Former Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman in a video promoting the partisan review of the 2020 election. (YouTube | Office of the Special Counsel)

Former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman, who led a widely derided review of the 2020 presidential election,  searching for evidence for baseless accusations of fraud, will have his law license suspended for three years, according to a stipulated agreement between him and the state Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR). 

Law Forward, the progressive voting rights focused firm, filed a grievance against Gableman with the OLR in 2023. The OLR filed a complaint against Gableman in November that alleged, among other counts, that he had failed to “provide competent representation” and to “abstain from all offensive personality” and of violating attorney-client privilege.

The allegations against Gableman stemmed from his treatment of the mayors of Green Bay and Madison, whom he threatened with jail time during his review, false statements he made during testimony to legislative committees, violating the state’s open records laws, breaching his contract with Assembly Speaker Robin Vos and, when OLR began investigating him, “making false statements” to the investigators in an affidavit. 

As part of the stipulated agreement, Gableman admitted that “he cannot successfully defend against the allegations of misconduct … and agrees that the allegations of the complaint provide an adequate factual basis in the record.” 

In a statement, Law Forward’s general counsel Jeff Mandel said that Gableman’s actions “were and continue to be a threat to our democracy and the rule of law.” 

“Our justice system can work only if everyone plays by the rules,” Mandell said. “Two years and one month after Law Forward first filed a grievance with the Office of Lawyer Regulation explaining how Gableman’s unethical behavior did lasting damage to the public’s faith in elections, we are glad to see consequences for those who plan and promote overturning the will of the people.”

“Gableman violated his sworn duty to uphold both the U.S. and the Wisconsin constitutions and his obligations as an attorney,” Mandell continued. “He broke more rules than he followed, acting with complete indifference to election law, procedural norms, and the ethical obligations that bind attorneys. With this deal, Gableman stipulates that he misled courts, lied in public meetings, and violated government transparency laws.”

A Wisconsin Democracy Campaign poll finds nearly 90% of voters say they're concerned about the influence of money in politics. (Getty Images)

After an April  election that broke national  records for spending, Wisconsin voters are eager to see measures to rein in money in politics, a campaign finance watchdog group leader said Monday.

“It is an environment where billionaires are running the show and everyday people like you and me are here watching,” said Nick Ramos, executive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign. “We will continue to see unprecedented spending unless something changes from our Legislature and our lawmakers.”

The numbers that the organization posted Monday haven’t yet pierced the predicted $100 million threshold in the Supreme Court race, but final data won’t be compiled until the end of June. The Democracy Campaign focuses on the money actually spent, as distinct from what was raised or what was budgeted, said research director Sam DeForest-Davis.

As of Monday morning, the campaign for Judge Susan Crawford, who won the Court race, spent $22 million compared with the campaign for Judge Brad Schimel, which spent just under $10 million.

While the campaigns spent a combined $32 million, independent groups supporting the campaigns spent a combined $51 million. Schimel was the larger beneficiary of independent spending, with $33.5 million in his favor or opposing Crawford. Independent spending that favored Crawford or opposed Schimel totaled $18 million.

In the race for state superintendent, the two candidates’ campaigns — for  incumbent Jill Underly, who won, and for her challenger, Brittany Kinser — were just about even in their spending, with $1.3 million for Underly and $1.1 million for Kinser.

Independent spending, however, heavily favored Underly at $1.9 million. Independent spending for Kinser totaled $160,000.

Research director DeForest-Davis said the organization will have a final report in July on spending data, including spending on issue ads that don’t include explicit messages to vote for or against a candidate but are slanted to clearly favor one or the other. That information won’t be available until the end of June. 

Along with the campaign finance data released Monday, the Democracy Campaign released results from an opinion poll of Wisconsin voters on campaign finance.

The survey, of 861 voters conducted from Feb. 11-14, found that 88% of participants were “very concerned” or “extremely concerned” about the influence of money in politics.

“I have a hard time thinking of an issue that has this kind of universal feedback across the state,” Ramos said. “After seeing the gaudy amount of money that was spent in this Supreme Court race, I can only imagine that this number and this percentage are going to increase.”

Nearly as many — more than 85% — said “no” when asked if individuals or groups should be able to spend “unlimited amounts of money” to support political campaigns.  And 83% said there should be limits on how much campaigns can spend.

Nearly 74% said they would support a ban on campaign spending “by outside political action committees (PACs) that are not directly affiliated with a candidate’s campaign.” About 53% ranked spending by “dark money PACS who do not have to disclose their donors” as their greatest concern where the influence of money on politics is concerned.

Another question showed that so far publicly financed campaigns haven’t gained support from a majority of voters. Almost 47% said they would “strongly” or “somewhat” support such a proposal. Just under 30% said they would “somewhat” or “strongly” oppose public financing, while 23.5% said they were unsure.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

President Donald Trump is displayed on a television screen as traders work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange on April 7, 2025, in New York City.  (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Global markets plummeted Monday for the third consecutive trading day since President Donald Trump announced his “Liberation Day” tariffs — and the administration gave mixed signals on meeting other nations at the negotiating table.

U.S. stocks reacted positively to a short-lived, incorrect report amplified on social media that Trump may pause the tariffs for 90 days, but the market plunged quickly when the White House dismissed the claim as “FAKE NEWS.”

Any upward progress was erased upon Trump’s announcement that he planned to further punish China starting Wednesday.

At about 11:15 a.m. Eastern Trump threatened to raise tariffs on China a further 50% if the country does not back down on its retaliatory 34% tax on U.S. imports by Tuesday. If left unresolved, the latest U.S.-China trade war will hit American farmers, particularly soybean producers.

Writing on his platform Truth Social, Trump said “Additionally, all talks with China concerning their requested meetings with us will be terminated! Negotiations with other countries, which have also requested meetings, will begin taking place immediately.”

The administration maintains more than 50 countries have reached out to negotiate.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent wrote on X that Trump has tasked him to negotiate with Japan, which could face a 24% levy beginning Thursday.

“Japan remains among America’s closest allies, and I look forward to our upcoming productive engagement regarding tariffs, non-tariff trade barriers, currency issues, and government subsidies. I appreciate the Japanese government’s outreach and measured approach to this process,” Bessent wrote on the social media platform.

“China has chosen to isolate itself by retaliating and doubling down on previous negative behavior,” Bessent added.

European Union’s stance

Meanwhile, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said she has offered the U.S. zero-for-zero tariffs on industrial goods.

“But we are also prepared to respond through countermeasures and defend our interests,” von der Leyen said Monday at a press conference.

Trump slapped a 20% tax on goods from the EU, set to take effect Thursday, on top of 25% tariffs on steel and aluminum that began in mid-March. A 25% tariff on all foreign cars imported to the U.S. also launched Thursday.

The EU is poised to impose retaliatory duties on American products in response to the import taxes. The bloc of 27 nations is scheduled to vote Wednesday on a list of U.S. goods to be taxed at its borders.

When asked by reporters in the Oval Office Monday if the EU offer was enough to scale back the tariffs, Trump said “No, it’s not.”

Journalists had gathered in the Oval Office for Trump’s meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who visited to discuss Trump’s new 17% tax on his country’s imports.

Netanyahu promised to “eliminate” his country’s trade deficit with the U.S.

“We intend to do it very quickly. We think it’s the right thing to do and we’re going to also eliminate trade barriers, a variety of trade barriers that have been put up unnecessarily. And I think Israel can serve as a model for many countries who ought to do the same,” Netanyahu said.

When asked by reporters if he intends to lower the tariffs on Israel, Trump said, “Maybe not.”

“We give Israel billions of dollars a year,” he added.

The meeting was streamed on C-SPAN.

‘Let’s take the deal’

Two Republican senators publicly urged Trump on social media to take the EU offer.

Sen. Mike Lee of Utah wrote, “Let’s take that deal! Much to gain.”

“Totally agree,” Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin replied. “At some point you have to take YES for an answer.”

Another Senate Republican, Ted Cruz of Texas, has publicly criticized Trump’s steep levies on almost every nation around the globe.

A bipartisan effort to claw back power from the president’s near-unilateral authority to impose tariffs might not get far, despite the economic uncertainty unleashed since Trump unveiled his “Liberation Day” plan.

Legislation co-sponsored by Democrat Maria Cantwell of Washington and Republican Chuck Grassley of Iowa would require the president to notify lawmakers prior to new tariffs from the White House and limit the levies to a 60-day window unless Congress approves an extension.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota seemed to shut down the idea Monday, according to reporters on Capitol Hill.

“I don’t think that has a future. The president has indicated he will veto it. I don’t see how they get it to the floor on the House,” Thune told Politico.

A companion bill in the House is sponsored by Republican Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska.

Chances of House Speaker Mike Johnson bringing the bill to the floor are likely slim, as the Louisiana Republican supported Trump’s tariff unveiling in person last week.

Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Bradley. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)

Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Bradley said this week she’ll seek another 10-year term on the Court next year. 

Bradley’s announcement came just days after Dane County Judge Susan Crawford defeated Waukesha County Judge Brad Schimel by 10 points in the most expensive judicial campaign in U.S. history. Crawford’s victory gave the Court’s liberals control of the majority until at least 2028. Bradley told WisPolitics that she will run again to “ensure that there is a voice for the constitution and for the rule of law to preserve that in the state of Wisconsin.”

“I’m concerned for what an extremely radical court is going to do over the next three years, and I will be spending the next several weeks assessing what happened on Tuesday and figuring out a path to achieving a court that is not led by and dominated by the radical left, that gets back to deciding cases under the law and respecting the constitution,” Bradley said. 

Liberals have now won four of the last five state Supreme Court elections, all by double digits. The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported that appeals court judge and former Democratic lawmaker Chris Taylor is considering challenging Bradley in next year’s race. 

Schimel and former Justice Dan Kelly have lost the last three Supreme Court elections after arguing that their liberal opponents are partisan ideologues seeking to legislate from the bench.

Bradley was first appointed to the Court by Gov. Scott Walker in 2015 and elected to a full term in 2016. In recent years she’s been one of the Court’s most right-wing justices. 

In the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, she compared restrictions put in place to prevent the spread of the disease to the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II and she sided with President Donald Trump in his unsuccessful effort to have the Court throw out the results of the 2020 election. 

She has often written in her dissents against Court decisions about her belief that the liberal majority is acting politically and said the Court’s liberals are “pursuing a political agenda.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A view of the National Institutes of Health campus in Bethesda, Maryland, looking south beyond the Stokes Labs (Building 50) and Natcher Building (center) to the reflective façade of the National Library of Medicine (upper right). (Photo by National Institutes of Health)

WASHINGTON — A federal judge has issued a permanent injunction blocking the National Institutes of Health from implementing a policy that would cap the amount of funding research universities and medical schools receive for indirect costs.

The Friday ruling from Judge Angel Kelley of the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts came just hours after Trump administration lawyers asked her to convert the preliminary injunction issued in March to a permanent one.

The move will likely speed up the appeals process.

Kelley wrote in her previous 76-page decision that a preliminary injunction prevented the NIH from inflicting “immediate, devastating, and irreparable” harm on research institutions.

“First, the suspension of ongoing clinical trials and the resulting threats to patients’ lives represents a dire risk of a quintessentially irreparable nature. Second, the threats to non-human, yet still essential, research subjects similarly rings in irreparability,” Kelley wrote, referring to research animals. “Finally, the potential loss of human capital and talent to virtually every Plaintiff poses yet another harm incapable of run-of-the-mill legal relief.”

Kelley added the “Court is hard pressed to think of a loss more irreparable than the loss of a life, let alone the thousands of people who are counting on clinical trials as their last hope.”

The case began in February after the NIH announced it would cap Facilities and Administrative fees for every institution receiving a grant at 15%, a significantly lower threshold than many research universities and medical schools had negotiated over the years.

That led to three lawsuits — Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. National Institutes of Health, Association of American Medical Colleges v. National Institutes of Health and Association of American Universities v. Department of Health & Human Services — all of which are before Kelley.

Facilities and Administrative fees, also referred to as indirect costs, cover expenses that are not associated with one specific research project. They can include building construction or renovations, utility bills, salaries for administrative staff, and dozens of other line items. 

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

This story was updated at 4:34 p.m. Eastern.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court temporarily granted the Trump administration’s request Monday to block a lower court’s order to bring back to the United States a Maryland man who was erroneously deported to a notorious mega-prison in El Salvador.

The order from Chief Justice John Roberts that stays a lower court order “pending further order of The Chief Justice or of the Court” came hours after another appeals court upheld an order to return Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, of Beltsville, Maryland, to the United States.

Roberts’ order is not final, but pauses the lower court’s order to return Abrego Garcia while the justices reach a final decision on that order’s validity.

Abrego Garcia’s wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, told reporters Friday she hoped her husband would be returned to the U.S. by the midnight Monday deadline set by a federal judge.

The Trump administration made an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court on Monday, where U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that, despite the government’s admitted error in deporting Abrego Garcia, the lower court does not have the jurisdiction to order the Trump administration to return someone who the administration argues is no longer in U.S. custody.

The appeal to the high court came within minutes of an appeals court panel unanimously upholding the order by U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, who set a deadline of midnight Monday for the administration to return Abrego Garcia to the U.S.

Despite being granted legal protection from deportation by a judge in 2019, immigration officials detained Abrego Garcia and sent him on a March 15 deportation flight to El Salvador, where he was incarcerated at the notorious prison known as Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, or CECOT.

‘The government screwed up’

A panel of three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit agreed Abrego Garcia’s deportation to El Salvador was a major misstep.

“The United States Government has no legal authority to snatch a person who is lawfully present in the United States off the street and remove him from the country without due process,” two judges on the panel, Robert B. King and Stephanie D. Thacker, wrote.

King was appointed by former President Bill Clinton and Thacker was appointed by former President Barack Obama.

“The Government’s contention otherwise, and its argument that the federal courts are powerless to intervene, are unconscionable,” they wrote.

J. Harvie Wilkinson III, who was appointed by former President Ronald Reagan, wrote in his option that “[t]here is no question that the government screwed up here.”

He noted that President Donald Trump’s administration has not made an effort to rectify its mistake.

“The facts of this case thus present the potential for a disturbing loophole: namely that the government could whisk individuals to foreign prisons in violation of court orders and then contend, invoking its Article II powers, that it is no longer their custodian, and there is nothing that can be done. It takes no small amount of imagination to understand that this is a path of perfect lawlessness, one that courts cannot condone,” Wilkinson said.

Order to return

On Friday, Xinis ordered the Trump administration to return Abrego Garcia.

The Department of Justice quickly appealed the decision and Xinis issued a scathing 22-page order Sunday that cited records and official statements from Trump officials saying the administration has the power to return Abrego Garcia to the U.S.

“Neither the United States nor El Salvador have told anyone why he was returned to the very country to which he cannot return, or why he is detained at CECOT,” she wrote. “That silence is telling. As Defendants acknowledge, they had no legal authority to arrest him, no justification to detain him, and no grounds to send him to El Salvador—let alone deliver him into one of the most dangerous prisons in the Western Hemisphere.”

Abrego Garcia was on one of three deportation flights to CECOT on March 15. Two flights contained 238 Venezuelans who were deported under a wartime law that is currently being challenged in another court case.

Xinis slammed the Trump administration for arguing that she had no jurisdiction to order Abrego Garcia’s return.

“For the following reasons, their jurisdictional arguments fail as a matter of law,” she said. “Further, to avoid clear irreparable harm, and because equity and justice compels it, the Court grants the narrowest, daresay only, relief warranted: to order that Defendants return Abrego Garcia to the United States.”

She noted that the two countries have an agreement to house more than 250 deported men at CECOT.

The U.S. is paying El Salvador $6 million to detain the men at the prison. Trump is scheduled to meet with El Salvador President Nayib Bukele at the White House on April 14.

In response to the district court’s order to return Abrego Garcia, the president of El Salvador, Nayib Bukele, posted a GIF of a confused cartoon bunny on social media.

Attorney placed on leave

The Department of Justice attorney who argued on behalf of the Trump administration, Erez Reuveni, was placed on indefinite administrative leave over the weekend.

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said during a Fox News interview Sunday that Reuveni was placed on leave because he did not “vigorously” defend the administration.

Reuveni, a veteran government attorney, has argued for the DOJ over the course of four administrations.

During Friday’s hearing he was candid that the Trump administration had provided him little information on why Abrego Garcia could not be returned to the U.S. and that “the government made a choice here to produce no evidence.”

Volunteers and staff with Worker Justice Wisconsin pose with the group's banner after an action Friday to call attention to wage theft. (Wisconsin Examiner photo)

A Wisconsin group that helps workers who have experienced wage theft is broadening its tactics to address complaints of employer misconduct.

On Friday staff members of Worker Justice Wisconsin, along with a group of community supporters, showed up at a Middleton contractor’s office where a former employee demanded payment of unpaid overtime wages. 

The public action represents a new step for Worker Justice Wisconsin, according to executive director Rebecca Meier-Rao.

Based in Madison and supported by a group of churches and other religious bodies, Worker Justice Wisconsin has spent the last couple of decades assisting workers who don’t have unions with complaints about their treatment on the job.

For much of its existence the organization has worked one-on-one with individuals, helping them navigate the process of filing complaints with the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development (DWD) and other agencies.

“The prevalence of wage theft is astronomical,” Meier-Rao told the Wisconsin Examiner. She added that it’s a nationwide problem. “Every year just millions and millions of dollars are stolen from workers.”

People of color and immigrants are the most likely to be targets, she said. The organization does not discuss the immigration status of those who come to the group for help.

In 2024, the group enabled 103 workers to recover more than $328,000 in wages they were shorted by their employers, Meier-Rao said, but those successes represent “just a fraction” of the wage theft incidents that go on each year. The resolved wage theft cases in 2024 were just some of the 155 that Worker Justice Wisconsin opened that year, involving more than $531,000 in unpaid wages.

“I’m sure the actual amount of wage theft was much higher,” Meier-Rao said.

Not only do those cases  deprive people of their rightful earnings, they also cost government the taxes on those earnings, she said.

DWD investigates wage theft complaints and will calculate what is owed to an employee, but “there’s almost no teeth if the employer doesn’t pay,” she added. “That is not going to deter the problem from happening.”

While someone who steals from a store or a warehouse can be charged with theft, wage theft in Wisconsin “is treated not as a criminal offense but a civil offense,” Meier-Rao said.

Worker Justice Wisconsin’s tactics are evolving as it looks for new ways to address the issue. “We’ve been shifting from an advocacy organization to a worker power organization,” Meier-Rao said.

About a year ago the organization began planning to take public actions to call attention to the wage theft incidents it has investigated. The group developed leaders among the workers it has supported and began building a broader support group — a “rapid response network” that has enlisted 120 community members, union activists and other allies.

By directly confronting employers, Meier-Rao said, the organization wants to draw the attention of the public and policymakers to wage theft, encouraging them to enact tougher laws against the practice.

On Friday morning, Worker Justice Wisconsin organizer Robert Christl, Meier-Rao and a small crowd of the organization’s rapid-response volunteers drove up to the storefront of Stone Concepts in a Middleton industrial park.

They were there with Crescencio Albino, who worked for four years building and installing stone countertops at the home design and remodeling contractor.

Albino, who no longer works for the company, said that he had put in  extensive overtime hours, but was paid only his regular hourly wage, not the time-and-a-half premium required under state and federal laws. A DWD investigation determined he was owed $6,875 in unpaid premium wages for the last two years of overtime work.

