With a new law cutting Medicaid funding to certain clinics, Planned Parenthood estimated 200 of its clinics in 24 states are at risk of closure with the cuts, and nearly all of those clinics — 90% — are in states where abortion is legal. (Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)

Planned Parenthood had already begun the arduous task of closing some clinics and curtailing services immediately after Congress passed the massive budget reconciliation bill that included a new law cutting Medicaid funding to certain clinics on July 3.

Now that a federal judge only partially blocked the enforcement of the bill, that situation may only get worse in the coming weeks and months.

The provision – which the organization said directly targeted their services for defunding and fulfills a longstanding goal of anti-abortion advocates and many Republican elected officials – prohibits Medicaid funding for clinics that provide abortion care and billed Medicaid more than $800,000 in fiscal year 2023. Federal Medicaid dollars cannot be used for abortion care, except in cases of rape, incest or certain medical conditions, and are instead most often used to provide standard reproductive health care at little to no cost. That includes treatment for sexually transmitted infections, cancer screenings and contraception. Planned Parenthood provides services for about 2 million patients every year, and 64% of clinics are in rural areas or places with health care provider shortages.

Within days of President Donald Trump’s signature on the bill, Planned Parenthood and affiliates in Utah and Massachusetts sued federal authorities, quickly winning a temporary restraining order. But on Monday, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani’s order only blocked enforcement against one of the affiliates that filed the lawsuit, Planned Parenthood Association of Utah, and affiliates “who will not provide abortion services” as of Oct. 1. Clinics that didn’t bill Medicaid more than $800,000 in fiscal year 2023 are also protected from cuts.

On Tuesday afternoon, attorneys for the Trump administration filed a notice of appeal to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals seeking to reverse the preliminary injunction decision.

Clinic and affiliate leaders say the fallout from the funding measure has already resulted in chaos, and they are still trying to determine what it means for their operations.

Clinics were already hampered by frozen Title X funding

Erica Wilson-Domer, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Greater Ohio, told States Newsroom on Thursday that they temporarily paused Medicaid services after the bill became law, but were back to regular operations under the restraining order. She acknowledged it will vary by state and county, and it’s unclear how the clinics will respond to Monday’s preliminary injunction.

“We have a saying that if you’ve seen one Planned Parenthood, you’ve seen one Planned Parenthood,” Wilson-Domer said. “We sort of all have to independently make a decision based on our financial situation and what’s going on in our states.”

Each affiliate operates as an independent nonprofit organization that can make its own financial and administrative decisions. Similar to the landscape for abortion access after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision in 2022, the availability of services for Medicaid patients at Planned Parenthood and other high-volume reproductive health clinics now largely depends on where someone lives.

The national group estimated 200 of its clinics in 24 states are at risk of closure with the cuts, and nearly all of those clinics — 90% — are in states where abortion is legal. In 12 states, approximately 75% of abortion-providing Planned Parenthood health centers are threatened. The entire organization has about 600 clinics in 48 states.

Wilson-Domer said even before the budget bill became law, the clinics limited what contraceptives they could offer after the U.S. Health and Human Services Department froze Title X funds for specific clinics that the agency said provided care to undocumented immigrants and promoted messages of diversity, equity and inclusion. The loss of that funding increased the costs of obtaining contraception such as Nexplanon from $425 to more than $1,200, and no longer made it feasible for the clinics to offer.

Two clinics in rural Ohio that did not provide abortion services will close on Aug. 1, the Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region announced on Thursday. Those clinics provided contraception, cancer screenings, testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections and other wellness services.

“Our challenge isn’t just the federal lawsuit, but we’re in a state … where the state legislature pays no attention to the needs of its community,” said Nan Whaley, president and CEO of the Ohio affiliate, during a press conference on Thursday. She added that Ohio also passed a budget bill that allows the rollback of Medicaid expansion if federal support for the program drops by even 1%.

Although the affiliate’s four other clinics will remain open, they are no longer accepting or billing Medicaid for services. In an emailed statement, spokesperson Maya McKenzie said the restraining order wasn’t enough.

“For many smaller affiliates, the risk of the federal government requesting back pay if the order or an injunction expires is too great,” McKenzie said.

