring court challenges.

“We will do everything possible to fight this,” he said. “This may be a show-me-your-papers type of situation where people may be racially profiled, stopped on the street just because they’re speaking in other languages, because they look like an immigrant, and has to be asked to show this registration compliance.”

Representatives for the Department of Homeland Security did not respond to a message seeking comment Tuesday.

Children outside with a child care teacher at The Playing Field, a Madison child care center that participates in the federal Head Start program. (Courtesy of The Playing Field)

A news report that the Trump administration is considering ending the federal government’s Head Start program has alarmed providers and parents who rely on the child care and early education program.

“It would be absolutely devastating,” said Jen Bailey, executive director of Reach Dane, which operates 14 Head Start centers in Dane and Green counties. “The children and families we work with are some of the most vulnerable folks in our communities. The parents in those communities rely on the care we provide to stay employed.”

USA Today reported Friday that the Trump administration “is considering a budget proposal that would zero out funding for Head Start.” The news report quoted an anonymous administration official who said the White House funding blueprint for the 2026 fiscal year doesn’t allocate money for Head Start.

The president’s budget is a wish list, and Congress decides how to appropriate federal funds. An Office of Management and Budget spokesperson told USA Today that “no final funding decisions have been made.”

Project 2025, the agenda drafted by Russell Vought prior to his confirmation as OMB director, calls for eliminating Head Start.

Responding to the report Monday, Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) tied the proposal to President Donald Trump’s goal of extending the 2017 tax cuts enacted in his first term.

“Shutting down Head Start — taking care away from kids, firing teachers, and making child care even more expensive for parents — all so President Trump can hand out new tax breaks for the wealthy and well-connected is flat out wrong and you can be sure I will fight this proposal at every turn,” Baldwin said.

Head Start was founded in 1966, part of the War on Poverty undertaken by President Lyndon Johnson. It provides child care and preschool for families with incomes up to the federal poverty guideline. Children living in foster homes are also eligible for Head Start.

In Wisconsin more than 15,000 children are enrolled in more than 300 Head Start child care centers across the state, according to the Wisconsin Head Start Association. With more than 4,300 employees, Head Start ranks in the top 100 employers in Wisconsin, said Jennie Mauer, the association’s executive director.

“At least 70% of our families have a parent who is either working or in school full time,” Mauer said Monday. The remaining families include grandparents who are retired but full-time caregivers for their grandchildren as well as families unable to work due to disabilities or who “are working through some very, very significant challenges.”

She predicted that the impact from ending the program wouldn’t stop with the families who rely on Head Start.

“If Head Start isn’t there, if this program were to shut down, surely there’ll be tremendous cascading economic impacts in our communities,”  Mauer said. “I think for most of the families, it would create a huge labor disruption. With no safe place to have your kids while you’re at work, it’ll create a disaster.

Child care already a crisis

Fears for the survival of Head Start are escalating as the state’s overall child care sector is increasingly under strain. As many as 25% of child care centers in a survey released April 10 said they could close without continuing support in the next state budget.

April Mullins-Datko is Head Start director for ADVOCAP, a social service agency serving Fond du Lac, Winnebago and Green Lake counties. She said that the agency’s four Head Start centers would likely not survive the loss of federal support.

“We would lose services for the 202 children we serve,” Mullins-Datko said. “It would exacerbate the child care crisis we have in our communities, which then has negative impacts on our available workforce.”

ADVOCAP’s centers include three in Fond du Lac County and one in Green Lake County, with 193 families relying on the program for the care and early education of their children.

“Ninety-three percent of my families are working or going to school full time,” Mullins-Datko said.

The agency’s Head Start federal contract is supposed to be good through Dec. 31, 2028, Mullins-Datko said, but with reports of defunding she fears that won’t be honored: “There just doesn’t seem to be any kind of adherence to law and contracts.”

Western Dairyland Economic Opportunity Council provides social services in Buffalo, Jackson, Trempealeau and Eau Claire counties in West Central Wisconsin. The agency’s programs include nine Head Start centers enrolling 442 children. Of those, 382 children are in preschool and 60 are in Early Head Start, for children from birth to age 3, said Thanh Bui-Duquette, Western Dairyland’s Head Start director.

Three centers are in cities — two in Eau Claire and one in Altoona — but the rest are in rural communities.

“We meet the needs of each individual community,” Bui-Duquette said. “The needs of the urban Eau Claire area look very different from rural Trempealeau County.”

Even with jobs, 96% of the families with children in Western Dairyland’s program have incomes below the federal poverty guideline. For children from those families, she said, Head Start has been demonstrated to improve long-term outcomes — increasing the chances of graduating from high school and going on to higher education, and reducing the chances of ending up in the criminal justice system.

“It’s important to have that solid foundation early on, especially for children from disadvantaged families,” Bui-Duquette said.

Payments delayed, offices closed

The news that Head Start is in the crosshairs of budget-writers in the Trump administration follows other jolts to the program in the last two months.

In late January and early February, Head Start operators reported widespread problems in their efforts to collect standard payments from the federal government. Under Head Start contracts, programs incur an expense then submit documentation through a federal online portal to get reimbursed. Head Start programs reported that payments stalled, for nearly two weeks in some cases, without explanation.

Payments have since resumed, but Mauer said directors are reporting demands for more information holding up payments.

“They’re getting substantial delays for things that are accepted expenses, which is concerning,” she said.

On April 1, Head Start operators learned that the program’s five regional offices across the country were closed without any advance notice, including the Chicago office that serves Wisconsin and five other states in the Upper Midwest.

Those events and the report that the program could be defunded have rattled Head Start employees and the parents who have counted on the program, operators say.

“Families and staff are both really scared and concerned,” said Bailey, the Reach Dane director. “Families are reaching out, worried the program is going to close, asking, ‘Is my child still going to be able to go to school?’”

Reach Dane’s human resources staff has been interviewing applicants for teaching jobs in the coming school year, and applicants are nervous about whether the job will exist, she added.

Bailey said the program is trying to be transparent with employees and families about the uncertainty and fight for the program’s survival, all without sparking panic.

“Trying to figure out how to navigate and inform folks when there’s no communication is a hard place to be,” she said.

This report has been updated.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE