Children at the Growing Tree child care in New Glarus. Wisconsin is one of only six states that doesn't put any money into early childhood education. (Photo by Kate Rindy)

Children are born into this world innocent. They did not choose their parents. They did not choose to be born into poverty. They do not get to choose if a parent is addicted to drugs or alcohol. Children do not get a choice to be born into an environment of neglect. Children do not choose to grow up in a home with violence. Children do not get a choice to be abused or assaulted. Children do not choose to be born with a disability. Children do not get to choose if they can access medical care. Children do not get a choice on whether they are even wanted or loved. 

Adults do have choices. In Wisconsin, we  have chosen to have a state where children are the largest demographic living in poverty. We have chosen to allow some children to live with constant hunger. We have chosen not to support children with disabilities. We are still choosing not  to create systems to support children who have experienced adversity like abuse and neglect. We made the choice to create an education system based on the income of the people living in the community. We choose to allow children to be uncared for. We as a community have made these choices deliberately and without shame. 

Consequently, we have chosen for those children to be  less likely to graduate from high school, more likely to fail at a job, have poor health (which is connected to stress in the early years) and to be statistically more likely to be placed in the prison system. 

We, as a state, have chosen to prioritize funding for  prisons and spend nothing on early care and education, one of only six states that don’t invest a penny in early childhood programs, even though we know that when children have access to quality early education that they are more likely to graduate high school, have higher incomes, be healthier, and are less likely to enter the prison system. We have chosen to remove health care options for children by not expanding Badgercare. We are soon to be the only state that does not provide postpartum Medicaid, risking the lives of new mothers and  increasing the likelihood that children will have to grow up without them. We have decided that children with disabilities will receive services not based on their actual needs, but based on the budget  for special education, which our state keeps at the barest minimum. 

We have chosen to make the word “welfare” into a bad word. Welfare by definition is the health, happiness and fortunes of a person or group. And we have chosen to deny the health, happiness and fortune of children in our state. Referring to a bipartisan push for Medicaid expansion to cover postpartum care, Assembly Speaker Robin Vos has said he  “cannot imagine supporting an expansion of welfare.” Why is providing welfare to support the health and wellbeing of children or anyone for that matter a negative concept? Why are we so afraid that if we support people in need  that it somehow takes away from us? For example, why would providing children with free lunches at school be a bad thing to do? Why would ensuring that children have access to medical care regardless of whether their parents can afford it or not be bad to do? Why would ensuring that children have access to quality care and education in their early years, regardless of their parents’ income, be a bad thing? Why would ensuring that children with disabilities have access to the services they need be bad? Why is it wrong  to have systems in our state that ensure we are doing everything we can to give all children the best opportunities to grow, thrive and become productive members of our communities? 

Rep. Vos and Joint Finance Committee co-chairs Sen.Howard Marklein (R-Spring Green), and Rep. Mark Born (R-Beaver Dam) all disagree with creating and funding policies that support our children. Time and time again, they have voted down policies that would have provided support to children. They have continued to forgo our future by not investing in our children. Instead,  they invest in the wealthiest in our state and invest in our punitive prison systems. They invest in large businesses with expensive lobbyists who demand tax breaks and deregulation. They invest in those most likely to donate to their campaigns. These grown-up white men cannot stand the idea of anyone, even a child, getting help from the state. If they had to pay for school lunch, they figure, so should  everyone else. If they had to pay for their child’s medical visit, then so should everyone else. If they had to pay for child care, then so should everyone else. They are incapable of seeing past their privileges. They cannot appreciate what it is like to be a child born into an environment that causes  harm and the trajectory that puts the child on. However, they will certainly be there when that child becomes an adult and enters the prison system. They are more than willing to pay for incarceration and punishment. 

That’s not just financially irresponsible — we spend about four times as much to keep someone in prison as we spend on education —  it’s inhumane, and it impoverishes our state and condemns children to unnecessary suffering and a bleak future.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Negotiations on the state budget between Gov. Tony Evers and Republican lawmakers broke down on Wednesday. Evers delivers his 2025 state budget address. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Republican lawmakers are planning to move forward on writing the two-year state budget without input from across the aisle after negotiations with Gov. Tony Evers broke down on Wednesday. 

Senate and Assembly leaders and Evers each released statements on Wednesday in the early evening saying that while negotiations have been in good faith, they are ending for now after meetings late on Tuesday evening and on Wednesday morning. Evers said Republicans were walking away from the talks after being unwilling to compromise, while Republicans said Evers’ requests weren’t reasonable.

“Both sides of these negotiations worked to find compromise and do what is best for the state of Wisconsin,” Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R-Oostburg) and Joint Finance Committee co-chair Sen. Howard Marklein (R-Spring Green) said in a statement. “However, we have reached a point where Governor Evers’ spending priorities have extended beyond what taxpayers can afford.” 

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) and Rep. Mark Born (R-Beaver Dam) left the possibility of future negotiations open in a separate statement.

“Assembly Republicans remain open to discussions with Governor Evers in hopes of finding areas of agreement, however after meeting until late last night and again this morning, it appears the two sides remain far apart,” the lawmakers said. 

Vos and Born said JFC will continue “using our long-established practices to craft a state budget that contains meaningful tax relief and responsible spending levels with the goal of finishing on time.” 

In previous sessions this has meant that the Republican committee throws out all of Evers’ proposals, writes the budget itself, passes it with minimal Democratic support and sends the bill to Evers — who has often signed it with many (sometimes controversial) partial vetoes. 

LeMahieu and Marklein noted that the Republican-led committee has created budgets in the last three legislative sessions that Evers has signed and they are “confident” lawmakers will pass a “responsible budget” this session that Evers will sign.

Lawmakers have less than a month before the state’s June 30 budget deadline. If a new budget isn’t approved and signed into law by then, the state will continue to operate under the current budget. 

Evers said in a statement that he is disappointed Republicans are deciding to write the budget without Democratic support.

“The concept of compromise is simple — everyone gets something they want, and no one gets everything they want,” Evers said. He added that he told lawmakers that he would support their half of priorities, including their top tax cut proposals, even though they were similar to ones he previously vetoed, but he wanted agreements from them as well.

“Unfortunately, Republicans couldn’t agree to support the top priorities in my half of the deal, which included meaningful investments for K-12 schools, to continue Child Care Counts to help lower the cost of child care for working families and to prevent further campus closures and layoffs at our UW System,” Evers said.  

“We’ve spent months trying to have real, productive conversations with Republican lawmakers in hopes of finding compromise and passing a state budget that everyone could support — and that, most importantly, delivers for the people of Wisconsin. I am admittedly disappointed that Republican lawmakers aren’t willing to reach consensus and common ground and have decided to move forward without bipartisan support instead.”

Democratic leaders said that Republicans are refusing to make investments in the areas that Wisconsinites want. 

Assembly Minority Leader Greta Neubauer (D-Racine) and Senate Minority Leader Dianne Hesselbein (D-Middleton) said in a joint statement that it’s disappointing Republicans are walking away from negotiations. 

“The people of Wisconsin have a reasonable expectation that their elected leaders will work together to produce a state budget that prioritizes what matters most: lowering costs for families and investing in public education,” the lawmakers said. “This decision creates yet more uncertainty in a difficult time. Democrats will continue to stand up for all Wisconsinites and work to move Wisconsin forward through the budget process.”

Democrats on the budget committee accused Republicans of giving in to the “extremist wing of their party” by walking away from the negotiations and not committing to “fully funding our public schools, preventing the closure of child care centers, or meeting the healthcare needs of Wisconsinites.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

New Nissan cars are driven onto a rail car to be transported from an automobile processing terminal located at the Port of Los Angeles on April 3, 2024, in Wilmington, California.  Tariffs are being levied by President Donald Trump on most foreign vehicles and auto parts.  (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s tariffs would decrease the deficit over the next decade but overall shrink the U.S. economy and raise costs for consumers, according to a Congressional Budget Office analysis released Wednesday.

Tariffs are paid to the U.S. government by domestic companies and purchasers who buy goods from abroad.

The nonpartisan CBO found that tariffs would reduce the nation’s primary deficit by $2.5 trillion from now until 2035, plus an additional $500 million saved from avoiding even more mounting interest payments on the U.S. debt.

But the office also found that tariffs would slow down the U.S. economy over the same time, in part by affecting behavior in the private sector.

For example, businesses may pull back from investment and growth when faced with higher costs. The CBO, the official financial scorekeeper for Congress, estimates that Trump’s tariffs, as they stand now, would lower the U.S. gross domestic product, or the total value of a country’s goods and services, on average by 0.6% per year through 2035. 

In addition to increasing costs on supplies and other assets businesses use in production, the tariffs are expected to raise prices on consumer goods in the next couple years. The CBO projects the price index used to measure personal consumption will be 0.9% higher by the end of 2026.

While lower-income households spend a higher percentage of their income on consumer goods, the CBO projects that prices will increase the most on goods like home appliances and vehicles more likely to be purchased by higher earners.

The eight-page analysis only takes into account the effects of Trump’s tariffs as of May 13. These include the following taxes calculated on the value of imports: a baseline 10% on goods from most countries; a base of 30% on all goods from China and Hong Kong; 25% on most foreign vehicles and auto parts; 25% on steel and aluminum; and 25% on certain goods from Canada and Mexico.

The CBO released the figures in response to a request from U.S. Senate Democrats wanting to know the cost of the administration’s import taxes.

The report did not take into account any tariff changes after May 13, including Trump’s doubling to 50% the import taxes on steel and aluminum. The report also did not factor in changes that could result from a May 29 trade court decision striking down most of Trump’s tariffs — though an appeals court swiftly left them in place while the case plays out. 

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

WASHINGTON — The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released detailed analysis Wednesday showing Republicans’ “big, beautiful bill” would increase federal deficits by $2.4 trillion during the next decade.

CBO projects that if enacted as written, the legislation would result in 10.9 million people losing access to health insurance by 2034, a number that includes “1.4 million people without verified citizenship, nationality, or satisfactory immigration status who would no longer be covered in state-only funded programs in 2034.”

The score is the most up-to-date analysis by Congress’ official scorekeeper on how the sweeping tax and spending cuts package the House approved last month will impact the federal budget in the years ahead.

Republicans have been highly critical of the CBO’s assessment of the legislation’s real-world impacts, arguing that keeping tax rates as they are now, instead of letting them rise at the end of the year when the 2017 GOP tax law expires, will boost economic growth.

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., lambasted the CBO during a press conference shortly after the report came out, arguing its economic growth projections haven’t been completely accurate.

“This bill will actually reduce the deficit, if you recognize the historical economic growth that has always been there,” Scalise said. “To say you’re going to get 1.8% growth. At a minimum, we think you can get 2.5 to 4% growth. Scott Bessent, the Treasury secretary, says over 4% economic growth. So I get that we’ve got to play by the rules of the referee, but the referee has been wrong.”

During the last decade, U.S. growth only surpassed 3% during one year, according to data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Gross domestic product growth measured 2.5% in 2014, 2.9% in 2015, 1.8% in 2016, 2.5% in 2017, 3% in 2018, 2.6% in 2019, -2.2% in 2020 during the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic, 6.1% in 2021, 2.5% in 2022, 2.9% in 2023 and 2.8% in 2024. 

White House budget director Russ Vought posted on social media that the CBO score “confirms what we knew about the bill at House passage.”

“The bill REDUCES deficits by $1.4 trillion over ten years when you adjust for CBO’s one big gimmick–not using a realistic current policy baseline,” Vought wrote. “It includes $1.7 trillion in mandatory savings, the most in history. If you care about deficits and debt, this bill dramatically improves the fiscal picture.”

Disagreement over the ‘big beautiful bill’

GOP lawmakers have also sought to brush aside criticism from some of their own members, including Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul and Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, who both argue the legislation must cut spending more to reduce the federal deficit in the long run.

Billionaire and former Trump administration staffer Elon Musk has also become increasingly vocal about his opposition to the package, writing on social media this week that the “massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination.”