Outside the Stone Concepts office, with Albino at his side, Christl spoke to an employee and asked if the owner was on site. The employer said he was not, and Christl asked him to convey a letter to the owner. The letter called for Albino to be paid in full within two weeks.

Gathering at the other end of the block afterward, Meier-Rao, Christl and Albino addressed supporters. Christl served as interpreter as Albino spoke in Spanish.

Albino said he pursued the case with DWD after trying several times to resolve the issue directly with the business. Despite the DWD’s finding, Albino said the business owner has still not paid him.

“The employer wanted to pay the money already owed to me with a payment plan of six months, which I rejected,” Albino said. “It’s hard for me to understand why, in such a clear cut situation, I have to go through this whole process to get what is mine.”

He added: “If I hadn’t honored my obligation, or if I had stolen from my boss, the consequences would have been immediate and severe, but it seems that when it’s workers like me who are affected, justice isn’t applied equally. This seems wrong to me.”

Meier-Rao told the group that the action and others like it were aimed at throwing a public spotlight on a problem that has long gone unnoticed.

“For more than two decades, we have helped hundreds of workers file claims with the Department of Workforce Development to [recoup] unpaid wages,” Meier-Rao said.

“Although we have had many successful individual cases, the harsh reality is that this approach does not change the system. No amount of complaints filed will put a stop to wage theft.”

To accomplish that, “we have to organize inside and outside the workplace,” Meier-Rao said. “We have to be public. We have to make noise. We have to build collective power. That is why it’s so important that you are all here today.”

Responding Saturday to an email inquiry the Wisconsin Examiner sent Friday to Stone Concepts, Andreia Nogueira wrote that “we are not refusing to make a payment. I am sending the payment to my lawyer.”

As of Sunday, Worker Justice Wisconsin had not received a response on behalf of the company, Meier-Rao said.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

People from across southeast Wisconsin gathered in the Wisconsin State Fair Park Exposition Center Friday. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner.)

People from across southeast Wisconsin gathered in the Wisconsin State Fair Park Exposition Center Friday to call on legislators to fund a range of priorities in the next state budget — from education to a new public safety building for Milwaukee to public transportation to child care.

The public hearing of the Joint Finance Committee was the second of four across the state this month. A hearing was also held in Kaukauna last week, and Republican and Democratic lawmakers on the committee agreed Friday morning that education funding was one of the top issues discussed. 

Committee co-chair Sen. Howard Marklein said at a press conference that funding for school districts and the fate of the Green Bay prison were two of the biggest issues discussed during the first hearing. He said lawmakers haven’t discussed any specifics yet when it comes to actions they may take on public school funding, adding that K-12 funding has historically been the No. 1 largest item in the budget and it’ll likely be that way in the future.

“We’re here to listen and input today may influence what we decide to do down the road,” Marklein said.

Co-chair Rep. Mark Born (R-Beaver Dam) added that the lawsuit over Gov. Tony Evers’ partial veto that extended increases in revenue limits — the cap on how much schools can bring in — for 400 years will play a role in the discussion. The case was heard by the Wisconsin Supreme Court last year, but a decision hasn’t been reached yet.

Lawmakers also have a $4 billion budget surplus that they will be considering as they write the budget in the coming months. 

During a separate press conference held by Democrats on the committee, Rep. Deb Andraca (D-Whitefish Bay) called attention to education funding, saying that lawmakers need to “stand up and fund education, particularly special education.” Andraca said lawmakers should adopt Gov. Tony Evers’ budget proposal, which would invest an additional $3 billion in K-12 education. 

“I’m looking forward to hearing more today from all the people at this public hearing about what their priorities are in the state budget. I certainly hope my Republican colleagues are listening and will follow our lead,” Andraca said. 

A focus on education at the hearings continued as members of the public started speaking on Friday.

School leaders and advocates emphasize dire situation

Three days before the town hall, voters approved 57 referendum requests and a total of $952 million in new funding through property tax hikes for Wisconsin school districts. This was an approval rate of about 58% of the nonrecurring operating referendum requests, 65% of requests for building costs and 20% of recurring requests, which contain increases across multiple years. 

While the successful results will help school districts meet costs in coming months, voters also denied over $640 million in requests from other districts, including for Kenosha Unified School District.

Kenosha school board member Todd Price said the failed referendum, which was a $115 million nonrecurring request for operational expenses, leaves the district of 18,500 students in 31 schools facing a $19 million fiscal deficit. 

“As we are frozen in what we can raise due to revenue caps, we needed to go to our local tax payers for approval of the money,” Price said. “Our aim was to keep our class sizes reasonable, vital programs intact like advanced placement programs… which are popular for students aiming to go to college, and we want to retain our staff.” 

KUSD Superintendent Jeff Weiss, who spoke alongside Price, told lawmakers that they have the power to “be a strong partner of public education.” He said the passage of Act 20, a 2023 law to change literacy education in the state is a recent example of lawmakers using that power. 

“I am asking you to do this in the area of finances,” Weiss said. “By raising the reimbursement for special education to 60%, KUSD will receive $13 million of spendable money. We are currently facing a $19 million budget shortfall. $13 million as well as raising the revenue limit… will go a very long way to helping prevent the district from having to seek an operational referendum in the coming year.”

Weiss emphasized that the resources needed to pursue a referendum are “immense.” He said the district held four town halls, 20 small meetings, and five interviews with TV and radio stations in a six-week period ahead of Election Day. 

“This is not how I want to spend our time in the school district,” Weiss said. “I would much rather be using that time to increase student learning and improve our educational program.”

Swallow School District Superintendent Jill Ries said that the small district in Waukesha County has a history of being fiscally responsible, a trait that has helped it weather the “storm” caused by the state’s funding formula.

“We can no longer weather the storm, and we are facing a multi-million-dollar deficit in the future. We have reached the fiscal cliff. We can choose to have barebones public education, but is that what we want our state to become?” Ries asked.

Ries also called on lawmakers to increase revenue limits and at a minimum increase the special education reimbursement to 60%. 

Zachary Geiger, a physics teacher at Greendale High School, also voiced his support for Evers’ budget request, telling lawmakers that teachers have been trying to accomplish more teaching and learning with fewer resources for the last decade and a half. He said this is catching up with the district, which has had to go to referendum and recently had to cut an engineering course for the first time in 12 years.

“Instead of supporting students in pursuit of their futures and responding to the needs of the industries in Wisconsin, this course was cut with many others to reduce costs in order to balance a budget dependent on insufficient funding from the state,” Geiger said. “Please fund public education.”

The tension between public schools’ financial challenges and the growing costs of the state’s school voucher programs was also on display at the hearing.

Glendale River Hills School Board President Carla Pennington-Cross called on lawmakers to stop using school boards as a “laundering service” by sending an increasing amount of taxpayer money to private schools that don’t have “equal accountability, equal transparency and equal legal obligation” to students. 

Pennington-Cross called on lawmakers to increase per pupil funding to keep up with inflation. 

“Your long-term failure to do so means that my district has lost more than $3 million in real spending power since 2009 under your revenue limits,” Pennington-Cross said. 

Pennington-Cross called attention to the significant increases that voucher schools received in the last budget cycle. She also spoke to the disparity between the rate that public schools are reimbursed for special education costs and the rate that private and charter voucher schools receive. 

“In the past year public schools were reimbursed for only 32% of special ed costs, while private schools received 90%. Why are students with disabilities worth less when they go to public schools? They should get the same financial support from the state regardless of their school choice,” Pennington-Cross said. “Your funding model causes people to blame kids with disabilities for budget shortfalls in public schools, reinforcing stigma and discrimination. It is unconscionable.” 

Choice advocates appreciative of last investments, seeking more 

Advocates for more state funding for the charter and private schools that participate in the state’s voucher programs were also out in full force. 

“I’m grateful for the opportunity to express my heartfelt thanks for the additional funding for school choice. Your decision has made an incredible difference for families like mine,” one parent of a student at Living Word Lutheran High School in Jackson said.

In the last state budget, lawmakers implemented the largest increase for the school voucher program in Wisconsin history. The change increased payments for schools at a minimum by 18% and at most by 44%. 

Many of the parents who testified for school vouchers wore matching bright green “Parent Power” t-shirts. A group of about 75 parents were organized to attend the listening session by the City Forward Collective, a Milwaukee-based organization that advocates for school choice. 

Executive director of City Forward Collective Colleston Morgan told the Wisconsin Examiner that the last budget was an example of state leaders moving past “partisan rancor” to take action, something he is hoping they’ll be able to do again.

“We saw the Legislature come together on a package that in our understanding benefited everybody — increases in the low revenue ceiling, lifting of the revenue limits and, yes, a significant increase for students in charter and private schools,” Morgan said. “Nobody got everything they needed… but everybody got something.” 

Morgan said that there were many participating charter and private schools that were “in existential crisis” during that cycle, and the historic increase to the program helped stabilize the situation. He said many schools have been able to increase staff pay. 

“There’s still more work to do, but we’re not today talking about schools on the precipice of closing like we were two years ago,” Morgan said. 

Morgan said his group wanted to attend to express thanks and encourage legislators to continue to work in a bipartisan way to get more accomplished, including raising the special education reimbursement rate, lifting the low revenue ceiling and putting additional funding into the voucher program. 

Milwaukee leaders on their goals for next budget

Local leaders who spoke at the hearing included Milwaukee Mayor Cavalier Johnson, who thanked lawmakers for their work last session to secure an increased sales tax in the city. He said the investments in the last budget show that “working together and investing in Milwaukee benefits all of us because a strong Milwaukee means a strong Wisconsin.”

Johnson called on lawmakers to invest in young people in the next state budget, including by increasing funding for Milwaukee’s Earn & Learn program, a summer employment program where youth can gain experience working with local businesses, nonprofits, community and faith-based organizations. He also called on lawmakers to support Evers’ proposal for investing in 4-year-old kindergarten and increasing state funding for special education and child care.