In a court brief filed by the U.S. Department of Justice on July 14 opposing Planned Parenthood’s request for an injunction, DOJ attorneys said, “an injunction won’t provide the certainty that Planned Parenthood wants, because the government will be able to deny (or claw back) payments if and when it ultimately succeeds.”

Some Pennsylvania clinics limited contraception options

In Pennsylvania, Planned Parenthood Keystone said it temporarily paused Medicaid billing for contraceptive devices such as IUDs, Nexplanon, and Depo Provera, among other services, while it assessed the legal risks of the new law. Instead, sliding scale fees and referrals to other providers were made. After the restraining order, CEO Melissa Reed said they resumed billing.

“That court order is set to expire soon, and the legal landscape remains uncertain,” Reed wrote in an emailed statement. “We’re hopeful for a lasting resolution, but regardless of the outcome, our focus will always be on making sure patients can continue getting the care they need.”

Elsewhere, Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania said they could not share internal protocols but remained committed to protecting access to care for every patient.

Affiliates in the West, including Planned Parenthood Columbia Willamette in Oregon and Washington, said their nine health centers are providing the full scope of usual services. That includes the Ontario Health Center, which is a critical border clinic for patients in western Idaho, which has a near-total abortion ban. Christopher Coburn, the affiliate’s chief of external affairs, said they are not limiting appointments for patients covered by Medicaid either. Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, which has health centers in Idaho, Alaska, Hawaii, Indiana and Kentucky, also said it is not limiting services.

Like many others who provide family planning services, Planned Parenthood of Greater Ohio CEO Wilson-Domer said the cuts to Medicaid won’t affect abortion rates, and will likely increase them further by cutting off contraception access.

“What I hope people are really thinking about is that statistic that 1 in 4 women will visit Planned Parenthood in their lifetime, and … preventative care is what’s actually being defunded here,” she said. “If the intention is to reduce abortion, this is the exact opposite of that.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana speaks to reporters about the Republican budget reconciliation package at a weekly press conference on Tuesday, June 24, 2025, at the U.S. Capitol. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — House Republicans are headed home early for their August break after an uproar over the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files all but halted any possibility of floor action.

House Speaker Mike Johnson said Tuesday he’s sending his members back to their districts until September to avoid “political games” relating to a bipartisan effort pressuring the release of government investigative documents on Epstein. The financier was a Florida sex offender who died by suicide in 2019 in his New York City jail cell, according to authorities, where he was awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges.

Epstein enjoyed a wide circle of wealthy, powerful friends, including President Donald Trump. The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that it reviewed a 2003 birthday greeting from Trump to Epstein featuring a cryptic message and hand-drawn naked woman, leading Trump to promptly sue the publication.

“We’re for maximum transparency. We’re engaging in that right now. We don’t need political games,” Johnson said at a weekly press conference where the Louisiana Republican was asked about an effort by his own members to compel the release of case material.

GOP Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky has joined California Democrat Rep. Ro Khanna in spearheading an effort to force a vote on releasing what are commonly referred to as the Epstein files. The procedural move, called a discharge petition, could be ready for the floor in September if Massie and Khanna can gather signatures from a majority of members.

“I don’t understand Thomas Massie’s motivation. I really don’t. I don’t know how his mind works,” Johnson continued.

He said the White House needs “space” to produce documents and is “in the process” of releasing materials related to the Epstein case.

“There’s no purpose for Congress to push the administration to do something it’s already doing,” he said.

On a separate track, the GOP-led House Rules Committee, the last stop for legislation before it reaches the floor, recessed Monday evening before Democrats on the panel could force their Republican counterparts to vote on amendments related to release of the Epstein information.

The bills stuck in that committee, largely to do with immigration, permitting and public lands, will no longer go to the floor this week.

Last floor votes are scheduled for Wednesday afternoon. House members will not return until Sept. 2.

Interview sought with Ghislaine Maxwell

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche announced on social media Tuesday that federal prosecutors are seeking an interview with Epstein’s one-time girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a lengthy prison sentence for conspiring with the financier to sexually abuse girls.

Trump told reporters in the Oval Office Tuesday that the department’s attempt to interview Maxwell “sounds appropriate,” adding that he was uninformed about the matter and downplaying the relevance of the Epstein case.

“I don’t know about it, but I think it’s something that … sounds appropriate,” he said.