The House voted mostly along party lines in May to send the sweeping spending and tax cuts package to the Senate, which is expected to debate and amend the legislation in the weeks ahead.

CBO’s analysis will likely inform some of that conversation, and help senators better understand how the policy changes proposed by their House colleagues would affect state government budgets and the communities they represent. 

The CBO previously shared analysis of each of the 11 bills that make up the package, but those didn’t reflect several changes GOP House leaders made just hours before the floor vote in that chamber.

Updated numbers

The updated projections show Republicans’ plan to extend the 2017 tax law and make other tweaks to tax policy would increase the deficit by $3.754 trillion during the next decade. That increase to the deficit caused by the tax changes, which CBO has also found would decrease resources for low-income families over the next decade while increasing resources for top earners, would be partly offset by spending reductions on certain programs.

The Armed Services Committee’s bill would increase deficits by $144 billion, more than the $100 billion ceiling Republicans envisioned in the budget outline that was supposed to set guardrails on the package. Homeland Security’s provisions would increase deficits by $79 billion. And the Judiciary Committee’s language would increase deficits by $9 billion during the 10-year budget window.

The section of the package drafted by the Energy and Commerce Committee, which would make substantial changes to Medicaid and several other programs within the panel’s jurisdiction, would decrease spending by $1.086 trillion during the 10-year budget window.

The panel’s bill has four subcategories: energy, environment, communications and health. The health provisions, which include substantial changes to Medicaid, would reduce federal spending by $902 billion between 2025 and 2034.

Language barring Medicaid from covering gender transition procedures for anyone in the state-federal health program would reduce federal spending by $2.6 billion during the next decade.

Requiring some people on Medicaid to work, participate in community service or attend educational programs for at least 80 hours a month would reduce federal spending by $344 billion during the next 10 years.

Blocking any Medicaid funding from going to Planned Parenthood would cut federal costs by $261 million during the 10-year budget window. Federal law already bars health care programs like Medicaid from covering abortions unless the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, or it endangers the life of the woman.

Separate analysis from CBO, released later Wednesday, projects that 7.8 million people would lose access to Medicaid because of the policy changes laid out in the House GOP bill. Another 2.3 million would lose access to health insurance due to changes to tax policy and 1.3 million people would no longer be able to purchase health insurance through the Affordable Care Act marketplace.

CBO estimates that about 500,000 people would be impacted by interactions among the various health care policy changes. That number, subtracted from the numbers of those who would lose access, leads  to a total of 10.9 million people losing access to health insurance by 2034.  

Democratic criticism

Energy and Commerce Committee ranking member Frank Pallone Jr., a New Jersey Democrat, wrote in a statement that it’s “shocking House Republicans rushed to vote on this bill without an accounting from CBO on the millions of people who will lose their health care or the trillions of dollars it would add to the national (deficit).

“The truth is Republican leaders raced to pass this bill under cover of night because they didn’t want the American people or even their own members to know about its catastrophic consequences.”

The Agriculture Committee’s provisions, including pushing off some of the cost of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to states, would reduce federal spending by $238 billion during the next decade.

The Education and Workforce Committee’s language would decrease federal spending by $349 billion. The Financial Services section of the package would reduce federal spending by $5 billion. Natural Resources would lower spending by $18 billion. And Transportation and Infrastructure would reduce spending by nearly $37 billion. 

The Oversight and Government Reform bill would decrease spending by $12 billion, significantly less than the minimum of $50 billion the panel was supposed to cut under the reconciliation instructions included in the budget resolution. 

Ariana Figueroa contributed to this report. 

U.S. Rep. Glenn Ivey,  a Maryland Democrat who represents the district where Kilmar Abrego Garcia and his wife live, led the chant “bring him home” outside the U.S. District Court in Greenbelt before a hearing in Abrego Garcia’s case last month. (Photo by Ariana Figueroa/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The Maryland federal judge overseeing the lawsuit concerning the wrongly deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia unsealed documents Wednesday that the Trump administration had asked to keep unavailable to the public under the so-called state secrets privilege.

The order from U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis unsealed three documents that she said did not contain any privileged information. Xinis questioned the Trump administration’s broad use of the privilege during a hearing last month.

The request to unseal the documents came from a coalition of news organizations, arguing First Amendment rights and the public’s right to information in a case that has become a flashpoint between the judiciary branch and the Trump administration.

“The Press Movants rightly contend that, at common law, the public enjoys a presumptive right to access court records, overcome only when outweighed by competing interests,” Xinis wrote Wednesday.

President Donald Trump has said Abrego Garcia, who was removed in March due to an “administrative error,” will not return to the U.S. and Department of Justice attorneys on behalf of the Trump administration have argued in court that the Maryland man is in the custody of El Salvador and the federal government has no authority to bring him back.

In a separate case of another wrongly deported immigrant to El Salvador, the Department of Justice submitted a document detailing that Secretary of State Marco Rubio was personally working with the Salvadoran government to return a 20-year-old referred to in court documents as only “Cristian,” after another federal judge ordered his return.

Discovery documents

Some of the filings that were unsealed Wednesday had been public until the Trump administration moved to seal them.

One unsealed record related to an April discovery request Abrego Garcia’s attorneys made to the government seeking information about how the administration was facilitating Abrego Garcia’s return from El Salvador. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the Trump administration must facilitate the Maryland man’s return, but stopped short of requiring it.

Another document related to the Trump administration’s request for more time in discovery proceedings.

“It does not disclose any potentially privileged or otherwise sensitive information for which a compelling government interest outweighs the right to access,” Xinis wrote.

One document was partially redacted, because it “includes some information potentially implicated by the state secrets privilege,” Xinis wrote.

The document, signed by Abrego Garcia attorney Jonathan G. Cooper, objected to the Trump administration’s attempt to pause discovery. The government had argued that complying with discovery in the lawsuit would hinder efforts to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return.

“As we explained to the government, in our meet-and-confer, we do not understand why the production of documents or interrogatory responses — none of which has occurred in the public eye — has any bearing on efforts to facilitate Mr. Abrego Garcia’s release and return,” Cooper wrote in the partially redacted document unsealed Wednesday.

A fourth document, a transcript from a late April hearing, will be released but redacted until the high-profile case is settled, Xinis wrote.

“Although the Court does not wholly agree with the Defendants’ overbroad characterizations of the government interests at stake, the Court does recognize that certain information touches upon Defendants’ asserted state secrets privilege as applied to Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the State Department,” she wrote about the partially redacted transcript.  

Children at Mariposa Learning Center in Fitchburg. (2023 file photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner)

While providers, their supporters and Democratic lawmakers are pressing for a substantial continuing direct state investment in Wisconsin’s child care sector, Republicans in the Legislature are pursuing another route: expanding a child care tax credit for employers.

So far, child care providers and some small business owners aren’t interested.

The legislation circulated in draft form in early May. On Friday, May 30, it was formally introduced in the Assembly (AB 283) and the state Senate (SB 291).

“We really think it’s an important opportunity to reward employers for getting involved in child care,” Neil Kline, who says he encouraged GOP lawmakers to draft the tax credit legislation, told the Examiner.

Kline is executive director of Family Friendly Workplaces, a nonprofit based in Woodville that works with businesses in Burnett, Pierce, Polk and St. Croix counties. The organization certifies employers as family-friendly “to support their recruitment and retention efforts,” Kline said. To that end, one of its missions is focusing on workforce-related problems such as housing and child care access.

In early May Sen. Howard Marklein (R-Spring Green) and Rep. Karen Hurd (R-Withee) circulated the proposed bill seeking cosponsors.

The legislation was written “to encourage more businesses to invest in child care in their communities,” Marklein and Hurd wrote in their May 12 cosponsor memo. “These changes will increase the number of available child care slots and provide more options for families.”

Demanding direct support

The legislation has been introduced while child care providers and Democrats are continuing their campaigns to revive direct support for the child care sector.

During the COVID-19 pandemic the Evers administration used federal pandemic relief funds to pay child care providers monthly stipends through the Child Care Counts program. The $20 million a month that the state doled out helped providers stabilize child care, increasing workers’ pay while keeping care more affordable for families.

When Evers tried to use $360 million from the 2023-25 budget to continue Child Care Counts with state money, none of the Legislature’s Republican majority got behind the measure. The governor was later able to reallocate other federal dollars to fund Child Care Counts through June 2025, but at half the original amount: $10 million a month.

With lawmakers now writing the 2025-27 budget, Evers, child care providers and their advocates have been campaigning for $480 million to continue the program for the next two years. A survey commissioned by the state and conducted by the University of Wisconsin Institute for Research on Poverty forecast closures and tuition hikes if the state payments end.  

At their very first budget vote, however, Republicans on the Legislature’s Joint Finance Committee removed the proposal along with more than 600 other items Evers had included in his budget draft. The GOP outnumbers the Democrats 3 to 1 on the committee.

Democratic lawmakers responded by circulating a draft stand-alone bill to reinstate the Evers proposal.

“Child care providers are facing increasing cost to operate while still making poverty-level wages,” said Sen. Sarah Keyeski (D-Lodi) at a May 22 press conference to announce the Democrats’ bill. “This has made it extremely difficult to hire and retain quality staff. [Meanwhile] providers desperately want to avoid rising costs and rates on families already struggling to afford child care.”

Child care as business investment

As yet no Republican lawmakers have gotten behind the Child Care Counts proposal.

Instead, the bills that Marklein and Hurd have introduced would make changes to the Business Development Tax Credit, which is provided through the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation (WEDC).

That tax credit is granted to reward a variety of business investments and reduces the state income tax that a business pays by the amount of the credit.

Currently, a business that spends money on starting a child care program for its employees can get up to 15% of that cost taken off its tax bill. The credit applies only to capital investments, however — building or remodeling the child care facility.

“Unfortunately, we have heard that the current program parameters limit the incentive for businesses to invest in child care programs,” Marklein and Hurd wrote in their co-sponsor memo. “While many businesses may want to provide child care as a benefit to employees, the current credit limitations reduce the incentive for this investment.”

In addition to capital expenditures, the draft bill would extend the tax credit to cover 15% of several other costs:

• An employer’s spending on child care program operations;
• Spending to reimburse employees for their child care expenses;
• Spending to buy or reserve openings for its employees at a child care center;
• Contributions an employer makes to an employee’s flexible spending account for dependent care.

The draft bill also allows the tax credit for “any other cost or expense incurred due to a benefit provided by an employer to facilitate the provision or utilization by employees of child care services.”

The tax credit would be refundable: Even if the credit totals more than the employer pays in taxes, the company would get its full value back from the Wisconsin Department of Revenue. 

It also would give a refund to nonprofit employers, which don’t pay taxes.

“While not a silver bullet, these changes are another step in the right direction to address the child care issue in Wisconsin,” Marklein and Hurd wrote in their memo.

Kline, the Family Friendly Workplaces director, said the proposal would help engage employers more directly in addressing child care shortages.

“We really think it lays the groundwork for ongoing, self-sustaining support of child care in Wisconsin,” he said. “The primary goal is to help introduce new money into the child care — really, the child care ecosystem — by rewarding employers to support the ongoing expenses of child care, because the reality is that the sector needs additional money in it.”

Kline said he understands that “the ongoing operational economics” is a central problem for the child care sector. “That’s why we are so focused on helping employers find avenues and be rewarded for helping defray the expenses that are related to child care and helping support that ongoing operational side of child care.”

Chilly reception

To date the existing child care employer tax credit hasn’t had any takers, according to the WEDC. In January, as part of an overall evaluation of the state’s business development tax credit, an outside consultant told WEDC that “due to the high operational costs of childcare centers, affordability would likely be better achieved through subsidy as opposed to a tax incentive.”

The proposal to expand the tax credit isn’t gaining traction with providers or small business owners.

Main Street Alliance, which organizes small business owners to advocate for state and national legislation, has already announced objections to the bill.

“These kinds of programs and tax credits are often advantageous for employers who can afford compliance and the procedural costs and have economies of scale,” said Shawn Phetteplace, MSA’s national campaign director. That leaves out the typical small business, said Phetteplace, who sent lawmakers a memo calling the proposal “deeply unserious.”