“It’s our responsibility to ensure that the youngest residents here and young families have the support they need to start off on the right foot as they enter school and the workforce,” Johnson said.

Sarah Kazell, an advocate with Wisconsin Early Childhood Action Needed (WECAN), is attending all the budget listening sessions.

“Child care is a public good and without public investment, it just dwindles and dies in the private market, which is what we are seeing,” Kazell said. “We cannot find teachers willing to do a really essential, really high-skilled, high-stress job for $14 an hour, which is the average pay in my field. I’m personally making $12.50 an hour to take care of eight children.”

Evers has requested the state place $480 million towards the Child Care Counts program, which gives facilities funds to help pay staff without raising costs for parents. However, the program, which has been funded with federal money, is quickly approaching the end of those funds. 

“We need at the minimum to make the investment that’s in the governor’s budget for child care, but that’s honestly just a starting point to be able to stabilize the field,” Kazell said. 

Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley said the “most important” investment for public safety would be to fund the removal and replacement of the Public Safety building. 

“We have steered clear of a fiscal cliff. We kept the Brewers in Milwaukee, we shared the burden of funding important services and investments with some of our region’s most urgent issues being addressed,” he said, listing accomplishments in the last budget cycle. Now, he added, it’s time to focus on the “generational impact that we can have in our community on public safety.” 

Crowley said that the removal and the replacement of the Milwaukee County Public Safety building, which was built in 1929, would cost $495 million. Milwaukee County has requested $250 million for the project from the state. According to the capital budget, due to the integrated nature of the county’s Courthouse Complex, the Historic Courthouse and Criminal Justice Facility will need to be renovated in addition to the new Public Safety building. 

Evers’ budget proposal included $25 million for the project — a tenth of their request.

“Many of you have seen this crumbling, unsafe and inefficient facility firsthand and that’s why, in order to improve outcomes for all, strong partnerships will be key in this endeavor,” Crowley said. 

Crowley said almost 80% of Milwaukee County’s property tax levy is dedicated to state-mandated services and the county has invested an additional $70 million in state-mandated public safety services over the last five years. 

“The cost continues to rise and outpace our revenues and challenges our ability to continue funding these critical services and make any additional investments in local priorities like transportation, mental health, [services for children ages] birth-to-3,” Crowley said. “That’s why a partnership with the state is essential.” 

Milwaukee County Sheriff Denita Ball expanded on the request to replace the deteriorating building that houses the jail.

Ball said the current set-up of the building, which places victims, family members, visitors and defendants together, has created tension and resulted in 852 security incidents that required a response from the sheriff’s office in 2024.

“It is not sustainable to continue working as we have, and it is not fair to those who come in contact with our justice system,” Ball said. “In order to address the significant safety concerns and preserve the comfortability of core operations, funding from the state of Wisconsin will be critical.”

Other public hearings will be held in Hayward and Wausau during the last week of April.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

'The incompetence and lack of qualifications of some MPS staff put our children in harm’s way, and this is the result of decades of intentional neglect from state policymakers who starve public schools of the resources needed to keep them safe and functional.' | Getty Images

I am a proud parent of a first grader in Milwaukee Public Schools. We are an open enrollment family, meaning that even though we don’t live in the district, we choose to send our kids to MPS because we love our public school’s mission, curriculum, and teachers. But right now, my daughter’s school is closed. Not because of a snowstorm or a spring break, but because the building is so contaminated with lead that it is undergoing emergency remediation. 

As we work to unravel how deep the lead problem goes and how we’re going to fix it, we know that two things are true: 1) the incompetence and lack of qualifications of some MPS staff has put our children in harm’s way, and 2) this is the result of decades of intentional neglect from state policymakers who starve public schools of the resources needed to keep them safe and functional. While there’s blame to go around within the school system, it extends far beyond Milwaukee—all the way to the statehouse.

But let’s take a step back for a moment: imagine a thriving community garden. Lush with fruits and veggies, it’s a vibrant hub of cooperation. Gardeners, volunteers, and neighbors work side by side, cultivating a space that nourishes the entire community. 

And now, imagine a group of lawmakers find out about this garden and see it not for what it provides to the community, but as an opportunity for political favors. They want it. But they can’t take it outright—not yet. So instead they sabotage it, slowly and methodically.

First, they put limits on water usage. Next, they dilute the fertilizer. Then, they restrict access to tools, making it harder for the gardeners to do their work. As the plants begin to wither, the weeds take over. The once-thriving garden now appears neglected and struggling, despite the community doing their best with what they’ve been given. 

Then, the lawmakers point the finger at the very people who have been desperately trying to keep the garden alive. “You’re failing.” they say. 

And with that, they present their “solution.” “This garden can’t be saved,” they declare. “It’s time to give this land to someone who can do something with it.”

So they sell the land to a private company—one that rips out the plants and paves over the garden to install a private- pay parking lot. The community is locked out, the public loses, and the private company profits. “It’s better for everyone this way,” the lawmakers insist, knowing full well who really benefits.

But they aren’t done yet. In return for their part in the heist, they collect their rewards—  campaign donations, future job offers. A shared community resource is gone, transformed into private gain.

This is what’s happening to Milwaukee Public Schools.

Most MPS parents love and appreciate so much about our own public schools for the vibrant, nurturing communities they are—and for all they could be with the right support. But for years, some lawmakers in Madison have been quietly undermining our public education system — capping resources, limiting access and restricting funding. They’ve been misrepresenting outdated formulas to intentionally starve our public schools, making it harder for teachers and administrators to provide the quality education our kids deserve. Milwaukee voters recently passed a big referendum because people in the community want to support our schools. The news about poor financial reporting that followed that successful referendum drive was extremely discouraging. But problems with school administration pale in comparison to the impossible conditions the state has created for our schools. When they inevitably struggle under those conditions (frustrating every singe one of us) the same lawmakers who have been withholding funds shake their heads and blame the administrators and educators who have been forced to do more with less.

What happens next? They argue that public schools have failed and insist that privatization is the only answer. They push to divert public funds into private hands — voucher schools, for-profit education corporations and other institutions that lack the transparency and accountability of public education, but promise big profits for those in power.

They spout platitudes about how much they care about improving education, but they have had every chance to help us nourish our gardens and have resisted at every turn. We cannot let them gaslight us into dismantling a public good for private enrichment and turning our children’s future into a business model that benefits the few at the expense of the many.

Because here’s the truth: Our public schools are not failing. They are being sabotaged. There are some powerful Madison lawmakers who are forcing our school administrators to choose between things like fixing peeling paint in classrooms or hiring a new teacher, all so they can have someone to blame– when in reality, they themselves are the ones who have failed to provide enough for our kids to thrive in all the ways they deserve. They’ve been playing us for a long con, but we’re onto them. 

We must demand true nourishment and resources for our public schools. We must reject the false narrative of “failure” that is being used to justify their destruction. And we must hold lawmakers accountable for the choices they make—because our children’s education should never be for sale.

This year, Madison lawmakers will decide how resources are allocated to our schools through the state budget process. The State Joint Finance Committee is currently holding public listening sessions on the budget. They need to hear from all of us what our kids need and deserve. We must work together to ensure our public schools– where so much of our kids’ childhoods happen– are deeply nourished for the good of us all.  

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., is pictured on Feb. 25, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Republicans, in the early morning hours Saturday, approved their budget resolution that will aid the party in maintaining the 2017 tax cuts but also paves the way for them to add nearly $6 trillion to the deficit under an outside analysis.

The 51-48 vote sends the compromise measure to the House, where Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., hopes to adopt the tax-and-spending blueprint within the next week. No Democrats backed the bill and no Democratic amendments were accepted during an overnight marathon voting session.

Maine Sen. Susan Collins and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul were the only two Republicans who voted against the resolution, which needed only a majority vote under the complicated process being used in the Senate.

The lengthy voting session, known as the vote-a-rama, included debate on 28 amendments, with one adopted.

Alaska Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan was the only member of either party to have their change agreed to, following a 51-48 vote. His amendment addressed Medicaid, which has become a flash point in the battle over the budget this year, as well as Medicare.

Sullivan said his proposal would strengthen Medicaid, the state-federal health program for lower-income people that House GOP lawmakers are looking at as one place to cut spending, and Medicare, the health insurance program for seniors and some people with disabilities.

“We should all want to weed out waste, fraud and abuse in Medicaid and Medicare, and we must keep these programs going. We should do both,” Sullivan said.

Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden spoke against the amendment, saying it didn’t clearly define which “vulnerable people” would have their access to Medicare and Medicaid protected.

“By not defining the vulnerable, the Sullivan amendment is code for states to cut benefits or kick people off their coverage altogether,” Wyden said. “To me, the Sullivan amendment basically says if somebody thinks you’re not poor enough, you’re not sick enough, or you’re not disabled enough, we’re not going to be there for you.”

Democrats unsuccessfully offered messaging amendments dealing with everything from Social Security phone service to the minimum wage to contracts with farmers.

‘Start the game’

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said during a floor speech Friday the budget resolution will clear the way for lawmakers to extend the 2017 tax cuts permanently, bolster federal spending on border security and defense, rewrite energy policy and cut spending.

“The resolution opens up that process that will be done by the House and Senate authorizing committees,” Graham said. “So this doesn’t do anything other than start the game and it’s time this game started.”

Wyden, ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee, vehemently opposed the budget resolution, saying the tax cuts it sets up would predominantly help the wealthy.

Wyden argued the tariffs that President Donald Trump has instituted would negate any potential positive impacts of the upcoming GOP tax cuts. The tariffs sent markets diving on Friday for a second day in a row.

“People following along at home are going to hear a lot of sweet-sounding promises from Republicans about what they’re trying to accomplish,” Wyden said. “They claim their tax bill is just all unicorns and rainbows. They’ll say everybody is going to benefit from a tax cut and typical families will get the help they need. They’ll promise rising wages and a booming economy.