Blanche was Trump’s personal criminal defense attorney. Asked if Blanche’s involvement in the interview raised any concerns, Trump said no. Democrats have used Trump’s social relationship with Epstein to imply he may have been aware of Epstein’s illegal activities.

Trump urged reporters to drop the Epstein case and instead focus on a recent declaration from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard that former President Barack Obama improperly ordered an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election that Trump eventually won. Democrats denounced the report.

Trump tries to dismiss Epstein uproar

Trump has spent the last couple weeks dismissing loud concerns from Republicans and his voter base since a July 7 Justice Department memo denied the existence of an Epstein “client list” and concluded the department would not publish any of the files.

After receiving intense criticism, Trump ordered the department on July 17 to release grand jury testimony in the case.

The president called his supporters “weaklings” for expressing concern about the Epstein “hoax,” in a July 16 post on his online platform Truth Social. Trump also told reporters last week that the so-called Epstein files were “made up” by former presidents Obama and Joe Biden.

The president’s supporters, including members of his current administration, have fixated for years on unreleased details surrounding the financier’s involvement in sex trafficking, including possible names of clients and the circumstances around Epstein’s death.

According to federal charging documents, Epstein sexually abused dozens of teenage girls at his residences in Manhattan and Palm Beach, Florida. The Justice Department has concluded that Epstein likely had more than 1,000 victims.

Jacob Fischler contributed to this report.

Federal agents block people protesting an Immigration and Customs Enforcement raid at a nearby licensed cannabis farm in Ventura County, California, on July 10, 2025. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A group of U.S. House Democrats on Tuesday blasted President Donald Trump’s administration for what they called “cruelty” and “lawlessness” in carrying out mass deportations of migrants without legal status.

At a forum at the U.S. Capitol, Democrats who sit on the House Homeland Security Committee and others rebuked the administration’s sweeping immigration crackdown and its impact on communities, bringing in prominent voices from immigration and legal advocacy groups and a U.S. Marine veteran who said his father was beaten by federal immigration officers.

Rep. Delia Ramirez, an Illinois Democrat, slammed the Department of Homeland Security, calling the agency “unaccountable.”

“They continue to break the law and bypass congressional authority to conceal the ways in which they are abusing (the) power of DHS to violate our rights, undermine due process and tear our communities apart,” she said.

“Under the Trump administration, DHS is an out-of-control, abusive terror force that disregards law, rejects accountability and tramples on the very foundations of our Constitution,” Ramirez added.

Rep. Troy Carter, a Louisiana Democrat and committee member, said “like many Americans, I’m deeply troubled by the cruel and profoundly un-American mass deportation agenda being undertaken by Donald Trump and his allies.”

“These harsh policies are not about public safety or border security — we have seen children torn from their parents, a flagrant disregard for basic due process protections and individuals targeted for exercising their First Amendment rights,” he said.

“Congress must uphold the rights of all people in the United States. We need immigration policy rooted in dignity, fairness and due process, not cruelty and authoritarianism.”

$170B for immigration enforcement

The forum came less than three weeks after Trump signed a massive tax and spending cut bill into law that provides roughly $170 billion for immigration and border enforcement.

NPR reported Monday that DHS is preparing to use military bases in New Jersey and Indiana to detain immigrants who unlawfully entered the United States.

“What is happening right now is just plain wrong,” Rep. Seth Magaziner, a Rhode Island Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee, said. “We’re all for immigration enforcement and smart border security, but the targeting of innocent people who are just trying to work hard and make a living, the targeting of the elderly, of the sick, of U.S. citizens, of students by an anonymous army of masked men is not who we are as a country.”

‘Violently attacked and detained’

Alejandro Barranco, a Marine veteran, said his father, an immigrant who does not have legal status, was “violently attacked and detained by federal immigration agents” in Orange County, California.

Barranco said his father, a landscaper, was working in June when masked men approached and quickly surrounded him and did not identify themselves or present any warrant.

He said his father was terrified and ran.

“They chased him through the parking lot and into a crowded street,” Barranco said. “They pointed guns at him, pepper-sprayed him. They tackled him to the ground and kicked him. They restrained and handcuffed him. They dragged him into an unmarked vehicle and pushed him into the back seat. As many have already seen, while several agents were holding him down, another beat him repeatedly in the neck and head area, over and over and over again.”