Evan Dannells, a chef and owner of two Madison restaurants, questioned how a relatively small business like his would benefit from the tax credit.

Of his eight full-time employees, one has two children. Most of the others are graduate students. Directly paying for the one employee’s child care, even if receiving a tax credit, doesn’t feel fair to the others who don’t have that expense, Dannells said.

“If you put the onus of taking care of child care on the employer, the employer won’t hire people with children,” he said.

Dannells considers the cost of child care a legitimate use of his tax dollars. “This is why government should be doing this,” he said. He observed that children are required to go to school when they reach the age of first grade. “Why can’t we take care of them from age 1 to 5?”

While the tax credit may make it easier for a particular company’s employees to afford child care thanks to the employer’s support, skeptics of the proposal say that assistance only helps some people — not the system as a whole.

“That doesn’t help keep the doors open,” said Heather Murray, who operates a child care center in Waunakee. “We’re hitting crisis mode and centers are shutting down now, and a quarter of them will be gone if [Child Care Counts] isn’t renewed. We need the investment to go directly to providers to make sure that the doors stay open.”

Child care as a public good

National child care analyst Eliot Haspel is also skeptical. Haspel is a fellow at Capita, a think tank that works in the area of family policy. In February 2024, the think tank New America published his report raising questions about the impact of various employer-sponsored child care benefits.

Haspel views child care as a public good that benefits society broadly. For that reason, he contends, it should serve families regardless of whether they work for an employer able to fund a child care benefit.

“Small business will never be able to offer a really robust child care workplace benefit,” Haspel says. That puts small businesses and small business employees at a disadvantage if supporting child care is primarily an employer’s responsibility, he argues.

The large number of low-wage workers and “gig workers” “also raises the specter of increasing inequalities,” he writes in the New America report.

Haspel says that tying child care to a job also locks people into a job — or strands them from needed care if they lose their job. It also disrupts children’s early education at a time when they need consistent and reliable connections with their caregivers, advocates say.

“It’s really bad for workers and it’s really bad for kids for your child care to be tied to your employment,” Sen. Kelda Roys said at the Democrats’ May 22 press conference.

Tying health insurance to employment has been “a disaster,” Roys said. Health care is “rationed based on the job that you have or the wealth that you have,” she added, “and we do not want to exacerbate the current problems in our child care system by tying it to people’s employment.”

In his New America report and in an interview, Haspel says the problem isn’t providing child care at the workplace.

“I’m not against the idea of onsite child care — that can make all the sense in the world,” he says. “You can have an onsite center as part of a publicly funded system” — one to which employers contribute as taxpayers.

Focusing on the employer, however, carries with it “an opportunity cost,” Haspel says. “The more we say child care should be solved primarily through employers, the harder it is to say we need a fully public system that is universal and reaches everyone.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Members of the group Initiative Urheberrecht (authors' rights initiative) demonstrate to demand regulation of artificial intelligence on June 16, 2023 in Berlin, Germany. The AI regulation later adopted by the European Union is a model for many U.S. lawmakers interested in consumer protection but a cautionary tale for others who say they're interested in robust innovation, experts say. (Photo by Sean Gallup/Getty Images)

The European Union’s landmark AI Act, which went into effect last year, stands as inspiration for some U.S. legislators looking to enact widespread consumer protections. Others use it as a cautionary tale warning against overregulation leading to a less competitive digital economy.

The European Union enacted its law to prevent what is currently happening in the U.S. — a patchwork of AI legislation throughout the states — said Sean Heather, senior vice president for international regulatory affairs and antitrust at the Chamber of Commerce during an exploratory congressional subcommittee hearing on May 21.

“America’s AI innovators risk getting squeezed between the so-called Brussels Effect of overzealous European regulation and the so-called Sacramento Effect of excessive state and local mandates,” said Adam Thierer, a Senior Fellow at think tank R Street Institute, at the hearing.

The EU’s AI Act is comprehensive, and puts regulatory responsibility on developers of AI to mitigate risk of harm by the systems. It also requires developers to provide technical documentation and training summaries of its models for review by EU officials. The U.S. adopting similar policies would kick the country out of its first-place position in the Global AI race, Thierer testified.

The “Brussels Effect,” Thierer mentioned, is the idea that the EU’s regulations will influence the global market. But not much of the world has followed suit — so far Canada, Brazil and Peru are working on similar laws, but the UK and countries like Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Singapore, and Japan have taken a less restrictive approach.

When Jeff Le, founder of tech policy consultancy 100 Mile Strategies LLC, talks to lawmakers on each side of the aisle, he said he hears that they don’t want another country’s laws deciding American rules.

“Maybe there’s a place for it in our regulatory debate,” Le said. “But I think the point here is American constituents should be overseen by American rules, and absent those rules, it’s very complicated.”

Does the EU AI act keep Europe from competing?

Critics of the AI Act say the language is overly broad, which slows down the development of AI systems as they aim to meet regulatory requirements. France and Germany rank in the top 10 global AI leaders, and China is second, according to Stanford’s AI Index, but the U.S. currently leads by a wide margin in the number of leading AI models and its AI research, experts testified before the congressional committee.

University of Houston Law Center professor Peter Salib said he believes the EU’s AI Act is a factor — but not the only one — in keeping European countries out of the top spots. First, the law has only been in effect for about nine months, which wouldn’t be long enough to make as much of an impact on Europe’s ability to participate in the global AI economy, he said.

Secondly, the EU AI act is one piece of the overall attitude about digital protection in Europe, Salib said. The General Data Protection Regulation, a law that went into effect in 2018 and gives individuals control over their personal information, follows a similar strict regulatory mindset.

“It’s part of a much longer-term trend in Europe that prioritizes things like privacy and transparency really, really highly,” Salib said. “Which is, for Europeans, good  — if that’s what they want, but it does seem to have serious costs in terms of where innovation happens.”

Stavros Gadinis, a professor at the Berkeley Center for Law and Business who has worked in the U.S. and Europe, said he thinks most of the concerns around innovation in the EU are outside the AI Act. Their tech labor market isn’t as robust as the U.S., and it can’t compete with the major financing accessible by Silicon Valley and Chinese companies, he said.

“That is what’s keeping them, more than this regulation,” Gadinis said. “That and, the law hasn’t really had the chance to have teeth yet.”

During the May 21 hearing, Rep. Lori Trahan, a Democrat from Massachusetts, called the Republican’s stance — that any AI regulation would kill tech startups and growing companies — “a false choice.”

The U.S. heavily invests in science and innovation, has founder-friendly immigration policies, has lenient bankruptcy laws and a “cultural tolerance for risk taking.” All policies the EU does not offer, Trahan said.

“It is therefore false and disingenuous to blame EU’s tech regulation for its low number of major tech firms,” Trahan said. “The story is much more complicated, but just as the EU may have something to learn from United States innovation policy, we’d be wise to study their approach to protecting consumers online.”

Self-governance

The EU’s law puts a lot of responsibility on developers of AI, and requires transparency, reporting, testing with third parties and tracking copyright. These are things that AI companies in the U.S. say they do already, Gadinis said.

“They all say that they do this to a certain extent,” he said. “But the question is, how expansive these efforts need to be, especially if you need to convince a regulator about it.”

AI companies in the U.S. currently self-govern, meaning they test their models for some of the societal and cybersecurity risks currently outlined by many lawmakers. But there’s no universal standard — what one company deems safe may be seen as risky to another, Gadinis said. Universal regulations would create a baseline for introducing new models and features, he said.

Even one company’s safety testing may look different from one year to the next. Until 2024, OpenAI’s CEO Sam Altman was pro-federal AI regulation, and sat on the company’s Safety and Security Committee, which regularly evaluates OpenAI’s processes and safeguards over a 90-day period.

In September, he left the committee, and has since become vocal against federal AI legislation. OpenAI’s safety committee has since been operating as an independent entity, Time reported. The committee recently published recommendations to enhance security measures, be more transparent about OpenAI’s work and “unify the company’s safety frameworks.”

Even though Altman has changed his tune on federal regulation, the mission of OpenAI is focused on the benefits society gains from AI — “They wanted to create [artificial general intelligence] that would benefit humanity instead of destroying it,” Salib said.

AI company Anthropic, maker of chatbot Claude, was formed by former staff members of OpenAI in 2021, and focuses on responsible AI development. Google, Microsoft and Meta are other top American AI companies that have some form of self safety testing, and were recently assessed by the AI Safety Project.

The project asked experts to weigh in on the strategies each company took for risk assessment, current harms, safety frameworks, existential safety strategy, governance and accountability, and transparency and communication. Anthropic scored the highest, but all companies were lacking in their “existential safety,” or the harm AI models could cause to society if unchanged. 

Just by developing these internal policies, most AI leaders are acknowledging the need for some form of safeguards, Salib said.

“I don’t want to say there’s wide industry agreement, because some seem to have changed their tunes last summer,” Salib said. “But there’s at least a lot of evidence that this is serious and worthwhile thinking about.”

What could the U.S. gain from EU’s practices?

Salib said he believes a law like the EU AI Act in the U.S. would be too “overly comprehensive.”

Many laws addressing AI concerns now, like discrimination by algorithms or self-driving cars, could be governed by existing laws — “It’s not clear to me that we need special AI laws for these things.”

But he said that the specific, case-by-case legislation that the states have been passing have been effective in targeting harmful AI actions, and ensuring compliance from AI companies.

Gadinis said he’s not sure why Congress is opposed to the state-by-state legislative model, as most of the state laws are consumer oriented, and very specific — like deciding how a state may use AI in education, preventing discrimination in healthcare data or keeping children away from sexually explicit AI content.

“I wouldn’t consider these particularly controversial, right?” Gadinis said. “I don’t think the big AI companies would actually want to be associated with problems in that area.”

Gadinis said the EU’s AI Act originally mirrored this specific, case-by-case approach, addressing AI considerations around sexual images, minors, consumer fraud and use of consumer data. But when ChatGPT was released in 2022, EU lawmakers went back to the drawing board and added the component about large language models, systematic risk, high-risk strategies and training, which made the reach of who needed to comply much wider.

After 10 months living with the law, the European Commission said this month it is open to “simplify the implementation” to make it easier for companies to comply.

It’s unlikely the U.S. will end up with AI regulations as comprehensive as the EU, Gadinis and Salib said. President Trump’s administration has taken a deregulated approach to tech so far, and Republicans passed a 10-year moratorium on state-level AI laws in the “big, beautiful bill” heading to the Senate consideration. 

Gadinis predicts that the federal government won’t take much action at all to regulate AI, but mounting pressure from the public may result in an industry self-regulatory body. This is where he believes the EU will be most influential — they have leaned on public-private partnerships to develop a strategy.

“Most of the action is going to come either from the private sector itself — they will band together — or from what the EU is doing in getting experts together, trying to kind of come up with a sort of half industry, half government approach,” Gadinis said.

Amanda Becker, reporter for The 19th, and Colleen Long, editor for NBC News, presented their post-Dobbs books at the 2025 Gaithersburg Book Festival in Gaithersburg, Maryland, May 17. Becker’s “You Must Stand Up: The Fight for Abortion Rights in Post-Dobbs America” and Long and Rebecca Little’s “I’m Sorry for My Loss: An Urgent Examination of Reproductive Care in America,” were both published in 2024. (Photo by Sofia Resnick/States Newsroom)

During the pandemic, when many people were reevaluating their life goals, Colleen Long texted her childhood best friend and fellow journalist Rebecca Little to see if, together, they could write a relatable, even funny, book about pregnancy loss.

“My friend Rebecca … she likes to say she kind of had the pu pu platter of loss,” Long said during an author panel at the 2025 Gaithersburg Book Festival in Gaithersburg, Maryland, on May 17. “She had all sorts of terrible things happen: a stillbirth; she had to end the pregnancy of twins; she had several miscarriages. And I had a stillbirth.”

They wanted to understand why it was so hard to talk about pregnancy loss in public, and thus difficult to process.