“It’s just not true. The reality is, unless you’re way out at the upper end of the income scale, any benefit you get from this Republican bill is going to get blown out of the water as the Trump tariffs continue to hike inflation.”

Paul said during floor debate that he was “concerned” about how his colleagues had written the measure.

“What worries me is that so many things in Washington are smoke and mirrors,” Paul said. “On the one hand, it appears as if all of this great savings is happening. But on the other hand, the resolution before us will increase the debt by $5 trillion.”

Paul offered an amendment that would have changed those instructions to set up a three-month debt limit extension, but it was not agreed to following a vote of 5-94.

Framework for tax hikes and policy bill

Congress’ budget isn’t a bill but a concurrent resolution, meaning it never goes to the president for a signature. Its various provisions take effect once both chambers vote to adopt the same version.

The budget resolution also doesn’t include any real money, just plans for the next decade.

But it does lay the groundwork for the GOP to use the complex reconciliation process to extend the 2017 tax law, much of which was set to expire at the end of this year.

Republicans plan to use that reconciliation bill to boost spending on border security and defense by hundreds of billions of dollars and make changes to energy policy.

The budget resolution also includes instructions to raise the debt limit by between $4 and $5 trillion later this year.

The reconciliation instructions give a dozen House committees and 10 Senate committees targets for how much they can increase the deficit or how much they need to cut spending when they draft their pieces of the package.

All of those panels are supposed to send their bills to the Budget committees before May 9, so they can be bundled together in one package and sent to the floor.

The House GOP set a minimum of $1.5 trillion in spending cuts, while Republicans in the Senate set a floor of $4 billion in funding reductions. Those vast differences foreshadow an internal GOP struggle to achieve a final deal.

Nearly $6 trillion deficit increase

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office will ultimately calculate the deficit impact of the reconciliation bill once it’s written, but several outside organizations have said they disagree with how Republicans are moving forward. 

The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget released an analysis Friday showing the reconciliation bill would increase deficits during the next decade by nearly $6 trillion.

“A $5.8 trillion deficit-increasing bill would be unprecedented,” CRFB’s analysis states. “It would add 14 times as much to the deficit than the bipartisan infrastructure law ($400 billion), more than three times as much as American Rescue Plan ($1.8 trillion), three times the 2020 CARES Act ($1.7 trillion), and nearly four times the original score of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ($1.5 trillion). In fact, it would add more to the deficit than all four of these major laws combined.”

Sharon Parrott, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning think tank, wrote in a statement “the tax cuts called for in the budget plan are so expensive that deficits will rise substantially, raising economic risks associated with higher debt in service to expensive tax cuts skewed to the wealthy.”

“Policymakers need to course-correct and remember their campaign pledges to help ease families’ strained budgets, not contort the budget to the desires of the very wealthy,” Parrott wrote. “That would mean crafting a budget bill that doesn’t raise families’ health and grocery costs but instead invests in making health care more affordable and expands the Child Tax Credit to support families who face challenges affording the basics. These investments and lower deficits can be achieved by a sounder tax policy that requires corporations and the wealthy — who benefit enormously from public investments — to pay their fair share.”

An analysis from The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, called the GOP budget resolution a “fiscal train wreck.”

Romina Boccia, director of budget and entitlement policy, and Dominik Lett, a budget and entitlement policy analyst, wrote that Republicans need to start over.

“This budget isn’t just a missed opportunity; it actively worsens our nation’s debt trajectory,” they wrote. “The resolution abandons the House’s concrete spending reductions desperately needed in today’s high-debt environment, sets a dangerous precedent by adopting a so-called current policy baseline that hides the very real deficit impact of extending tax cuts, and adds hundreds of billions in new deficit spending. The Senate should go back to the drawing b

A man holds the Ukrainian and U.S. flags at a ceremony at the Holodomor Genocide Memorial in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 4, 2025, as the three-year anniversary of the Russian invasion neared. The memorial honors victims of a famine in Ukraine in 1932-33. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Unknown numbers of Ukrainians received emails by mistake from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security saying their humanitarian protected status was being revoked and they would have to leave the United States within days, the agency said Friday.

“A message was sent in error to some Ukrainians under the U4U program. The U4U parole program has not been terminated,” a DHS spokesperson told States Newsroom, referring to the Uniting for Ukraine program.

Attorneys challenging the Trump administration’s pause of humanitarian applications for Ukrainians and Afghans, as well as the end of legal status programs for nationals from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela, filed a copy of the termination notice sent to Ukrainians in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts on Friday.

The notice, given on Thursday, instructs any Ukrainians in the Uniting for Ukraine humanitarian parole program to leave the U.S. within seven days of receiving the notice, according to court filings. 

“It is time for you to leave the United States,” according to the notice sent to some Ukrainians that immigration rights groups filed in court. “If you do not depart the United States immediately you will be subject to potential law enforcement actions that will result in your removal from the United States — unless you have otherwise obtained a lawful basis to remain here.”

The next hearing is set for Monday before U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama.

‘Numerous reports’ of erroneous emails

“Plaintiffs’ counsel have received numerous reports throughout the day today that other Ukrainian members of the putative class—potentially thousands—have received an identical letter, including individuals with approximately two years left on their parole period,” according to the brief by Justice Action Center, an immigrant rights group.

According to the brief filed Friday, attorneys with the Justice Action Center notified the Department of Justice attorneys handling the case. The lawyers said the response from those DOJ attorneys was “to say that they ‘have been looking into this’ but ‘don’t have any information to share yet.’”

The Biden administration’s renewed work and deportation protections for 103,700 Ukrainians are set to expire on Oct. 19, 2026.

Trump and Zelenskyy

In late February, President Donald Trump got into a heated exchange with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a meeting at the White House, breaking with Ukraine and its resistance to Russia’s invasion more than three years ago.

Former President Joe Biden’s administration created temporary protections for Ukrainians because of Russia’s invasion of the country.

Trump’s history with Ukraine, which was at the center of his first impeachment when he halted security aid approved by Congress, and his friendly relationship with Russian leader Vladimir Putin, have moved the U.S. further away from European allies who have coalesced around Ukraine’s fight for its democracy.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt in early March denied that the Trump administration was revoking protections for Ukrainians.

“The truth: no decision has been made at this time,” Leavitt wrote on social media.

Madison Hands Off protest on April 5, 2025. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Thousands of Wisconsinites joined rallies in Madison, Milwaukee and Green Bay Saturday, taking part in a national day of action with simultaneous events in more than 1,200 cities across all 50 states, according to the organizers of the “Hands Off!” The protests targeted President Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and the Trump administration’s deep cuts to federal funding for health care, science, the Social Security administration, education and other public goods. Indivisible, one of more than 150 participating civil rights, labor, LGBTQ and other groups, put out a statement saying the rallies were an effort “to let Trump and Musk know they can’t intimidate us into submission.”

In Madison, a massive crowd filled the lawns, sidewalks and streets on the State Street corner of the Wisconsin State Capitol, then marched the one-mile stretch to Library Mall on the University of Wisconsin campus. Organizers estimated more than 10,000 people participated.

Madison residents Jason and Aubrey, who declined to give their last names, said they were looking for a community with like-minded people. “We can be angry but it’s also fun to be out with people and it’s important to have joy in your life,” Aubrey said. She said she is concerned with rising income inequality and billionaires having control over social media and society.

“I’m scared for democracy and for the people I love who are going to be targeted by [Trump’s] immigration policies, his hatred of LGBTQ+ people. I felt kind of powerless and I think just being out here protesting, being in a really welcoming community — it’s what I can do right now,” Jason said. 

“Our next few years will be tough,” Charlene Bechen, a leader with the Oregon Wisconsin Area Progressives said. “MAGA leaders will launch attack after attack, perpetuate outrage after outrage, commit injustice after injustice with the goal of keeping us disoriented, demoralized and demobilized. We cannot allow that.” 

A ‘Forward’ band played several songs in the time leading up to the official start of the rally at noon. One of the band members — seen holding the megaphone — told rallygoers that they were there to “express our outrage at our current political situation.” 

“We’ve got some songs for you. You know what helps sometimes when you’re scared and you’re angry — dancing,” he said.  

Jim from Mazomanie said his chainsaw with “Hand Off” written on it was getting a little heavy, but it was fun to bring some smiles to faces. He said it represented “Elon Musk and his idiocy,” and said that Musk has “worn out his welcome in Wisconsin.”

“If we didn’t produce Tuesday,” Jim said, referring to the state Supreme Court election, in which liberal candidate Susan Crawford defeated Brad Schimel, whom Musk supported by pouring more than $25 million into the race, “[it] would be a whole different deal.” 

Luis Velasquez, an organizer for Voces de la Frontera, highlighted the attacks against immigrants by the Trump administration and the issue of local law enforcement being pushed to assist with deportation efforts by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Velasquez told the crowd that he is a DACA recipient whose parents brought him to the U.S. as a child from El Salvador, but that no pathway to citizenship exists for him. 

“I’m proud of being an immigrant myself and we know that there are plenty of good stories… stories that have been ignored and abandoned that have been systematically discarded,” Velasquez said. “Here in this space today, we can say that migration is beautiful, and that here is our home for the millions of immigrants who have been here in the U.S.” 

Milwaukee protest

In Milwaukee, organizers estimated 5,000 people gathered in front of the Federal Building as police blocked the road. Democratic U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore told the crowd “I feel like I’ve been born again,” and compared the protest to the civil rights marches of the 1960s.  “We fought for voting rights back then. We fought for health care rights then. We fought for the right for our elders to live in decency. We fought for educational opportunity. And guess what y’all, when we fought, we won. And that’s one of the things that… that’s the good news. Right now we’re fighting, and we are winning.”

The Trump administration, Moore told the crowd, is “actively trying to dismantle Medicaid.” Next week, as the Republicans move to push through their budget reconciliation bill with steep cuts to programs, they need to hear from the public, she said.  