Barranco depicted the brutal conditions his father endured while in federal custody and said it’s been a nightmare for his family since his father was detained.

Barranco said that while his father was eventually released on bond, “the trauma that day and the brokenness of this system remains in our hearts, and we are still under a cloud.”

Masked agents

The Trump administration also faced scrutiny from the panel over U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents wearing masks during immigration raids. 

Jesse Franzblau, associate director of policy at the National Immigrant Justice Center, said ICE agents wearing masks with no identifying information is not proper, but “quite dangerous” and “puts everyone further at risk.”

“I mean, we’ve seen people impersonating ICE, wearing masks and saying that they’re ICE and then carrying out abuses against other people,” Franzblau said, adding that “it puts communities at more risk when you have masked agents, federal agents that should be identifying themselves, going into communities and carrying out sweeping operations like this.”

The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment Tuesday regarding the forum.

In a Tuesday press release, the department defended ICE, saying the agency has targeted the “worst of the worst” during immigration arrests.

“We will not allow sanctuary politicians, activist hacks, or rioters stand in our way of protecting the American people,” Tricia McLaughlin, assistant secretary for public affairs at the department, said in the Tuesday statement.

To mark six months since Trump took office on Sunday, the department touted a long list of its actions, including on immigration enforcement and border security.

The agency described the list as “victories” in Trump’s and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s “mission to secure the homeland and Make America Safe Again,” including record low numbers of illegal border crossings.

The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C. (Photo courtesy of the Kennedy Center)

Republicans on the U.S. House Appropriations Committee voted Tuesday to rename the Opera House at the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C., for first lady Melania Trump.

The panel adopted, 33-25, a package of amendments to the bill funding the Interior Department, Environmental Protection Agency and related agencies for fiscal 2026 that included a provision to designate the First Lady Melania Trump Opera House at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

The vote was mostly party line, with Democrat Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington joining all Republicans present in voting in favor.

The ranking Democrat on the Interior-Environment Appropriations Subcommittee, Chellie Pingree of Maine, said she was “surprised” by the provision.

“Republicans snuck in something that I think is slightly divisive, which is renaming one section of the Kennedy Center after a family member of this administration,” Pingree said during the full committee markup, a meeting when a bill is debated, amended and voted on.

Subcommittee Chairman Mike Simpson, an Idaho Republican, responded that the name change was “an excellent way to recognize (the first lady’s) support and commitment to promoting the arts.”

“Yes, we renamed the Opera House at the Kennedy Center for the first lady, who is the honorary chairman of the board of trustees of the Kennedy Center,” Simpson said.

The Kennedy Center is considered one of the nation’s premier performing arts venues.

President Donald Trump removed several members of the Kennedy Center board in February, replacing them with loyalists who elected him board chair. He also fired the cultural center’s president, Deborah Rutter, and replaced her on an interim basis with Richard Grenell, who has held several roles over Trump’s two presidencies.

Interior-Environment bill

The House Interior-Environment spending bill proposes nearly $38 billion for departments and agencies covered by the measure, an overall spending cut of 6% compared to current levels that mainly comes from chopping 23% of the EPA’s budget.

The Interior Department would see a cut of less than one-half of 1% of its current funding, according to a summary provided by committee Republicans.

Arts and culture funding would also see major cuts in the bill.

The National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities would each see 35% cuts, bringing each agency’s funding to $135 million. The Smithsonian Institution would receive $961.3 million, representing a 12% cut. And the Kennedy Center itself would see a 17.2% cut, to $37.2 million.

The full House Appropriations Committee approved the bill, with the amendment, 33-28.

Appropriations bills must win 60 votes in the Senate to become law, which generally makes it difficult for overly partisan provisions to be included in the final text.

The corresponding Senate subcommittee has not released its version of the bill, but is scheduled to consider it Thursday.

KUSD's referendum failed in February, and as the state budget process progressed, the district had a $19 million budget gap to fill. A participant at a February rally rolls out a scroll with the names of every school district that has gone to referendum since the last state budget. Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner.

Between the Wisconsin state budget providing no new general aid to schools and the Trump administration withholding federal funds, Kenosha Unified School District (KUSD) Superintendent Jeff Weiss and Chief Financial Officer Tarik Hamdan say school funding has never been so uncertain.