“She and I started talking about how what we would really like to do is to write a book about why we are so bad at talking about pregnancy loss,” said Long, a senior editor at NBC News. “What is it about our culture that makes it impossible to sort of discuss this, and yet, when it happens to you, then all of these people come out of the woodwork and talk about it. We’re saying it’s like ‘Fight Club,’ but maybe we should be taking fewer cues, you know, from Brad Pitt.”

Long and Little ended up speaking to about 100 people who experienced some form of pregnancy loss and continue to hear from people with experiences since their book, “I’m Sorry for My Loss: An Urgent Examination of Reproductive Care in America,” came out last year. Their book is also about how the U.S. Supreme Court’s reversal of federal abortion rights in June 2022, with the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, has exacerbated the consequences when pregnancy doesn’t go the way it’s supposed to. In the book, Little and Long document how pregnant and miscarrying women have been denied standard medical treatments because of state abortion bans, and how many people — disproportionately people of color — have been criminalized for decisions made while pregnant, long before Dobbs.

“In some ways, reproduction in America has been stripped back to basics, but we don’t find ourselves suddenly reliving a colonial life,” they write. “We would argue it’s more perverse in some ways because the advances in medicine are available, but they’re being withheld. Like the Back to the Future timeline where Biff Tannen runs a dystopian Hill Valley, we’re going back to a place we never really were.”

Joining the panel was The 19th’s Amanda Becker, whose “You Must Stand Up: The Fight for Abortion Rights in Post-Dobbs America,” also published in 2024, tells the story of the first year after Roe v. Wade was overturned, from the perspective of abortion providers and reproductive rights activists.

“I truly think a lot of the people I feature in my book are heroes,” Becker said. “Being around them was just so incredibly inspiring, and how hard they’re working to help people and take care of people and preserve the ability to access care where people can still get it, and fighting to get it back where they can’t.”

States Newsroom reporter Sofia Resnick moderated the Q&A with the authors. The version below has been edited for brevity and clarity. The full conversation is scheduled to be broadcast on C-SPAN 2 Book TV on June 8.

States Newsroom: You both were working on these books before the Dobbs decision and you’ve been both covering major national stories. Why did you both decide to dedicate so much time to this particular story?

Colleen Long: When Roe fell, it really sort of informed our reporting in a different way, because a lot of the procedures that are used to treat pregnancy loss are used to treat abortion. So, our book was focused more on pregnancy loss. But really, our sort of principle for the book is, what has happened in the past 50 years — since Roe has been codified and now fallen — is that we sort of hold out everything that isn’t a perfect pregnancy or the end of an unwanted pregnancy. But there’s this vast middle ground that a lot of people tend to experience. … When Roe fell, everybody was like, “Oh, this is not going to affect miscarriage care. This could possibly not affect a woman who is wanting a pregnancy and is unable to continue her pregnancy.” And so what we’ve seen, obviously, since the fall of Roe, is that actually these things are all very much intertwined. So our idea was to better inform everyone.

Amanda Becker: My background is as a political reporter, not a health care reporter. So I was more interested in how reproductive rights, and abortion specifically, have really reordered our politics. It’s the biggest political story of my lifetime, and because I’m a person that was capable of giving birth, I also thought it was the most important story overall that affects more than half of this country directly. And I would argue that it affects everyone indirectly in some way.

I just knew it was going to be a very big year, and that’s why I decided to structure the book — it literally starts with the decision in June, and it ends the next June — because it was just such a sprawling story that I knew would affect every single state in a different way, and the residents in those states in different ways.

SN: What were the parts of your books that were hardest to write?

Long: Rebecca trained at [the famed Chicago improv theater] Second City, so she’s funny, she will be the first to tell you. We wanted to make this book readable … so we worked on the tone a lot. That said, the hardest part about writing this book was interviewing the people. We interviewed 100 different people, and they ran the gamut. Some experienced a miscarriage, some had a stillbirth, some had multiple stillbirths. Some had to end their pregnancies because of a host of reasons. We interviewed people from every religion, conservative people, liberal people, all kinds of different people, and it was hard. As a journalist, you are used to listening to people and hearing stories that are upsetting, but I think the thing that was most upsetting for us was how common a lot of their stories were in that they all felt, like, alone, unsure, didn’t know where to go.

Becker: I was trying to write a book that was ultimately hopeful. … I would say the most difficult points were just, like, the overwhelmingness of what was happening that year. And because my book is kind of looking at the loss of abortion rights as happening in tandem with the erosion of our democracy, which is something I care a lot about, it just would start to feel overwhelming sometimes. Like, how are we going to fix these things that have been happening over the last 100 years, you know? How can we get reproductive rights back unless we fix gerrymandering?

SN: In your respective historical research, what were some things that surprised you?

Becker: I was floored when I found out that the American Medical Association came into being to elevate male doctors over female midwives and then go on an anti-abortion crusade over the next 30 years that eventually changed the laws in almost every state in this country.

[Addressing Long:]And you get into this in your book, too: The father of gynecology did non-consensual experiments without anesthesia on enslaved women. And I’m learning this history of women’s healthcare and gynecological care and being like, this is how we ended up here.

Long: We have a long history in the beginning of our book — it’s literally called “How We Got Here” — to sort of explain how our attitudes have changed over the years on pregnancy and pregnancy loss. Because, for example, the way we view pregnancy — this was really surprising to me — the way we view pregnancy today is really only like 47 to 48 years old, and it has to do so much with modern medical advances, sonograms, the home pregnancy test. Our ideas about how we bond and the way we discuss pregnancy is just so different. 

SN: What have been some of the impacts of increased anti-abortion laws on health care and grief and loss?

Long: My OB-GYN came from Oklahoma [where abortion is banned] because she was, like, “I feel as though I can’t practice safely.” … And the other thing we’re noticing is that doctors — not OB-GYNs, but like any doctors — they’re considering where to go to medical school. And the states in which the abortion laws are very strict, they’re sort of looking away from those states because … they’re afraid of their own medical care. So I would expect us in — I don’t know, five years, maybe, let’s say six years — we’re going to start seeing like a real disparate situation in the United States, where we have some states with very good medical care, and other states, which, let’s face it, already had poor medical care, are going to have worse medical care.

Becker: You don’t find out about a lot of really bad fetal abnormalities until the 20- to 21-week anatomy scan, so [people] made really difficult decisions, and a lot of them that I’ve spoken to feel like they can’t even grieve that openly because of what’s in the public discourse right now about abortion and abortion bans. Yes, they had an abortion, but they’re grieving a pregnancy that they very much wanted and a child that they very much wanted, and I think it’s just making it more difficult for people to talk about.

Long: This is where politics is tricky. … We interviewed a lot of women who identified as politically left-leaning who felt they weren’t allowed to mourn their miscarriage because they didn’t want to be seen as a traitor to the cause of abortion rights, which is hard.

And then … you have what has happened with the restrictions and the fetal personhood laws. … This is a very new concept, to have the sort of baby and the mother have the same legal rights, and that’s what we’re seeing play out in some of these places. And it plays out in really strange ways. Because when you have a life or death situation and you have these two entities, one does not exist without the other. And like, who is worth saving more? It’s just a really complicated morass.

Becker: If you talk to experts, both legal and medical, in fetal personhood and what it means in practice, they will tell you that in a fetal personhood situation where you’re putting at odds the rights of a fetus versus the right of the gestational parent, the fetus always wins when we apply fetal personhood. And so we’re going to see more and more of that.

Audience Member: It seems to me that in the last political campaign, we started to hear a lot about the impact of these laws on women, and somehow that’s fallen out of the news. And so how do we mobilize around this issue?

Becker: I think we were hearing about it in part because it was an election season and a presidential election, and I would expect that to come back around for the midterms and the next time we have a lot of abortion ballot measures on ballots. … Politicians pay attention to what gets them elected or not elected. So if that’s a reason you’re going to elect someone or not elect them, let them know that. 

Long: I covered the [presidential] campaign, and like even during the campaign, I felt like these issues sort of only caught fire when they thought it could be a winning issue. And the Democrats are in a weird rebuilding phase right now, and so I think they’re trying to figure out what works and what doesn’t. … They were really hoping that reproductive rights and reproductive health was going to drive people to the polls, in particular women, and in the end, they lost. … And the conversation is no longer happening. But if you think about it, the conversation was never happening. It only just started happening, and then it was a blip. And then now we’re sort of back to where we were, which is super annoying. 

Teen protesters call for DACA protections during the first Trump administration. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

WASHINGTON — Ximena Arias-Cristobal knows the risks that can come with driving as a person living in the U.S. without legal authorization, where a simple traffic stop could lead to being deported.

That fear materialized last month when she was pulled over by local police in Dalton, Georgia, for making an improper turn at a red light, but instead of a traffic ticket, the 19-year-old was detained at Stewart Detention Center for nearly three weeks, she said at a virtual event Tuesday.

“Even though my time there was short … the emotional weight is overwhelming,” Arias-Cristobal said during a panel conversation organized by advocacy groups opposing the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown on students without legal authorization and international students.

“This isn’t just an immigration issue, it’s a human rights issue,” Arias-Cristobal said.

She and her parents arrived in the United States without legal authorization from Mexico when Arias-Cristobal was 4 years old. Her father was in the car with her last month and was also detained at the Stewart Detention Center, she said. He has since been released.

“What affected me the most was the transfer itself, being shackled at the waist and ankles,” Arias-Cristobal said of being transferred by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to Stewart Detention Center.

Arias-Cristobal is eligible to apply for deportation protections under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, policy. DACA allows some people who were brought into the country as children without legal authorization to obtain a drivers license and work permits and remain in the country, under certain conditions.

But the agency that issues such protections, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, stopped accepting applications in 2021 as part of a court case from Republican state officials challenging DACA’s legality.

The case remains pending and is likely to head to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Arias-Cristobal now faces deportation to Mexico as she tries to complete her higher education at Dalton State College, where she is studying economics and finance. 

Impact on higher education

Gaby Pacheco, president and CEO of advocacy group TheDream.US, said that cases like Arias-Cristobal’s are becoming more common under the second Trump administration and that “Dreamers are under attack.”

Pachecos’ group provides scholarships to young immigrants without legal status, including Arias-Cristobal, to pursue higher education.

She said that while DACA recipients have not been caught in deportations, “we have heard of people (being) held and questioned” by ICE agents.

“The level of cruelty, inhumanity and lawlessness that we’re seeing from the Department of Homeland Security… is completely alarming,” Pacheco said.

That type of immigration enforcement has impacted higher education, said Miriam Feldblum, the president of the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, which advocates for international students and students without proper legal authority to attend college.

The Department of Homeland Security informed Harvard University last month that it was revoking the Ivy League school’s ability to accept international students. A federal court has temporarily blocked the move while the case is pending.

“This will directly harm our enrollment at U.S. institutions,” she said of the Trump administration’s stance on limiting how many international students can attend higher education.

Feldblum said that because international students pay full tuition, those costs often subsidize scholarships for U.S. students. 

Elon Musk arrives for a meeting with Senate Republicans at the U.S. Capitol on March 5, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Billionaire and former Trump administration official Elon Musk published a flurry of social media posts Tuesday slamming the “big, beautiful bill” in Congress, but his criticisms were mostly ignored or brushed aside by Republican senators.

Musk wrote that the “massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination” and told the GOP lawmakers who voted for it in the House that they “did wrong.”

“In November next year, we fire all politicians who betrayed the American people,” he wrote in a later post.

But Musk’s frustrations largely fell flat.

White House press Secretary Karoline Leavitt dismissed Musk’s opposition, saying that President Donald Trump is well aware of his views on the legislation and will be moving forward anyway.

Musk last week said he will continue to advise Trump despite stepping away from his official role as a special government employee who oversaw dramatic spending cuts as head of the U.S. DOGE Service.

The tax and spending package would cut about $1.5 trillion in federal funding for several programs during the next decade, including Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office is expected to release its full analysis of the package Wednesday, including how changes made just before the bill went to the floor will impact state budgets and people’s access to safety net programs.