Christine Neumann-Ortiz, executive director of the immigrant workers’ rights group Voces de la Frontera, told the crowd, “This administration has made it clear from the beginning that they are taking a page from the fascist playbook, and treating immigrants as the scapegoat for the economic hardship that they are causing. They are trying to desensitize us to their cruelty, and to the humanity of others.”

Neumann-Ortiz talked about recent ICE arrests inside the Milwaukee County Courthouse, and called on county leaders to make the courthouse a safe zone from ICE arrests. “People will be afraid to come to the courthouse if that is not a protected zone,” she said. “And we know that these local fights are our frontline battles.” This is “where we have the most power” she added, saying it is imperative to win local struggles.

Calling out Trump administration detentions of political activists and deportations without due process to a notorious prison in El Salvador, Neumann Ortiz said,  “I know you’re as clear as I am that this is not just what they are doing to immigrants. They are paving a path, because that’s what they want to do to us.”

Cesar Hernandez of Voces spoke in support of unions and attacked Trump’s claim that undocumented immigrants are a drain on the U.S. economy. “In 2022 alone, undocumented folks contributed $2.2 trillion to our economy, not to mention paying $96.7 billion (with a ‘B’) in federal, state, and local taxes.” 

Community activist Vaun Mayes told the crowd, “Right now food pantries for the poor and in need are losing funding in cities like this one right here, where food deserts are prominent.” Social Security and health care are being gutted “in front of our eyes,” he said. He denounced the erasure of Black history in schools and the rise of white supremacist ideology. “Fight back we will. Defend one another we shall,” Mayes declared. “… ‘cause we are the true patriots. And we seek a new day and a place for all Americans in this nation to thrive.”

Green Bay protest

In Green Bay an estimated 1,500 demonstrators gathered at Leicht Park with signs  protesting tariffs, the stock market crash, and Trump administration downsizing of federal agencies, threats to Medicaid and cuts to education.

The Milwaukee County Courthouse. (Photo | Isiah Holmes)

Two people have been arrested at the Milwaukee County Courthouse by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, the sheriff’s office said Friday. Although the Milwaukee County Sheriffs Office (MCSO) was aware of the first arrest, the office states that it was not given advance notice of the second arrest. MCSO stressed in a statement that it did not participate in either arrest, and that it’s “not uncommon for local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies to search available databases for upcoming court hearings of individuals they are seeking.” 

MCSO has not responded to a request for more details. A spokesperson for ICE said the agency was unable to confirm the arrests without additional information about the specific targets. Fears of immigration operations have been heightened since President Donald Trump announced that the government would pursue mass deportations. ICE has made hundreds of arrests in recent months, including of people who were not convicted of any  crime and activists who participated in  protests on college campuses. 

Local groups and officials are condemning the arrests at the courthouse. Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley said that the courthouse “stands as a cornerstone of justice where residents come to seek information, resources and fair participation in the legal process.” Crowley said 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.” Crowley called on local leaders to protect Milwaukee’s institutions, as well as due process for people in the judicial process. 

Tim Muth, senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Wisconsin, said in a statement that “such actions create fear among immigrant members of our community coming to the courthouse to seek justice as crime victims or witnesses.”  Muth added, “Research by the ACLU has shown that when ICE is known to be active in courthouses, members of the immigrant community are less likely to report crimes, less likely to cooperate with police and prosecutors, and less likely to make their court appearances. Our communities become less safe as a consequence.” 

In 2017, according to the ACLU’s “Freezing Out Justice” report, a survey sample of police officers reported that immigrants appeared less likely to report crimes after immigration operations conducted during Trump’s first term. Crime victims and witnesses were reluctant to assist police due to the fear of being deported. Legal service providers who worked with immigrant communities also reported encountering that victims chose to stay in abusive or dangerous situations rather than expose themselves to ICE operations. 

Muth and the ACLU call on the Milwaukee County court system and sheriff’s office to prevent similar actions in the future. “The last thing we want is to interfere with the legal process or sow doubt in those summoned to the courthouse about whether or not they will receive fair, impartial justice,” said Crowley. “I will continue working with our partners across the county and state to maintain safety and justice for all.”

The Milwaukee Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression also condemned the arrests. “We take this to be a sign of heightened racist and political repression against immigrants,” the Alliance said in a statement. “Furthermore, we are concerned by the Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Office acceptance of these arrests, stating that it’s not uncommon practice for agencies to access databases of people scheduled to appear before court. There is already very little trust with the MCSO, and now people have to fear for their safety inside the courthouse?”

The activist group, which has called for civilian oversight of law enforcement in Milwaukee County, stressed that people use the courthouse for all sorts of reasons, most of which are not related to criminal activity. “With today’s arrests, there is a further stigma placed on immigrants who enter the courthouse, making them feel even more criminalized,” the Alliance said in a statement. “We need city and county officials like the Sheriff to take a clear stance against ICE operating in Milwaukee. Sheriff [Denita] Ball has the authority to not collaborate with ICE, but this is a sign that she may very well choose to do so.” 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The James H. Shannon Building on the NIH campus in Bethesda, Maryland. (Photo by  Lydia Polimeni, National Institutes of Health)

Sixteen states with Democratic attorneys general sued the National Institutes of Health on Friday, claiming the agency has purposefully delayed and disrupted medical research grant awards and terminated grants that had already been issued.

In an 82-page complaint that names Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and NIH Director Jayanta Bhattacharya as defendants, the attorneys general said since President Donald Trump retook office, NIH has delayed the review approvable process for grants that should have been awarded.

The agency has refused to pay for multi-year grants that were approved under previous administrations, citing disagreements over race and gender issues, the suit filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts says.

Massachusetts, California, Maryland, Washington, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Wisconsin filed the suit.

NIH work ‘in jeopardy’

The attorneys general in those states praised the NIH as “the crown jewel” of health research that has fueled medical breakthroughs and spurred economic growth across the country.

“That critical work is now in jeopardy,” they wrote. “By law, NIH provides much of its support for scientific research and training in the form of grants to outside institutions. Since January, however, the current Administration has engaged in a concerted, and multi-pronged effort to disrupt NIH’s grants.”

Starting last month, NIH sent “hundreds of letters” to research institutions in the states canceling grants that had already been issued. The institutions were told the grants “no longer effectuate… agency priorities,” according to the complaint.

Those cancellations stem from three executive orders Trump signed on his first day back in office targeting diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives and recognition of transgender people. Agency leaders followed up with directives to pause related grants.

The letters to research institutions declare “the grant in question has been terminated because of some connection to ‘DEI,’ ‘transgender issues,’ “vaccine hesitancy,” or another topic disfavored by the current Administration,” the attorneys general wrote.

HHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday.

Yet another legal battle

The department is also facing a suit from a wider group of Democratic states over the cancellation of other grants that were initially issued during the COVID-19 pandemic. Those states say the department overrode extensions of the grants and rescinded $11 billion in funding that has led to layoffs and work stoppages.

A federal judge on Thursday ordered those grants to be temporarily restored as the case unfolds.

(Photo: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement)

Four county sheriffs in Wisconsin have signed agreements with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in recent months stating they’ll cooperate with the federal agency on immigration enforcement actions. 

Since March, Washington, Waupaca, Winnebago and Wood counties have signed onto ICE’s Warrant Service Officer program, which authorizes sheriff’s deputies to serve immigration warrants against undocumented immigrants in the county jail, according to an updated ICE list of participating agencies across the country. 

These four counties have joined eight others that already had existing agreements with the agency prior to the inauguration of President Donald Trump. 

In January, Tim Muth, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Wisconsin, told the Wisconsin Examiner these agreements were a method the Trump administration would use to find allies in its effort to deport millions of undocumented people. 

“What they do indicate is which are the counties who have already raised their hands and said, ‘we are happy to assist with deporting people from the state,’ and I anticipate that the Trump administration is going to start with that list and say ‘we know who our allies are in this in the state of Wisconsin,’” Muth said. “Let’s see if one: We can get more allies signing these agreements, and, two: For the ones who already have, let’s see what we can do to get them more active in this area.”

Immigrant rights advocates say the pre-existing agreements with ICE were hardly used under President Joe Biden, but under Trump they can be used to deport any undocumented person in the jail, even if they’re there for a low-level offense or before they can defend themselves in court against the charges they’re accused of. 

Republicans in the Wisconsin Legislature have been pushing for more county sheriffs to participate in these types of programs, authoring a bill that would require counties to verify the citizenship status of people in custody for a felony offense and notify ICE if citizenship cannot be verified. It would also require sheriffs to comply with detainers and administrative warrants received from the federal Department of Homeland Security for people held in the county jail for a criminal offense.

Under the proposed legislation, counties that don’t comply would lose 15% of their shared revenue payments from the state in the next year. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Sal Miranda (C) and Tony Chang of the nonprofit GRID Alternatives install no-cost solar panels on the rooftop of a low-income household on October 19, 2023, in Pomona, California. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — A multibillion-dollar Environmental Protection Agency program designed to spur investment in energy-efficiency improvements nationwide is tied up in a legal battle that threatens to upend planned projects across the United States focused on affordable housing, the adoption of electric vehicles and more.

The EPA last month said it was terminating grants tied to the $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, a program Congress created as part of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, “based on substantial concerns regarding… program integrity, the award process, programmatic fraud, waste, and abuse, and misalignment with agency’s priorities.” President Joe Biden signed the act into law.

Funds had already been dispersed into awardees’ bank accounts at Citibank as part of the program.

But the Trump administration, according to a document shared related to the lawsuit, directed Citi to freeze activity on those accounts. As a result, organizations around the country either already awarded money or in advanced talks to obtain funding are unable to access capital for planned projects.

The projects run the gamut, focusing on anything from installing energy-efficient technology in affordable housing units with the aim of lowering residents’ utility bills to adding solar panels to schools.