“We really, right now, are at a very unsure, very uncertain time, and it just makes planning extremely difficult,” Weiss told the Wisconsin Examiner in an interview.

The district leaders were among many public school advocates who for months lobbied for large investments in Wisconsin’s K-12 schools during the state budget process that wrapped up earlier this month. 

Weiss said state funding for schools that has not kept pace with inflation over the past 16 years has created the difficult financial situation that Kenosha and other districts across the state are facing and are the reason so many have gone to local taxpayers through referendum to ask for more money.

A recent Wisconsin Policy Forum report found the state’s per pupil education spending has fallen below the national average. In the 2023 fiscal year, Wisconsin spent $14,882 per pupil on public education — 9.9% less than the national average of $16,526 per pupil.

KUSD sought a referendum early this year to bring in $23 million annually for five years to help the school district meet its safety improvements, staffing, curriculum, technology and major maintenance costs. The process was controversial in the community, dividing residents and even eliciting boos at a chorus concert. 

The referendum failed in February, and as the state budget process progressed, the district had a $19 million budget gap to fill. In April, Weiss asked lawmakers at a public hearing to address the long-term problem so he and the district could spend less time struggling to get local taxpayers to pay more and more time on student learning and improving educational offerings.

“This is not how I want to spend our time in the school district,” Weiss said at the time. 

District leaders were hoping for two main changes in the budget: an increase in the state’s share of special education costs to cover 60% and an increase to the state’s general aid to schools of $415 per pupil in year one and $430 per pupil in year two. 

“Special education reimbursement at 60%… would have generated about $11 million,” Weiss said. “The additional per pupil increases would have added around $2 million, a little bit less than that, so together, these two items would have generated about $13 million of additional funding for KUSD.”

Ultimately, the bipartisan budget deal approved by lawmakers and Evers provided an increase for special education funding but no general aid increases. Evers has defended the education portions of the budget, saying it helps with school funding in a “significant way.” 

“That’s a good thing, because we did exactly what the school districts were asking us to do,” Evers said. 

Education advocates haven’t had the same reaction. The Wisconsin Public Education Network called on lawmakers to vote against the budget, and for Evers to veto it. Peggy Wirtz-Olsen, president of Wisconsin Education Association Council, the state’s largest teacher’s union, said the budget was “a complete betrayal of public schools” and schools could not handle the “double-blow” from federal cuts to public education and the state’s inadequate investments. 

“Given the ugly truth about this budget, educators are exploring every option to force politicians to bring forward a long-term solution to Wisconsin’s school funding crisis,” Wirtz-Olsen said. “This state can’t keep shattering the foundation of our public schools and expect the professionals who teach them to pick up the pieces.”

For his part, Weiss said he was glad to see some movement from lawmakers, who agreed to raise the special education reimbursement rate to 42% in the first year and 45% in the second year of the budget — a significant jump from the current 30% and the biggest increase in over 30 years. However, the total cost picked up by the state — $207 million in year one and $297 million in year two —  still falls short of what districts need. 

“The fact that there was movement — I was glad to see that,” Weiss said. “Is it game changing? No, not by any means.”

The district is now trying to plan with the new budget.

District budget planning 

Kenosha leaders said they are anticipating the special ed reimbursement rate will fall below the estimated levels. That’s because the pool of money for special education is finite as a “sum certain” allocation, meaning if costs for districts are higher than estimated the state won’t pay more and the percentage of those costs the state covers will go down.

“We’re expecting to get 39[%] just based on some of the historical patterns of sum certain funding,” Weiss said.

Weiss said district officials are expecting about $3 million per year in additional funding from the boost — $10 million per year less than what they initially hoped for from the state budget.

The district has already made significant cuts of about $5 million to help balance its 2025-26 budget. Staffing is the largest expense and most of the cuts came from the elimination of nearly 43 positions. Prior to seeking a referendum, the school district had already closed schools, including five elementary schools and a middle school, and made other cuts to staff and programs.

Salaries and benefits are increasing, driving up costs. 

“Health insurance trends have been increasing at about 10 to 13% each year alone. The salary component, when you’re talking about inflationary increases… and movement on salary schedule just in recent times, is somewhere around 4.5%,” Hamdan said. “There’s all these factors that make budget planning… very, very difficult.”