‘We have a job to do’

Leavitt’s comments came just before Republican senators were peppered with questions about Musk’s statements following a closed-door working lunch on Capitol Hill.

Many disregarded Musk’s lobbying efforts during brief interviews, saying they don’t expect his opposition to affect Senate debate on the sweeping tax and spending cuts package that the House passed last month.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said that he and Musk clearly held differing opinions about the package, which he said was possibly based on Musk’s reading of analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Thune said that he expects the tax and spending cuts policies included in the package would “lead to significant growth” and that would lead to a reduction in the annual deficit.

“My hope is that as he has an opportunity to further assess what this bill actually does, that he’ll come to a different conclusion,” Thune said. “But nevertheless, we have a job to do, the American people elected us to do. We have an agenda that everybody campaigned on, most notably the president of the United States, and we’re going to deliver on that agenda.”

Thune added he expects the legislation “can be strengthened in the Senate in a number of ways,” though he didn’t detail exactly what those would be.

‘We’ll see what President Trump does’

West Virginia Sen. Shelley Moore Capito said that Musk is “entitled to his opinion” and that GOP lawmakers are well aware that he’s “frank,” but that likely won’t sway them in the weeks ahead.

“President Trump is the one that’s going to be the biggest advocate, biggest influencer, in terms of how the Senate deals with this vote,” Capito said. “So no matter what Elon Musk or anybody else says — and I don’t want to diminish him, because I don’t think that’s fair — it’s still going to be second fiddle to President Trump. So we’ll see what President Trump does.”

Arkansas Sen. John Boozman said he doesn’t expect Musk’s tweets will have much of an impact on internal GOP debates about the bill.

“He’s entitled to his opinion. I don’t think it will make any difference,” Boozman said, adding efforts to cut spending are already a central part of the GOP’s goals for the package.

North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis said the tweets won’t have any influence on which amendments GOP senators propose to the legislation.

“No,” Tillis said, when asked about Musk’s overall sway.

Ohio Sen. Bernie Moreno said people raising concerns with the legislation need to give that chamber time to review what the House passed and figure out what they’re going to keep and what they’re going to change.

“We have to refocus and remember that this bill, all along, wasn’t supposed to solve every problem on Earth,” Moreno said. “This bill was about making certain that President Trump had the resources to secure our border, that was the biggest part of the election; to avoid a $4 trillion tax increase, that is something that Americans care a lot about; and to start a process of reducing government spending. So that’s what we’re doing.”

‘Donald Trump is our president, not Elon Musk’

Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley said he didn’t have much of a reaction to the social media posts, while laughing, other than to say that Musk is “entitled to his opinion.”

Hawley said he doesn’t expect Musk’s lobbying efforts would have any impact on how GOP senators amend the bill, before sending it back to the House.

West Virginia Sen. Jim Justice noted that Musk isn’t the president, when asked how the tweets might impact his deliberations on the legislation.

“Y’all may like this or not like this, but you know, Donald Trump is our president, not Elon Musk,” Justice said.

“And really and truly, I don’t know of the disagreement that they may have with one another or what they have going on,” Justice added. “I really respect Elon Musk, and I think he did a great job and I’m very, very pleased with all the things that he uncovered. But with all that being said, I think we all should stand by our president.”

‘All of us are a little frustrated’ 

Alabama Sen. Tommy Tuberville said he hopes Musk’s attempts to influence lawmaking will yield more spending cuts than the $1.5 trillion in the House bill, though he didn’t say he’d oppose the measure if that doesn’t happen.

“Well, I think all of us are a little frustrated. We’re not getting as much cuts as we thought we would, but we could in the long run, because we’re not done with it,” Tuberville said. “So I think that was a little bit of an encouragement.”

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul said he shares Musk’s skepticism about the legislation’s impact on the annual federal deficit and the rising national debt.

But when asked how influential Musk has been at swaying Republican senators to oppose the package, Paul noted that anyone standing against the bill risks “the ire of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue,” referring to the White House’s address.

Paul said that if he and Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, who has also raised concerns about the way the package is written, can get the support of two more GOP senators, then they believe they can begin direct talks with Trump.

“The president will negotiate if he needs to,” Paul said. He won’t if he doesn’t need to.”

Then-U.S. Rep. Billy Long speaks during a press conference on Feb. 22, 2022, in Jefferson City, Missouri. (Madeline Carter/Missouri Independent)

WASHINGTON — Republican U.S. Senate tax writers voted Tuesday to move Missouri Republican former Congressman Billy Long one step closer to taking the reins at the Internal Revenue Service, despite protests from Democrats over his alleged involvement with a company that peddled fake tribal tax credits.

Members of the Senate Committee on Finance advanced Long’s nomination along party lines, 14-13, to the full Senate as the revenue collection agency faces the possibility of a more complex tax code as congressional Republicans are poised to extend and expand President Donald Trump’s 2017 tax cuts.

Senate Finance Chair Mike Crapo said Tuesday that Long presented a “vision to transform the IRS through systems modernization, a renewed focus on efficiency and a much-needed change in IRS culture” during his May confirmation hearing. 

“If confirmed, I look forward to working with him to ensure the IRS focuses on helping American taxpayers to better understand and meet their tax responsibilities, and that it enforces the law with integrity and fairness to all,” the Idaho Republican said.

Sen. Ron Wyden, the committee’s top Democrat, slammed the nominee in remarks delivered ahead of the vote. Wyden said Long “has no tax policy experience, but he has lots of tax fraud experience.”

“When he left office, he threw in with a bunch of fly-by-night operators selling tax deals that were sketchy at best,” Wyden said.

Wyden highlighted contributions Long received to his dormant U.S. Senate campaign from officials at the Arkansas-based White River Energy Corps after revelations that Long was tied to the company and its sales of nonexistent tax credits.

The Oregon Democrat said Long’s “scandals here are too big to ignore.”

Long testified before the committee on May 20 and denied any wrongdoing.

Long, who served in the House from 2011 to 2023 and previously spent multiple years as a talk radio host, told lawmakers on the panel that he plans to get rid of “stinking thinking” at the IRS and implement a “comprehensive plan” to modernize the agency and “invest in retaining skilled members of the team.”

The agency has lost more than 11,000 employees, or 11% of its workforce, either through deferred resignations or mass firing of probationary workers since Trump began his second term, according to a May 2 report from the agency’s inspector general.

Trump announced Long as his pick for the IRS post in December. 

A sign for the Public Broadcasting Service, or PBS,  is seen on its building headquarters on Feb. 18, 2025, in Arlington, Virginia. (Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)

This report has been updated.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration sent its first spending cuts request to Congress on Tuesday, asking lawmakers to swiftly eliminate $9.4 billion in funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and various foreign aid programs.

The request for what are called rescissions allows the White House budget office to legally freeze spending on those accounts for 45 days while the Republican-controlled Congress debates whether to approve the recommendation in full or in part, or to ignore it.

The proposal calls on lawmakers to eliminate $1.1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which provides funding for National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service. That means NPR and PBS would lose their already approved federal allocations, if the request is approved by Congress.

President Donald Trump issued an executive order in May seeking to block the Corporation for Public Broadcasting from providing funding for NPR and PBS, leading to two separate lawsuits citing First Amendment concerns.

In the rescissions request, Trump wants to cut $8.3 billion from foreign aid programs, including the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, a global initiative to combat HIV/AIDS, and the African Development Foundation.

The proposal is the first of several that will seek to codify efforts undertaken by U.S. DOGE Service and billionaire Elon Musk before he left his official role as a special government employee.

White House budget director Russ Vought wrote in a letter accompanying the request that it “emphasizes the need to cut wasteful foreign assistance spending at the Department of State and USAID and through other international assistance programs.”

“These rescissions would eliminate programs that are antithetical to American interests, such as funding the World Health Organization, LGBTQI+ activities, ‘equity’ programs, radical Green New Deal-type policies, and color revolutions in hostile places around the world,” Vought wrote. “In addition, Federal spending on CPB subsidizes a public media system that is politically biased and is an unnecessary expense to the taxpayer.”

GOP leaders in Congress appear likely to hold floor votes on the request, which only needs a simple majority to pass the Senate, avoiding the need for Democratic support to get past the 60-vote legislative filibuster.

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., wrote in a statement the House “will act quickly on this request.”

“This rescissions package reflects many of DOGE’s findings and is one of the many legislative tools Republicans are using to restore fiscal sanity,” Johnson wrote. “Congress will continue working closely with the White House to codify these recommendations, and the House will bring the package to the floor as quickly as possible.”

But Republican leaders could run into problems with centrist Republicans in each chamber, especially those on the Appropriations committees, which approved the funding in the first place.

The GOP holds especially narrow majorities in Congress, requiring the support of nearly every one of the 220 Republicans in the House and the party’s 53 senators.

Republican leaders may need to negotiate what exactly gets written into the rescissions bill if too many moderate Republicans raise objections to cutting off the funding.

Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, wrote in a statement the committee “will carefully review the rescissions package and examine the potential consequences of these rescissions on global health, national security, emergency communications in rural communities, and public radio and television stations.”

Foreign aid, public media take hits

The request calls for lawmakers to make cuts to dozens of foreign aid programs, including $500 million out of $4 billion for certain global health programs at the U.S. Agency for International Development.

“This proposal would not reduce treatment but would eliminate programs that are antithetical to American interests and worsen the lives of women and children, like ‘family planning’ and ‘reproductive health,’ LGBTQI+ activities, and ‘equity’ programs,” the request states. “This rescission proposal aligns with the Administration’s efforts to eliminate wasteful USAID foreign assistance programs.”

The rescissions request proposes Congress eliminate $400 million of the $6 billion for global health programs that seek to control HIV/AIDS, which OMB writes “would eliminate only those programs that neither provide life-saving treatment nor support American interests.”

The request asks lawmakers to eliminate $2.5 billion of the $3.9 billion they approved for development assistance, which “is intended to fund programs that work to end extreme poverty and promote resilient, democratic societies, but in practice, many of the DA programs conflict with American values, interfere with the sovereignty of other countries, and bankroll corrupt leaders’ evasion of their responsibilities to their citizens, all while providing no clear benefit to Americans.”

The proposal calls on lawmakers to eliminate more than $1 billion in funding across two fiscal years for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which the administration wrote “would be used to subsidize a public media system that is politically biased and an unnecessary expense to the taxpayer.”

President and CEO of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting Patricia Harrison wrote in a statement the organization “is firmly committed to ensuring that funding for public media provides local communities with accurate, unbiased, and nonpartisan news and information, and we take seriously concerns about bias that have been raised.

“The path to better public media is achievable only if funding is maintained. Otherwise, a vital lifeline that operates reliable emergency communications, supports early learning, and keeps local communities connected and informed will be cut off with regrettable and lasting consequences.”

President and CEO of PBS Paula Kerger wrote in a separate statement that the “proposed rescissions would have a devastating impact on PBS member stations and the essential role they play in communities, particularly smaller and rural stations that rely on federal funding for a larger portion of their budgets.

“Without PBS member stations, Americans will lose unique local programming and emergency services in times of crisis.”  

Kerger wrote that PBS would seek to keep its funding by demonstrating “our value to Congress, as we have over the last 50 years, in providing educational, enriching programs and critical services to all Americans every day for free.”

NPR CEO Katherine Maher wrote that Congress enacting the rescissions “would irreparably harm communities across America who count on public media for 24/7 news, music, cultural and educational programming, and emergency alerting services.”

“Public safety in every community across the nation could also be affected. NPR, as the entity chosen by public radio stations to operate the nationwide Public Radio Satellite System (PRSS), receives Presidential-level emergency alerts and distributes them across the country within minutes,” Maher wrote. “In the event of a national attack or emergency, communities no longer served by a station would not receive this lifesaving, early warning and civil defense alert.”

More details

A summary of the proposal shared with States Newsroom by the White House budget office ahead of its official release later in the day says the funding cuts would affect programs that sought to reduce xenophobia in Venezuela; support electoral reforms and voter education in Kenya; fund voter identification in Haiti; provide electric buses in Rwanda; broadcast the longtime PBS children’s show “Sesame Street” in Iraq; and strengthen the resilience of LGBTQ global movements.