“There will be … very real capacity constraints if the funding is frozen indefinitely,” said Kari Groth Swan, executive director of the Minnesota Climate Innovation Finance Authority, a state body that finances clean-energy projects.

Groth Swan’s organization was awarded $25 million from the Coalition for Green Capital, one of the groups allocated funding from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.

Seeding energy-efficiency projects

The goal of the fund is to catalyze investment in energy-efficiency technology and other initiatives to reduce greenhouse gases.

“We loan it out, we get it back, we do it again,” Groth Swan said. “It acts like a revolving loan fund.”

The Minnesota Climate Innovation Finance Authority is one of many betting on funding from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to help get these projects off the ground. Organizations have been relying on this money to further pad much larger funding pools that include capital from outside investors.

In Minnesota, for example, the $25 million the Minnesota Climate Innovation Finance Authority was awarded from the federal program makes up about one-fifth of the capital Groth Swan is planning to go toward a host of projects.

They include making an old school that’s being turned into a workforce development site more energy efficient and putting solar and storage technology on schools in north Minneapolis to keep the lights on during severe weather, according to Groth Swan.

Her organization also plans to loan money to an ice hockey arena for a new electric cooling system so it can stop using a toxin the EPA wants ice rinks to get rid of, she said.

Suit to unfreeze funds

The Minnesota Climate Innovation Finance Authority is one of several organizations that last month sued both the EPA and Citibank over the freezing of money from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.

The fund drew ire from Republicans long before President Donald Trump’s return to the White House. Democrats, who held majorities in both chambers of Congress and the White House in 2022, passed the law creating the program without any Republicans supporting it.

After Trump’s return to office, his EPA said it was terminating $20 billion in grants from the fund, and recipients sued to retain the funding.

A federal judge last month ruled that Citibank couldn’t move any of the federal funding in question out of the accounts, stating that the agency hadn’t provided “credible evidence” that there was “waste, fraud, or abuse” associated with the grant agreements.

When an attorney for the Department of Justice was asked in court last month whether he could provide evidence that the law had been violated through conflicts of interest or fraud, the attorney said he did not have that. The attorneys listed as representing the EPA didn’t respond to a request for comment and an EPA spokesperson said in an email that it doesn’t comment on pending litigation.

The court on April 2 held a hearing over the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, but a judge has yet to hand down a ruling.

Citibank did keep the money in awardees’ accounts, said Brooke Durham, a spokesperson for Climate United, one of the funding awardees and plaintiffs in the lawsuit. But one thing Durham and others expressed concern about is the uncertainty surrounding the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund money affecting other investors in these projects.

“There are a lot of people counting on these investments across the field all the way from developers to community lenders to private capital,” Durham said.

Citibank declined to comment.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, on the same day the judge issued a temporary restraining order, addressed the Greenhouse Reduction Fund in a post on the social media platform X, alleging the grants were “riddled with self-dealing and wasteful spending.”

“I will not rest until these hard-earned taxpayer dollars are returned to the U.S. Treasury,” he said in the post.

A letter from the EPA to the agency’s inspector general last month raised concerns with the structure of the grant awards and bank account agreements and alleged that a grant awarded to a Biden official’s former employer violated conflict-of-interest standards.

Seeking alternatives

The temporary restraining order hasn’t stopped potential funding recipients from trying to find alternative funding to keep their projects going.

Megan Lasch, owner and president of Texas-based affordable housing organization firm O-SDA Industries, said her organization was going through the process to get $4 million in funding from one of the groups already given funding from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund for a $30 million affordable housing renovation in southwest Fort Worth.

The project is focused on renovating 116 homes, most of which are two and three-bedroom units. Lasch’s company is aiming to lower residents’ utility bills by installing things like energy-efficient light fixtures and more efficient heating and air-conditioning systems.

“It’s really important dollars that a lot of developers, real estate professionals are utilizing in their capital stack to help create and preserve affordable housing,” Lasch said.

Lasch said her firm called in a favor from another nonprofit organization as a “Hail Mary” to get a loan to fill a potential void from the federal money O-SDA was counting on, but the plan is to pay the organization back. She’s not optimistic other projects will be able to move ahead without the federal funding, though, she said.

“I think there’s going to be several developments that just don’t happen because there’s not another source that can get some of these deals done now,” she said.

Rising costs for consumers

Similarly to Lasch, Homewise, a housing-focused developer and financial firm based in New Mexico, was also working on procuring money from different programs under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and had moved forward in the due diligence process, according to deputy CEO Johanna Gilligan.

Gilligan said she hopes that either the state or philanthropic organizations could step in to help fill the funding void.

Homewise’s plan is to use the money for a program to help low- to moderate-income homeowners in big cities like Albuquerque and Santa Fe reduce their utility expenses by undertaking energy-efficiency upgrades, she said.

As part of that program, Homewise sends representatives out to people’s houses to help them understand where they’re losing energy and how they could lower their costs. That person might explain what tax credits or rebates people can use, Gilligan said. She described the program as “a one-stop shop for energy-efficiency improvements” and said the goal of the organization is to make these processes simpler for everyday people to understand.

“That’s the real loss here,” she said. “For working-class people and those who are contributing significantly to the economy, often … this change makes it harder to help those folks to in turn be able to improve their homes and save money on their bills.”

Robert Sheppard, the co-founder of Vital Housing, an affordable housing investment firm that does work in the Pacific Northwest, said his firm was awarded a 3% interest loan from one of the organizations awarded funding from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. The plan is to use the $1.5 million loan to reduce carbon emissions and energy use in an affordable housing project in Portland, Oregon, to limit residents’ utility costs.

“We don’t have a source to replace the financing at this point,” said Sheppard, who has raised a total of $24 million for the project. Without the federal funding, residents would see higher energy costs, he said.

“We would not do the work that is scheduled to be done, which would leave carbon exposure and maintain energy costs at a level that is above where it should be for the residents and the building,” he said.

Dollars aside, some of the recipients of the federal money expressed concern that even if the funds do become available for withdrawal again, the agency’s posture toward the program could still be problematic for them.

“We can win the battle of getting the funds unfrozen but we still (have) to make sure that we have a(n) EPA that understands the value of our mission and our mandate,” Minnesota’s Groth Swan said.

Protestors outside the U.S. District Court of Maryland in Greenbelt rally 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)

GREENBELT, MARYLAND — A federal judge in Maryland Friday ordered the Trump administration to return a national from El Salvador by April 7 who was erroneously deported to a notorious prison in El Salvador, despite an order blocking such removal.

The ruling from U.S. District Court of Maryland Judge Paula Xinis sets up a fight with the Trump administration. Officials have admitted the deportation of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia of Beltsville, Maryland, was a mistake, but have stood by their actions.

The case could also mean that the more than 250 Venezuelan men in a separate case who were removed under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 without due process can be returned to the U.S. 

Cheers could be heard outside the courthouse after the order, as dozens of protestors waited for the decision.

Hours later, the Department of Justice appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit.

‘It was unconstitutional’

Xinis, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, said “there is no evidence to hold” Abrego Garcia at the notorious prison Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, known as CECOT, and even noted his March 12 arrest by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement had no basis for removal.

“That means from the moment he was seized, it was unconstitutional,” Xinis said.

The attorney representing the Department of Justice, Erez Reuveni, said the Trump administration is not challenging the merits of the case and the only argument it has is that the Maryland court lacks jurisdiction because Abrego Garcia is in the custody of El Salvador.

Xinis pressed on what grounds Abrego Garcia was removed to the prison.

Reuveni said he has no idea and was not given any information from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

She asked why Abrego Garcia could not be returned to the United States, which is what his family was seeking in Friday’s preliminary injunction hearing.

Reuveni said that he has asked officials that same question, and has not received an answer that is “satisfactory.”

Reuveni made one request to the court, that Xinis give the administration of President Donald Trump 24 hours to try to rectify the situation.

U.S. paying $6 million

Attorneys for Abrego Garcia are not only asking for him to be returned, but for the Trump administration to cease payments to the mega-prison for his detainment. The White House has stated it’s paying the government of El Salvador $6 million to detain nearly 300 men.

Reuveni said because Abrego Garcia is in custody in El Salvador, he is no longer in U.S. custody and therefore cannot be retrieved.

Xinis pushed back on that argument, noting that the U.S. and El Salvador have a contract to detain the men at the prison.

Reuveni said that it’s not a contract the U.S. and El Salvador have.

Simon Y. Sandoval-Moshenberg, the attorney for Abrego Garcia, contended that “there is significant coordination between the two governments.”

He noted that Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has filmed herself while visiting CECOT and Secretary of State Marco Rubio has a close relationship with El Salvador President Nayib Bukele.

Xinis said to Reuveni that because the U.S. is paying El Salvador $6 million to detain the men, “I can draw the logical argument that the U.S. is the payer.”

She asked Reuveni if he has any evidence to show her that contradicts that knowledge.

“The government made a choice here to produce no evidence,” Reuveni said.

Wartime law invoked

On March 15, three deportation flights left for El Salvador with two planes carrying Venezuelans removed under the wartime law and a third plane that carried nationals from El Salvador, including Abrego Garcia.

A 2019 order from an immigration judge deemed that Abrego Garcia should be removed from the U.S. However, he was granted protection because it was more “likely than not that he would be persecuted by gangs in El Salvador” if he were returned, according to court documents.

Attorneys for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement could have challenged that decision, but did not. Instead, Abrego Garcia was required to check in with ICE every year, including earlier this year.

When Abrego Garcia was driving his 5-year-old son home on March 12, he was pulled over by ICE and informed that his “status had changed,” and was quickly transferred to a detention center in Texas. Within three days he was on a plane to CECOT, despite the order barring his removal to El Salvador.

Xinis asked Reuveni under what authority Abrego Garcia was removed and he said he didn’t know. All he was given was a declaration by ICE Acting Field Office Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations Robert L. Cerna, he said.