Weiss said the district also put some items on hold, including security upgrades, staff raises and curriculum.

“As we’re able to find funding, we’ll start putting some of those [on] short term holds — trying to fund those,” Weiss said. “We know that we can’t stop buying curriculum materials or fixing our buildings or buying technology.”

Weiss said there is also some pressure on compensation from neighboring school districts, one of which recently succeeded in passing a referendum. 

“How do we stay competitive with compensation for our employees?” Weiss said, adding that the state budget money will likely be used for labor costs and other items on short-term hold. 

Long-term items, including controlled entrances for seven schools, will continue to be on hold.

“We’re going to have to find another funding stream for that,” Weiss said. “At this point, we haven’t identified what that funding stream is, so those are some of the things that we have taken into account as we look at the budget.”

Potential property tax increase 

Even with the failed referendum, Kenosha’s district leaders are concerned about how property tax changes could appear to residents. School districts will be allowed a $325 per pupil revenue limit increase each year due to a partial veto by Evers in the last budget, but there is no state funding behind it in the 2025-27 budget.

“The state is not going to pay their portion of that. It’s going to be a straight tax increase,” Hamdan said. The last state budget that established the $325 increase paid for it in part through a general aid increase.

The total state general aid to Wisconsin schools is $5.58 billion, the same as 2024. The distribution of the funds is determined by a formula that considers property valuation, student enrollment and shared costs.

The Department of Public Instruction’s July 1 estimate shows that 135 districts — or 32.1% — will get an increase, while 277 districts — or 65.8% — will lose general aid.

In comparison, in 2024 when a general aid increase was budgeted, 68.6% districts were estimated to receive more general aids, while 29.5% of districts were estimated to receive less. 

Hamdan compared it to having one pizza at dinner for a family. 

“The state budget determines the size of the pizza that all 421 districts are going to eat from that year. Is it a 16-inch pizza? Is it an 18-inch pizza?” Hamdan said. “Depending on how hungry each of our school districts are, some of us are going to eat a bigger portion than the others, but there’s only so much pizza available. When some of the other school districts are passing referendums to increase their spending, they’re changing their position in that formula so their hunger is getting higher. They’re allowed to eat more, and that leaves less for some of the other school districts.”

With its increasing property values, decreasing student enrollment and the failed referendum, KUSD is estimated to lose 4.55% — or about $7 million — in general aid funding for 2025-26.

The decrease doesn’t mean the district loses its ability to bring in revenue, but means the district will have to make it up via property taxes — a worry for school leaders. The school board will be responsible for approving any levy increases meant to fill the loss of state general aid and the $325 per pupil school revenue increase. 

“When we lose equalization aid, that does not mean that we get $7 million less budget authority, that means that the state will pay $7 million less towards our revenue limit number,” Hamdan said. “The board then will increase tax levies to make that up and that’s what the kicker is, we end up with a tax increase bump without getting more spending authority.”

Wiess said they are worried about whether community members will understand any property tax raises and the situation schools are in.

“My concern is that the message is going to be: ‘Our taxes were raised and we voted no. What did you do?’” Weiss said. “When you have to dive into the intricacies of the state funding formula, it’s not a quick answer to explain it. It’s very concerning.”

The long-term solution 

On a state level, Weiss and Hamdan said part of the issue is that state leaders have yet to address the long-term problem that schools face.  

“The whole point is that the state budget doesn’t keep up with our inflationary increases, and this state budget does not do that either,” Hamdan said. “It’s not that we don’t appreciate the movement and the increases, but the point is still being missed, that there’s a problem here, and it’s not being fixed.”  

Weiss said the pathway for a long-term solution can be found in the 2019 bipartisan Blue Ribbon Commission report, which included raising the special education reimbursement to 60% and adjusting per pupil funding based on inflation. 

“I don’t know why it hasn’t been enacted, but that’s the type of action that’s needed at the state to fix this problem,” Weiss said. “It’s not a two-year budget cycle. It’s a long term plan. It’s not a band aid.”

Trump administration withholds money 

In addition to concerns about state funding, Wisconsin school districts are facing uncertainties about federal funding as the Trump administration has pushed ahead with trying to close the U.S. Department of Education and is withholding already approved funding for programs that support English language learners, migrants, low-income children, adult learners and others.