The proposal would also cut off funding to Harvard University to conduct research models for peace and to New York University to analyze democracy field experiments in South Sudan, according to the OMB summary.

PEPFAR would no longer have funding for circumcision, vasectomies, and condoms in Zambia, or for services for “transgender people, sex workers and their clients and sexual networks” in Nepal, according to the OMB summary.

Louisiana Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy, a vocal supporter of PEPFAR, said during a brief interview that he was told “that PEPFAR had some cuts, but that the basic core mission was continued.”

Cassidy — chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee — said his staff was carefully reviewing the request and knows he cares “about this deeply.”

The rescissions request, which asks lawmakers to claw back already approved funding, is different from the president’s budget request, which proposes spending levels for thousands of federal programs for the upcoming fiscal year.

Both are merely proposals, since the Constitution grants Congress the power of the purse in Article I, Section 9, Clause 7.

Timing on Senate floor vote unclear

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said Monday that lawmakers in that chamber will begin reviewing the rescissions request this month, but didn’t detail exactly when he’d hold a floor vote. 

“Another item high on our list to begin work on in June is a rescissions package the White House intends to send Congress this week,” Thune said. “The administration has identified a number of wasteful uses of taxpayer dollars and we will be taking up this package and eliminating this waste. We’ll make that a priority.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Appropriations Committee ranking member Patty Murray, D-Wash., wrote in a statement released Monday that “Trump is looking to go after PBS and NPR to settle political scores and muzzle the free press, while undermining foreign assistance programs that push back on China’s malign influence, save lives, and address other bipartisan priorities.”

“If Republicans choose to go along with this rescission package, they will follow Trump at their peril,” Schumer and Murray wrote. “The power of the purse is one of Congress’s most fundamental Constitutional responsibilities. Democrats will not allow Republicans to play games with the budget.”

Louisiana Republican Sen. John Kennedy said during a brief interview Tuesday that he plans to “carefully” evaluate the rescissions request.

West Virginia GOP Sen. Shelley Moore Capito said Tuesday that she would go over the proposals once it officially arrives from the White House to determine whether she can support moving it across the floor.

“It could be a fight. It could not be a fight,” Capito said. “We just don’t know.”

The House Freedom Caucus, a group of far-right members led by Maryland Rep. Andy Harris, posted Monday its members hope the administration sends additional rescissions requests as quickly as possible.

“Passing this rescissions package will be an important demonstration of Congress’s willingness to deliver on DOGE and the Trump agenda,” the Freedom Caucus statement said. “While the Swamp will inevitably attempt to slow and kill these cuts, there is no excuse for a Republican House not to advance the first DOGE rescissions package the same week it is presented to Congress then quickly send it for passage in the Republican Senate so President Trump can sign it into law.”

U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon testifies at a hearing of the U.S. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies on June 3, 2025. (Screenshot from committee livestream)

WASHINGTON — U.S. senators from both parties pressed Education Secretary Linda McMahon on Tuesday over the Trump administration’s proposal to eliminate funding for key programs administered by the Education Department for disadvantaged and low-income students.

McMahon defended those and other sweeping changes outlined in President Donald Trump’s fiscal year 2026 budget request — which calls for $12 billion in spending cuts at the department — while testifying before the U.S. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies to outline the president’s proposal.

Tuesday’s hearing followed the Education secretary’s testimony in front of the corresponding House panel in May. The House and Senate appropriations committees share jurisdiction over the bill to fund the department for the coming fiscal year.

McMahon said the budget request takes a “significant step” toward her and Trump’s goal “to responsibly eliminate the federal bureaucracy, cut waste and give education back to states, parents and educators.”

Senators blast move to eliminate programs

But the budget’s proposal to do away with the Federal TRIO Programs, which were funded at nearly $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2024, as well as the Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs, or GEAR UP, which were funded at $388 million, garnered criticism from both Republicans and Democrats on the panel.

While the Federal TRIO Programs include federal outreach and student services programs to help support students who come from disadvantaged backgrounds, GEAR UP aims to prepare low-income students for college.

Neither TRIO nor GEAR UP has “met most of its performance measures for a number of years” and states and localities are “best suited” to determine how to support the activities in the programs rather than the federal government, according to the summary of the department’s more detailed budget request.

Sen. Susan Collins, chair of the broader Senate Appropriations Committee, said she “strongly” disagrees with the budget’s proposal to cut the TRIO programs.

The Maine Republican, who co-chairs the Congressional TRIO Caucus, said she’s “seen the lives of countless first-generation and low-income students, not only in Maine, but across the country, who often face barriers to accessing a college education changed by the TRIO program.”

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, chair of the subcommittee, echoed Collins’ concerns about cutting TRIO and GEAR UP, and encouraged her panel to reevaluate those parts of the budget request.

The West Virginia Republican said “my state, and many of our states, but mine in particular, I think, has a lot of first-time collegegoers, a lot of students that don’t have the aspirational goals either within their family, they’re not looking at how they can achieve education or a certificate or whatever, and that’s where I think these programs have been particularly useful.” 

McMahon said that while she “absolutely” agrees that there is some effectiveness in the TRIO programs, “these programs were negotiated at very tough terms in that the Department of Education has no ability to go in and look at the accountability of TRIO programs.”

“It specifically eliminates our ability to do that, and I just think that we aren’t able to see the effectiveness across the board that we would normally look to see with our federal spending,” she said.

Sen. Jeff Merkley fired back at McMahon’s claim, noting that there are benchmarks set and annual performance reports required for grantees.

“Let me just say, your argument that there’s no studies, no accountability, is just actually wrong, and the fact that you’re coming here not even having looked at your own department’s studies of these programs in order to be informed about them is profoundly troubling,” the Oregon Democrat said.

Education Department ‘responsibly winding down’

The White House released new details on the proposed budget last week, and according to a summary, the $12 billion spending cut “reflects an agency that is responsibly winding down.”

The more detailed request includes lowering nearly $1,700 from the maximum amount a student can receive annually through the Pell Grant — a government subsidy that helps low-income students pay for college.

The budget proposal also calls for consolidating 18 grant programs for K-12 education and replacing them with a $2 billion formula grant that would give states spending flexibility. The document asks for a $60 million increase to expand the number of charter schools in the country.

The proposal came as Trump has sought to dramatically redefine the federal role in education.

The administration was hit with a major setback to its education agenda in May after a federal judge in Massachusetts ordered the Education Department to reinstate the more than 1,300 employees who were gutted through a reduction in force effort.

The judge also blocked the agency from carrying out Trump’s executive order calling on McMahon to facilitate the closure of her own department and barred the department from carrying out the president’s directive to transfer the student loan portfolio and special education services out of the agency.

President Donald Trump speaks to supporters during a rally at the US Steel-Irvin Works on May 30, 2025, in West Mifflin, Pennsylvania. Trump signed an order Tuesday doubling tariffs on steel and aluminum, a policy he'd announced at the Pennsylvania event. (Photo by Jeff Swensen/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump signed a directive Tuesday doubling tariffs on steel and aluminum, marking another escalation in his on-and-off policy rocking global trade.

Trump announced the increased levies to 50%, up from 25%, on steel and aluminum Friday during a visit to U.S. Steel’s Irving plant in West Mifflin, Pennsylvania, just outside Pittsburgh. The president told the crowd he would hike the tariffs to “even further secure the steel industry in the United States.”

The increase will mark the second time since Trump’s second term began that he triggered national security duties on steel and aluminum, a major import into the U.S.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed during Tuesday’s daily press briefing that Trump would sign the directive Tuesday afternoon. The White House published the proclamation just before 5 p.m.

The move comes as the administration presses governments around the globe to strike new trade deals before a self-imposed deadline of July 9.

That’s when Trump’s staggering “liberation day” tariffs are set to kick in again, even as the U.S. International Trade Court ruled them unlawful. A federal appeals court restored Trump’s ability to impose them while the case proceeds.

The court order only applies to Trump’s tariffs triggered under a national emergency law, and not to tariffs imposed on national security grounds to protect certain industries — meaning the increase on steel and aluminum could go forth regardless.

Trump’s back-and-forth tariffs have been seen by some allies as strong-arming. Major trading partners including Canada and the European Union expressed disapproval of the significant price hike for U.S. companies that buy steel and aluminum imports from their producers.

The U.S. is the world’s largest steel importer with the bulk coming from Canada, according to figures from the U.S. International Trade Administration. The U.S. imported 26.2 million metric tons of steel in 2024 from 79 countries and territories, according to the administration.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney spoke Friday to government officials from across the country about plans to “supercharge” Canada’s economy and shield against economic fallout from U.S. tariff rates.

Canada’s steel manufacturers warned Saturday that Trump’s tariff increase will cause “unrecoverable consequences” for the industry and urged retaliatory measures, according to a statement from the Canadian Steel Producers Association.

The EU told several media outlets Saturday the bloc is planning “countermeasures” on U.S. goods by mid-July if a trade agreement cannot be reached.

The EU and Canada threatened countermeasures in mid-March after Trump hiked import taxes on steel and aluminum to 25%. 

The Menomonee Falls village board voted to cut the library budget by $300,000 last month. (Menomonee Falls Public Library)

Menomonee Falls residents are concerned about the future of their public library after the village board voted late last month to move $300,000 from the library’s 2026 budget to the police department. 

Board members said the May 19 move, which passed in a unanimous 6-0 vote, was intended to help the police increase staffing in response to an uptick in crime. Critics of the decision said the move is likely to force the library to cut back on staff, hours and programming — potentially putting its certification from Waukesha County at risk. 

The resolution, which was passed months before the board begins working on writing the village’s 2026 budget, also comes as libraries across the country are about to be hit by funding cuts from the federal government as part of President Donald Trump’s effort to slash federal spending. 

This year, the library’s budget was set at about $2.3 million, making the $300,000 cut about 15% of the library’s total budget. The cut is larger than the $225,000 the library was budgeted to spend on purchasing new materials this year. The police department’s 2025 budget is more than $12 million. 

“If village board members are so obsessed with firing librarians, just say so and be transparent with the community, because that is the impact of stealing 20% of the library’s funds,” Ian Dickmann, a community resident and former member of the library board, said at the board meeting. “You will be firing multiple librarians, cutting library hours and negatively impacting library programs, materials and services. The community has spoken in support of the library on multiple occasions. Yet here we are again. If you as a village board cannot manage to properly fund the police and the library, then you have failed as a board.” 

Menomonee Falls Police data shows that crime has increased slightly this year, and through retirements, resignations and leaves, the department currently has fewer than the 65 sworn officers in its budget. Police Chief Mark Waters said at a board meeting in April that the department was working with 54 fully trained officers. 

At that meeting, Waters said that this year, class A offenses, which include more serious crimes such as assaults, robberies and drug offenses, are up 18% compared to the first quarter of 2024. However, much of that increase is due to a 41% increase in drug offenses, of which Waters said the vast majority was “a lot of marijuana taken out of traffic stops.” 

As of April, there had been 41 thefts in Menomonee Falls this year, according to police data, an increase of six incidents from the first quarter last year. The clearance rate, the percentage of crimes that are solved, on those thefts was 51%.

Menomonee Falls Assistant Police Chief Gary Neyhart said in an email that the department has had problems  with staffing, but that budget decisions are up to the board. 

“Chief Mark Waters provides public quarterly updates to the Village Board and a consistent message has been that staffing has been an issue here at the police department,” Neyhart said. “The Village Board then determines how best to address these stated staffing concerns. I also cannot speak on their behalf. I don’t believe we are alone with our staffing issues and that many area departments are in a similar situation as well as dealing with retention and recruitment. We will always strive to provide the highest level of service that our staffing allows.”

Board member Paul Tadda, said at the May meeting that the resolution to cut the library budget was made to maintain the level of police services a suburban community expects. 

“We’re down to 52 fully trained officers. That requires forced overtime to maintain shifts are full and able to respond to emergencies as necessary and provide police services that the village has been accustomed to,” he said. “I do not want to live in Milwaukee.” 