“This was an oversight, and the removal was carried out in good faith based on the existence of a final order of removal and Abrego-Garcia’s purported membership in MS-13,” Cerna wrote in a Monday court filing.

Xinis said if the government could not cite what legal authority he was being removed under, “then there is no basis to have seized him in the first place. That’s how I’m looking at it.”

ICE and the Department of Justice have admitted the removal was an “administrative error,” but the Trump administration has stood by its decision.

White House gets involved

Vice President J.D. Vance wrote on social media, without evidence, that Abrego Garcia was a convicted member of the MS-13 gang and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt this week echoed Vance.

“The administration maintains the position that this individual who was deported to El Salvador and will not be returning to our country was a member of the brutal and vicious MS-13 gang,” Leavitt said.

Because of those comments by Leavitt, Sandoval-Moshenberg asked the judge to “keep the government on a tight leash.”

Abrego Garcia does not have a criminal record in the U.S., El Salvador or anywhere else, Sandoval-Moshenberg has stated.

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.

"We remain confident Wisconsin schools and the DPI are in full compliance with the law," DPI Superintendent Jill Underly said in a statement. Underly at a rally in February. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction is reviewing a request by the Trump administration that state education agencies ensure they aren’t using diversity, equity and inclusion programs — or risk losing federal funding. 

According to WisPolitics, state Superintendent Jill Underly said the agency is looking at the U.S. Department of Education’s “justification and authority to request sign off from Wisconsin schools on the federal agency’s political beliefs.” 

“Now more than ever, Wisconsin’s students, educators and schools need support – not threats of federal funding cuts that are vital to their success,” Underly said in a statement. “As we stated in February, we remain confident Wisconsin schools and the DPI are in full compliance with the law and remain committed to providing the best education possible for our students.”

In a letter, the Department of Education said that state agencies need to certify their compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the responsibilities outlined in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard — the landmark Supreme Court decision that said race-based programs in higher education violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and effectively ended consideration of race in admissions programs. 

“Federal financial assistance is a privilege, not a right,” Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Craig Trainor said in a statement. “When state education commissioners accept federal funds, they agree to abide by federal antidiscrimination requirements. Unfortunately, we have seen too many schools flout or outright violate these obligations, including by using DEI programs to discriminate against one group of Americans to favor another based on identity characteristics in clear violation of Title VI.” 

The request comes as a part of President Donald Trump’s ongoing attack on DEI efforts across the country.

State agencies were given 10 days to collect certification from local education agencies and respond, according to the release. 

Underly, who was reelected to a second term this week, also urged state lawmakers Wednesday to invest in Wisconsin’s public schools amid the threat of funding cuts by the federal government.

“An unprecedented number of our school districts have been forced to turn to referenda, asking their communities to raise property taxes just to compensate for the state’s underfunding. On top of that, the Trump administration’s reckless cuts threaten the critical federal funding that Wisconsin schools depend on,” Underly said at a public hearing held by the Legislature’s Joint Finance Committee in Kaukana. Underly was not invited for an agency briefing before the committee, so she traveled to deliver her message at the public hearing.

Her requests for state investment include increasing the state’s special education reimbursement for schools, funding universal free school meals and investing in mental health supports for students.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Harmeet Dhillon,  confirmed on April 3, 2025, as President Donald Trump's nominee for assistant attorney general for civil rights, prepares for her confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill on Feb. 26, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The Senate cleared two more of President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice nominees Thursday, installing another attorney who defended Trump last year and a new lead on civil rights who has drawn intense criticism from advocacy groups.

The Senate confirmed California lawyer Harmeet Dhillon in a 52-45 vote to the role of assistant attorney general, heading up the agency’s Civil Rights Division, one of the largest at Justice. Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski was the only Republican to oppose the nomination.

Dhillon, a Trump legal adviser and the managing partner at Dhillon Law Group in San Francisco, specializes in commercial litigation, employment law, First Amendment rights and election law matters, according to the biography on her firm’s website.

Dhillon is also the CEO and founder of the Center for American Liberty, which states its mission as “defending the civil liberties of Americans left behind by civil rights legacy organizations.”

Dhillon previously sat on the ACLU Northern California board and defended members of the Sikh community, to which her family belongs, from attacks after 9/11, according to reporting from San Francisco-based KQED-FM.

But Dhillon also has a trail of controversies, including repeatedly denying the 2020 presidential election results and fueling conspiracies following the 2022 attack on Paul Pelosi, husband of then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat.

Civil rights advocates also point to her recent legal work challenging voting and transgender rights.

“She’s not out there to protect the rights of all of us, and that’s what her record has demonstrated,” Lena Zwarensteyn, of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, told States Newsroom Thursday.

In an eight-page letter to senators, led by the Leadership Conference and signed by dozens of advocacy groups, the coalition wrote Dhillon has “relentlessly tried to limit access to the ballot box” and “denied, diminished and tried to erase” the existence of transgender youth.

States Newsroom reached out to the White House for comment.

Former Missouri AG elevated

The Senate also confirmed in a party-line vote, 52-45, Dean Sauer, former Missouri solicitor general and Trump’s defense lawyer, to lead government litigation.

After representing Trump’s presidential immunity argument before the U.S. Supreme Court last year, Sauer will now argue before the high bench on the DOJ’s behalf.

Sauer made headlines in January 2024 when he suggested to a three-judge panel for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals that a president might be shielded by presidential immunity for ordering SEAL Team Six to assassinate a rival. 

Children engaged in sensory exercises, often used in special education classrooms. (Photo by Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — As President Donald Trump takes drastic steps to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education, disability advocates are worried about whether the agency can carry out its responsibilities to serve students with disabilities.

Representatives of several disability advocacy groups cited “chaos,” “fear” and “uncertainty” in describing the situation to States Newsroom. They said there’s a lack of clarity about both proposed changes within the realm of special education services and the impact overall of sweeping shifts at the agency, calling into question whether the department can deliver on its congressionally mandated guarantees for students with disabilities.

“It’s only been a few weeks since these things started happening, so I don’t think we’re seeing any of the effects trickle down right now, but we do have parents reaching out to us, calling and feeling really scared,” said Robyn Linscott, director of education and family policy at The Arc of the United States, an advocacy group for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

Among the department’s chief responsibilities is guaranteeing a free public education for students with disabilities through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA, and enforcing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, part of which bars programs and activities receiving federal funding from discrimination on the basis of disability.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act was enacted in 1975 under a different title and later renamed in 1990.

IDEA “governs how states and public agencies provide early intervention, special education, and related services” to students with disabilities, per the department.

The department notes that before the 1975 law, “many children were denied access to education and opportunities to learn” and in 1970, “U.S. schools educated only one in five children with disabilities.” 

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, 15% of all public school students in the country received services through IDEA during the 2022-2023 school year.

In fiscal year 2024, $15.4 billion was appropriated for IDEA.

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 states that: “No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States … shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

Closing the department

Trump signed an executive order in March that called on Education Secretary Linda McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure” of the agency to the maximum extent she’s permitted to by law.

The department also announced earlier that month that it would be slashing more than 1,300 positions through a “reduction in force,” or RIF effort, sparking widespread concerns about how the department could deliver on its core functions.

For special education services, advocates question significant cuts to units like the Office for Civil Rights, which is tasked with investigating discrimination complaints, including those that are disability-based.

Linscott said parents are asking questions such as: “‘What does this mean? Is my child still going to be able to have an (Individualized Education Program)? Is the state going to be required to uphold the IDEA? Or, I have a pending complaint with (the Office for Civil Rights), what does this mean for how long it’s going to take to settle this case or to investigate this claim?’”

Heather Eckner, director of statewide education at the Autism Alliance of Michigan, said it’s been “all-consuming” trying to keep up with what she calls a “chaos factory,” noting that it’s a lot of work for advocacy groups and policy analysts “to try to sort through and figure out what’s real, what’s actually happening, what might happen, and where the impact might be.”

“Ultimately, this is just having a significant destabilizing effect,” said Eckner, whose statewide organization focuses on expanding opportunities for people with autism.

Moving special education services to HHS

That uncertainty also stems from Trump’s announcement in March that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services “will be handling special needs.”

The proposal sparked concern and confusion among disability advocates, both for what that transfer would look like and the legality of the proposed move. 

The president offered little detail into the proposal, but HHS secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said on social media that the agency is “fully prepared” to take on that responsibility.

Meanwhile, HHS is witnessing its own drastic changes and restructuring, including beginning to lay off 10,000 workers — further calling into question how that agency could take on the Education Department’s special education services.

In response to a request for comment, HHS directed States Newsroom to Kennedy’s social media post regarding the proposed transfer but did not provide any further details.

“We have a lot of concerns over both the legality of that, but also just what that means for kind of how we view the education of students with disabilities in general, and how do we view disability in this country, and then what those actual implications on students are,” Linscott said. 

Jennifer Coco, interim executive director at the Center for Learner Equity, told States Newsroom that any move to separate the education of students with disabilities from the education of all students “further pathologizes disability and is treating 15% of all the children in our public school buildings like they’re medical issues — they’re not.”

“They are students who learn differently, a vast majority of whom could learn at the same grade level as their peers if they were provided appropriate instruction,” said Coco, whose national nonprofit focuses on ensuring students with disabilities have access to quality educational opportunities, including public school choice.

Any transfer of responsibility for these federal laws, such as IDEA, would require an act of Congress — a significant undertaking given that at least 60 votes are needed to break through the Senate’s filibuster and Republicans, with their narrow majority, hold just 53 seats.

The Education Department told States Newsroom that no action has been taken to move federally mandated programs out of the agency at this time.

“As President Trump and Secretary McMahon have made clear, sunsetting the Department of Education will be done in partnership with Congress and national and state leaders to ensure all statutorily required programs are managed responsibly and where they best serve students and families,” Madi Biedermann, a spokesperson for the department, said in a statement shared with States Newsroom.