Andy Guss, co-leader of the community group Grassroots Menomonee Falls, told the Wisconsin Examiner he is used to Tadda’s “racist dog whistles,” and that he is more concerned about the library’s ability to remain certified and serve as an important resource for village residents. 

In Wisconsin, counties set a tax levy for library services. Those funds are distributed to municipal libraries to compensate for the use of services by people who live in communities without a library. Municipal residents are exempted from paying the library tax if they live in a community that has a library which meets standards set by the state and county board. 

The Waukesha County standards require the village to provide at least $1,630,000 in the annual library budget, be open at least 60 hours a week, employee at least 17.61 full time employees, have a collection size of at least 125,400 materials, have at least 20 public computers and provide wireless internet access. 

Guss says he’s worried the cuts will put the library dangerously close to not meeting the standards. 

“We’re going to be really close to not hitting the Waukesha County standards,” he says. “And I’m fearful of what will happen if we also lose additional funding from the federal government, because then how short will we be? How many people, how many librarians will we have to fire? How many services will we have to cut? How many books do we not get, how much new material can we not get? How many computers? It’s scary to think about, because it limits access to people that need it. Because I don’t go to the library all the time for books, I use the library for a lot of other things, like book clubs or meeting spaces. What happens to that when the hours are reduced?” 

But at the meeting, board members brushed aside concerns community members raised about the standards. Board member Ann Lessila said in an email to the Examiner that the library won’t suffer.

“By reallocating funds ahead of the budget process, we have allowed the library board extra time to prepare,” Lessila said. “The library has been funded well over the required amount every year, without having to make any significant adjustments. The library remains well funded! Just about every other department has made significant adjustments over the years.” 

Steve Heser, a Menomonee Falls resident and the director of the Milwaukee County Federated Library System, said he highly doubts claims that residents won’t see any impacts from the cuts and that one community library failing to meet the county standards strains the whole county system — which in this case is the Bridges Library System covering all the libraries in Jefferson and Waukesha counties. 

“What you really don’t want in a system is one library failing to meet those standards, and then they’re kind of relying on the other municipalities to foot the bill for their library,” Heser said. 

Aside from the county standards, Guss said he’s also worried about the village board diminishing a community gathering space, especially for kids and teenagers who have already had recreational opportunities taken away. 

In March, the board voted to ban any children over the age of 12 from hanging out unaccompanied at Menomonee Falls Village Park, which is across the street from North Middle School. Village officials said the move was meant to deter vandalism. 

“They’ve got the playground across the street. They ban the 12-year-olds so they can’t go there,” Guss said. “But we do have at the library, they have a teen room that is well managed. I know it’s well attended, but I would assume that, based on these cuts, that they’re going to lower hours, lower staff, and maybe we would even lose the teen room.” 

The Menomonee Falls Village Manager Mark Fitzgerald and six of the village board members did not respond to requests for comment.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Victor Garcia in a photo from his Facebook page | Photo courtesy the Garcia family

Months after a suicide attempt at Columbia Correctional Institution, an online court database indicates that Victor Garcia, 34, died on April 5. 

His sister, Susan Garcia, said her brother was removed from a ventilator and died from complications from his attempt to hang himself on July 19 in a Columbia Correctional Institution shower. At the time, Garcia was on clinical observation because he said he was feeling suicidal.

Garcia gave the Examiner access to records her family received from the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, including incident reports that provide accounts from the day of Garcia’s suicide attempt. 

Questions remain about the purpose and origin of the tether Garcia used in the suicide attempt, as well as why an officer waited for a supervisor and did not immediately remove the tether when Garcia was found. 

The Wisconsin Department of Corrections has received notice of an anticipated lawsuit being filed against the department on behalf of Victor Garcia, DOC communications director Beth Hardtke said in an email in response to questions from the Examiner. DOC practice is not to comment on matters relating to pending or ongoing litigation, Hardtke said. 

Attorney Lonnie Story said he plans to file a lawsuit involving Victor Garcia’s attempted suicide at the facility. He said he needs to obtain more information before filing a suit. 

Garcia’s prison sentence and mental health strugles

In March 2008, when he was 16, Victor Garcia was found guilty of criminal trespassing in a dwelling, battery, disorderly conduct and a domestic abuse incident. He was sentenced to two years of probation. Garcia’s probation was revoked in July 2008, and in August he was sentenced to nine months in jail. 

When he was 18, Garcia was found guilty of being party to a crime for burglary and being armed with a dangerous weapon, causing substantial bodily harm and two counts of armed robbery with use of force. He was sentenced to over 20 years in prison. 

Garcia was placed in clinical observation on July 8. According to records provided by Susan Garcia, Victor Garcia was placed there because he told security staff and psychological services that he was feeling suicidal. 

An incident report said that Garcia stated he was using psychological services to remove himself from general population status “due to fears that he was being targeted as an informant.” Susan Garcia said her brother had suicidal thoughts and had been threatened by another incarcerated person. 

In the two days prior to his suicide attempt, Garcia did not engage with staff during multiple attempts to evaluate him. According to a review on July 16, Garcia said he felt depressed and felt like dying every day. 

The report said it appeared other members of the psychological services team had recommended exploring a stabilization referral for Garcia to the Wisconsin Resource Center (WRC). WRC provides treatment for severe impairments in daily living caused by mental health challenges. Susan Garcia believes her brother should have been sent to WRC earlier in his time in prison. 

According to a mental health report dated July 19, Victor Garcia was to be monitored every 15 minutes. 

Under the DOC’s clinical observation policy, the frequency with which a patient is monitored can vary. Depending on the level of risk, a patient might be observed at 15, 10 or 5-minute intervals, or constantly. 

According to an incident report by Psych Associate Chastity Drake, Drake thought she heard someone from the clinical observation area “yell they were ‘going to hang’ themselves.” She was unsure who it was. Her report was dated July 19, with an incident time of 2:30 p.m. 

Drake asked who had yelled, and the clinical observation checker told her who it was. The name is redacted in the incident report. Drake stopped at a door to check with that person about whether he was the person who had yelled about hanging himself, and he denied it. 

In front of the shower, Drake reported she “heard a man yelling and it sounded like the voice heard earlier. Due to PIOC going into shower, this writer determined she would touch base with him after the shower.” 

Garcia had access to a ‘tether’ 

At 2:30-3 p.m., Drake followed the observation checker to check in with Garcia, who was seated on the floor with his back against the door, according to her incident report. Drake could see a “tether” around his neck. She began to bang loudly on the door, yelling “Garcia.” He did not respond. 

Both ends of the tether were secured to the shower door near the shower drain.

Another incident report was completed by correctional officer Anthony Rego, who drove to the hospital where Garcia was treated. He wrote in the report that he’d learned Garcia had been in the shower for approximately 40 minutes, and at some point had the tether around his neck. 

It is unclear if the tether was meant to be attached to the shower door. One incident report said Garcia had used “the tether that was attached to the shower door.” An incident report by correctional officer Tyler Peterson also mentions a tether.

In his report, also dated July 19, Peterson wrote that he was assisting with removing and escorting Victor Garcia from a cell to the observation shower. Once he was in the shower and the door was shut, another correctional officer “removed the tether and wrist restraints,” he wrote. 

Family member questions why Garcia was left tethered while unresponsive 

An incident report by Courtney Schmidt, a licensed psychologist, states she was in RH1 at approximately 2:30 p.m. Schmidt’s report states that she and Drake were waiting to check in with Garcia to assess him for risk and that at the time, he was naked in the shower.

Schmidt wrote that as they walked back to the clinical observation shower, she saw Garcia hanging from the tether. He was unresponsive and she could see that the tether “was wrapped tightly around his neck.” 

Drake began to pound on the shower cell door, and the officer accompanying them called for a “supervisor/help over his radio.” Drake left to go and wait for help in the front, while Schmidt stayed with Garcia. She wrote that she saw his belly slightly moving. 

Schmidt asked the officer if he could take the tether off, “but he stated ‘I am not taking it off until a supervisor comes.’” He then called again over his radio, and Schmidt waited until help arrived. 

In an interview with the Examiner, Susan Garcia questioned the decision to wait for another person to arrive. She thinks the door should have been  opened, and staff should not have waited to assist her brother, “if you obviously see something’s wrong.”

Drake wrote that she heard the officer call for help and went to the clinical observation table to wait for help to arrive. She wrote that “the response appeared delayed due to other high priority events happening at the same time.”

“This writer went to find help and ran into Dr. Stange and Sgt. Ferstl,” Drake wrote. “Sgt. Ferstl and moments later Lt. Laturi and support staff rushed to the clinical observation shower. I observed as the PIOC was removed from cell and began to receive medical treatment.”

In his incident report, supervising officer Steven Laturi wrote that he was working as a shift supervisor. At about 2:40 p.m., he was responding to another emergency in Restrictive Housing Unit 1 (RH1) when he heard a radio call for a supervisor to report to the observation area. 

Laturi wrote that he was unable to respond immediately because he and a team were responding to someone else, whose name was redacted in the report. This person was in a restraint chair in a program cell, and he had tipped his restraint chair back and removed his legs from it. 

According to Ferstl’s incident report, he was assisting Laturi and completing inventory when Drake came out from the RH1 observation area and told staff that Garcia was unresponsive. He reported that at around that time, the observation check officer made a radio call, asking for a supervisor to come to the observation area for an inmate who was harming himself. 

Ferstl wrote that he arrived in the RH1 observation area and saw Garcia sitting upright at the shower door. He tried to get Garcia’s attention, but Garcia was unresponsive. Ferstl made a radio call for a supervisor to report to the observation area. 

Ferstl then “unsecured one end of the door tether which removed the tether’s tension,” he wrote, allowing Garcia to rest in a lying position near the cell door. Ferstl made another radio call, asking the health services unit to report to RH1 immediately. 

How Garcia described himself

Garcia has a profile on penacon.com, a website for finding an incarcerated pen pal. Susan Garcia said her brother set up the profile, which includes photos of artwork. 

Garcia described himself as “an avid reader that enjoys educating, empowering & entertaining myself mentally in a place designed to break the mind, body & spirit.” 

He wrote that being incarcerated at 17 “forced me to mature fast.” “When I’m out,” he wrote, on his bucket list was traveling the Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific coasts, experiencing the life of different cultures through food. 

“He would call my kids almost every day,” Susan Garcia said. “Weekly, definitely weekly. He would send them gifts. He loved kids… My brother would give the clothes off his back for you. He was emotional, but hid it. He hid it very well.” 

Further information not yet available 

According to the DOC’s mental health training policy, the department’s division of adult institutions (DAI) is supposed to provide annual update training in suicide prevention to all DAI staff who have contact with incarcerated people. DAI facilities are also supposed to conduct drills simulating a suicide attempt by an incarcerated person and staff response.

On April 17, the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office said it could not release any information pertaining to the investigation at this point. The investigation was being reviewed by the Columbia County District Attorney’s Office, and additional investigation may need to occur. On May 23, the sheriff’s office said there had been no change in the status of the case. 

On May 21, the Examiner submitted a public records request to the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, asking for any records produced by any DOC investigation of Garcia’s death.

The DOC denied Susan Garcia access to body camera and security camera footage of Victor Garcia’s suicide attempt, citing security concerns and the public interest in protecting the safety of incarcerated people and staff. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

People wait outside of the Lyndon B. Johnson Hospital in Houston. For years, states have taxed hospitals and other health care providers to draw down federal matching funds and help finance their Medicaid programs. Now, states may lose their ability to raise or implement new taxes. (Photo by Brandon Bell/Getty Images)

The tax and spending bill the U.S. House approved targets a strategy states have used to boost the Medicaid dollars they get from the federal government. The measure would cap or freeze the taxes states levy on medical providers, potentially leaving states with major holes in their Medicaid budgets.

As a result, states would face the choice of either replacing the lost federal money with state dollars, scaling back services or providing coverage to fewer people.

Medicaid is a joint state-federal program, primarily for people with low incomes. For the traditional Medicaid population — children and their caregivers, people with disabilities and pregnant women — the federal government matches state Medicaid spending on a sliding scale, ranging from 50% for the wealthiest states to 77% for the poorest ones.

Consider a state that gets half of its Medicaid funding from the federal government. If that state collects $100 million by taxing providers, it can use $50 million of the revenue to draw down $50 million in federal matching funds, which it can use to expand Medicaid coverage to more people. Then it can take the remaining $50 million in revenue and use that money to draw down $50 million in federal dollars to pay providers more for caring for Medicaid patients.

Forty-nine states — all but Alaska — use the strategy. In 2018, the most recent year for which data is available, states relied on provider taxes to fund 17% of their Medicaid spending, up from 7% in 2008, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

As part of their effort to cut federal Medicaid spending by roughly $625 billion over the next decade, House Republicans have proposed capping the state provider taxes and freezing them in place, preventing states from raising them or implementing new ones in response to inflation. Under current law, states can levy taxes of up to 6% on tax providers’ net revenue. The GOP measure also would add work requirements for Medicaid recipients, a step that would save money by reducing the rolls.

A report from the Congressional Budget Office, the bipartisan research arm of Congress, says eliminating the taxes entirely could save the federal government hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade.

Many conservatives say the taxes are an accounting trick that allows states to draw down money from the federal government without having to front their true share of the Medicaid program. Some have even called the provider taxes a “money laundering” scheme.

“States are gaming the system — creating complex tax schemes that shift their responsibility to invest in Medicaid and rob federal taxpayers,” Dr. Mehmet Oz, the administrator of the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, said in a May 12 news release.

Brian Blase, president of the Paragon Health Institute, a conservative policy group that is working with Republicans to formulate Medicaid cuts, described provider taxes as “a way that states and providers can rip off the federal government.”

“States need to have some accountability for the spending in their programs,” Blase said.

But advocates of these taxes, including state Medicaid directors and even the hospitals that pay the taxes, describe them as legal and legitimate financial tools that have helped providers cover essential services and states fund their Medicaid programs for years. The result of eliminating these taxes or freezing them, they say, will be hospital closures and service cuts.

“We don’t like to pay these taxes, but the alternative is resources or access to care aren’t there for that community,” said Jason Pray, vice president of legislative affairs at America’s Essential Hospitals, an association representing about 350 hospitals. “The state would more than likely have to then tax individuals to make up for that, to keep the services at the same level and keep the resources at the same level.”

Blase said the provider taxes allow hospitals to make windfall profits from the additional federal matching funds that flow back to them, representing a type of “corporate welfare.”

But Pray said often hospitals in his association are losing money. By allowing states to boost payments to hospitals and other providers that serve Medicaid patients, he said, the tax enables hospitals to stay open in the long run, not garner a windfall.

Pray also noted that in the past, support for the taxes has been bipartisan.

“Republicans for years have shown they support provider taxes and have understood the value of them,” he said.

Edwin Park, a research professor at the Georgetown University McCourt School of Public Policy, pointed out that some hospitals pay the tax and don’t get much back, because they serve few Medicaid patients. The hospitals that benefit most are the so-called safety net hospitals that do care for many low-income patients, he said.

Park said he is worried that once the strategy is off the table, states will have to cut their Medicaid spending to balance their budgets.

Jay Ludlam, deputy secretary for North Carolina Medicaid, is worried about that, too. In North Carolina, Ludlam said, almost all of the tax revenue the state collects from providers helps pay for Medicaid services.

“The money goes to providers when they provide services. It’s not special. It’s just another way that states tax themselves and put money into the program,” Ludlam told Stateline. “If it means that there’s going to be less money in Medicaid … we’ll have to cut eligibility, cut benefits, cut provider rates, in order to maintain the program.”

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

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

Left to right, Denver Mayor Michael Johnston, Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, Boston Mayor Michelle Wu and David J. Bier, director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, are sworn in during a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on sanctuary cities' policies at the U.S. Capitol on March 5, 2025 in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Homeland Security over the weekend took down a public list of cities and jurisdictions that the Trump administration labeled as “sanctuary” cities, after a sharp rebuke from a group representing 3,000 sheriffs and local law enforcement.

On Saturday, National Sheriffs’ Association President Sheriff Kieran Donahue slammed the list as an “unnecessary erosion of unity and collaboration with law enforcement.”

“The completion and publication of this list has not only violated the core principles of trust, cooperation, and partnership with fellow law enforcement, but it also has the potential to strain the relationship between Sheriffs and the White House administration,” Donahue said.

DHS published the list Thursday and it was unavailable by Sunday. It’s unclear when it was removed, but internet archives show Saturday as the last time the list was still active.

In a statement, DHS did not answer questions as to why the list was removed.

“As we have previously stated, the list is being constantly reviewed and can be changed at any time and will be updated regularly,” according to a DHS spokesperson. “Designation of a sanctuary jurisdiction is based on the evaluation of numerous factors, including self-identification as a Sanctuary Jurisdiction, noncompliance with Federal law enforcement in enforcing immigration laws, restrictions on information sharing, and legal protections for illegal aliens.”

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem on Fox News Sunday did not acknowledge that the list was taken down, but said some localities had “pushed back.”

“They think because they don’t have one law or another on the books that they don’t qualify, but they do qualify,” Noem said. “They are giving sanctuary to criminals.”

List followed Trump executive order

Local law enforcement aids in immigration enforcement by holding immigrants in local jails until federal immigration officials can arrive.

The creation of the list stems from Donald Trump’s executive order in April that required DHS to produce a list of cities that do not cooperate with federal immigration officials in enforcement matters, in order to strip federal funding from those local governments.

Those jurisdictions are often dubbed “sanctuary cities,” but immigration enforcement still occurs in the city — there’s just no coordination between the local government and the federal government.

The jurisdictions are often a target for the Trump administration and Republicans, who support the President Donald Trump campaign promise of mass deportations of people without permanent legal status.

Congressional Republicans in March grilled mayors from Boston, Chicago and Denver, on their cities’ immigration policies during a six-hour hearing before the U.S. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

‘Strong objection’

Local officials were puzzled by the list.

One law enforcement association in North Dakota questioned why several counties — Billings, Golden Valley, Grant, Morton, Ramsey, Sioux, and Slope — were listed as sanctuary jurisdictions because those areas cooperate with federal immigration officials.

In a statement, the North Dakota Sheriff’s and Deputies Association said the “methodology and criteria used to compile this list is unknown,” and there has been no communication from DHS “on how to rectify this finding.”

“The elected Sheriffs of these counties take strong objection with language in this release characterizing them as ‘deliberately and shamefully obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws endangering American communities,’” according to NDSDA.

“The North Dakota Sheriff’s and Deputies Association is working to gather more information regarding the lack of transparency and reasoning as to why the Department of Homeland Security did not fact check prior to incorrectly naming these North Dakota counties.”

Local advocacy groups also noted the problems with the DHS list.

“I assume they’ve removed (the list) because they were bombarded with complaints about inaccuracy and how and why these various jurisdictions got on the list,” Steven Brown, executive director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island, said in an interview Monday.

According to the Internet Archive website Wayback Machine, the states, as well as the District of Columbia, that were on the list included Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington state and Wisconsin.

Christopher Shea and Amy Dalrymple contributed to this story. 

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

WASHINGTON — A federal judge in California has blocked the Trump administration from invalidating work permits and other documents that granted legal status to 5,000 Venezuelans, a subset class of the nearly 350,000 whose temporary legal protections the U.S. Supreme Court last month allowed to be terminated.

The Saturday order from U.S. District Judge Edward Chen will, for now, allow the work permits and deportation protections for that subgroup to last until October 2026, or until the entire case, which challenges the end of temporary protected status for Venezuelans and Haitians, is decided. 

Those 5,000 Venezuelans were granted extended protections by immigration officials before the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on May 19 that allowed the Trump administration to move forward with revoking  protections.

During a hearing last week, Chen said he was considering an order to preserve work permits for that small group of 5,000 Venezuelans. All 350,000 previously held temporary protected status, or TPS, which allows immigrants to live in the United States for a set period because their home country is deemed too dangerous for return.

Chen, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama to a seat in the Northern District of California, acknowledged that last month’s Supreme Court decision created a small group of Venezuelans who had gotten work permits approved until October 2026 — before the high court’s order moved up the date their TPS status expired, which was April 7.

Chen in March blocked the Trump administration from ending temporary protections for the group of all 350,000 Venezuelans. Last month’s Supreme Court order means that those Venezuelans will be able to continue to challenge in court the end of their work permits and the possibility of removal, but they no longer have protections from deportation.

The case is also before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which will hear oral arguments in July.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio testifies before the House Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs at the Rayburn House Office Building on May 21, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by John McDonnell/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is personally working to facilitate the return of a man wrongly deported to a notorious mega-prison in El Salvador, at the request of the Department of Homeland Security, the Trump administration said on Monday in court documents.

If successful, the man, identified in documents in federal court in Maryland only by the pseudonym of “Cristian,” would be the first deported person returned from the brutal Salvadoran Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, or CECOT.

Bringing him back to the United States would also contradict the Trump administration’s long-running argument in the courts and to the public that El Salvador has custody over hundreds of men sent there in March, not the U.S.

The Trump-appointed judge in Cristian’s case on Friday had blasted the administration for not detailing to her its actions to return him.

The Trump administration has made the same argument in the case of another wrongly deported man, Kilmar Abrego Garcia of Maryland, despite a U.S. Supreme Court order to facilitate his return.

Trump and other top U.S. officials have alleged Abrego Garcia is a gang member, though there is no evidence of that. President Donald Trump has also acknowledged he could bring Abrego Garcia back if he wanted to do so.

‘Prompt and diligent efforts on behalf of the United States’

The court document in Cristian’s case filed Monday by U.S. Department of Homeland Security official Mellissa B. Harper says that Rubio “has a personal relationship” with El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele and Salvadoran government officials that dates back over a decade to the Florida Republican’s time on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.

The case is being heard in Baltimore, in the District of Maryland.

“Based on this deep experience with El Salvador and the Secretary’s familiarity with political and diplomatic sensitivities in that country, he is personally handling the discussions with the government of El Salvador regarding persons subject to the Court’s order detained in El Salvador,” according to the document.

“Secretary Rubio has read and understands this Court’s order, and wants to assure this Court that he is committed to making prompt and diligent efforts on behalf of the United States to comply with that order,” the document continues.

The document notes that DHS has asked the State Department for “assistance in complying with the Court’s order, including by entering into negotiations to facilitate Cristian’s return.”

Harper, who submitted the declaration, works at Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Enforcement and Removal Operations division as the acting deputy executive associate director.

Judge harshly criticized administration

The document was filed after U.S. District Judge for the District of Maryland Stephanie Gallagher Friday slammed the Trump administration for its “blatant lack of effort to comply” with her order earlier this month to report steps taken to bring back Cristian, who in court documents is said to be 20 years old.

On May 6, she affirmed her decision that the Trump administration must facilitate Cristian’s return.

Gallagher, whom Trump appointed in 2018, gave the Department of Justice until Monday to comply with her order.

Cristian was among roughly 300 men sent to the Salvadoran mega-prison CECOT. About 200 of those men were removed under an 18th-century wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, and the rest, such as Abrego Garcia, were removed under other immigration laws.

Cristian arrived in the U.S. as an unaccompanied minor and was part of a class action that barred removal from the U.S. while his asylum case was pending in immigration court.

Like the Abrego Garcia case, the administration said earlier it was powerless to compel the Salvadoran government to release Cristian, an argument Gallagher expressed frustration with Friday.

“Defendants simply reiterated their well-worn talking points on their reasons for removing Cristian and failed to provide any of the information the Court required,” Gallagher wrote in her order.

The Trump administration is paying El Salvador up to $15 million to detain removed immigrants from the U.S.

“As a Venezuelan native, he is in El Salvador only because the United States sent him there pursuant to an agreement apparently reached with the government of El Salvador,” Gallagher wrote.