Wisconsin gets about 8% of its funding for schools from the federal government, and over $72 million is being withheld from the state for these programs. 

About $1.6 million of that is meant for Kenosha Unified School District.

“We have staff attached to those grants,” Hamdan said. Withholding the funds, he said, “causes us to front that money while we wait for this other stuff to be figured out until we can claim reimbursement on it. The uncertainty is at an all-time high in my 20-year career.”

Wisconsin has joined a multi-state lawsuit against the Trump administration.

The funds were already approved by Congress and signed into law on March 15 and are typically distributed to states by July 1. The Department of Education notified state education agencies across the country on June 30 they would be withholding the funds without any specific explanation. On July 18, the Trump administration confirmed it would release a portion of the $6.8 billion in withheld funds, worth about $1.3 billion, for after-school and summer programs. 

Weiss said he thinks the district will eventually receive all the funds, but is still disappointed and worried about  federal funding. 

“I anticipate we’ll receive it,” Weiss said. “I don’t know when, but it does — moving forward, it makes me wonder what future budgets will look like, and well, what we will do for some of our students who have needs in those areas?”

Kenosha isn’t the only district concerned. 

Madison Metropolitan School District Superintendent Joe Gotthard and Verona Area School District Superintendent Tremayne Clardy warned at a press conference on July 9 that school districts will continue to be stuck in a cycle of seeking funding through referendum. 

“Although we have community support, public education, including our district, continues to feel the impact of decreased funding from the state and federal level,” Gothard said. “This defunding of public education has to stop.”

Weiss said that even with the federal and state challenges, the school district is going to continue doing “what’s right by our students” and working “to give them the best education we possibly can.”

Hamdan added that he hopes in general people understand that public education is at the core of communities. 

“Whether it’s building up the next workforce or creating the citizenry in your own community, your property values and what’s going to attract your businesses, public education is at the core of every single community and it needs to be supported.”

Poll workers process ballots in Janesville, Wis., in November. A 2025 survey of local election officials found concern about federal cuts to election security. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Local election officials across the country fear the loss of federal support for election security, according to a new survey.

Sixty percent of local election officials expressed some level of concern, a survey by the Brennan Center for Justice found. The center, a left-leaning pro-democracy institute, surveyed 858 officials between mid-April and mid-May.

The concern comes as President Donald Trump has curtailed federal election security work. The U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, or CISA, in March halted its election security work. A month earlier, the Department of Government Efficiency task force also fired 130 cybersecurity workers at the agency.

And Trump in April ordered an investigation into Christopher Krebs, a former agency director who had vouched for the security of the 2020 election, which Trump falsely claims was stolen.

Federal cuts mean election officials are going to need more financial support from state and local governments, said Lawrence Norden, vice president of Brennan’s Elections and Government Program. The federal government has the advantage of being able to see the “big picture” and more easily share information with election officials across the country, he said.

“That is going to be difficult for states to replicate,” Norden said. “It doesn’t mean it’s impossible, but they have to start rethinking how they’re sharing information about what they’re seeing with each other.”

Cybersecurity has long been a concern of states — and not just in elections. Only 22 of 48 states that participated in a voluntary 2023 cybersecurity review conducted by federal agencies met or exceeded recommended security levels.

In the Brennan survey, 36% of local election officials said they were very concerned about federal cuts to election security services, while 24% said they were somewhat concerned and 21% said they were a little concerned. Nineteen percent said they were not concerned at all.

Sixty-one percent of local election officials expressed some level of concern over cuts to the federal cybersecurity agency specifically, with 32% saying they were very concerned. The survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Stateline reporter Jonathan Shorman can be reached at jshorman@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.

A Planned Parenthood clinic in Salt Lake City is pictured on Wednesday, July 31, 2024. (Photo by McKenzie Romero/Utah News Dispatch)

This report has been updated.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction Monday, blocking a provision in Republicans’ “big, beautiful” law that would have barred Medicaid funding from going to Planned Parenthood for one year.

District Court Judge Indira Talwani wrote in a 36-page opinion that Planned Parenthood established “a substantial likelihood of success on their equal protection claim” since the new law “burdens” the organization’s First Amendment rights. But she limited the protections to only certain Planned Parenthood clinics.

“A preliminary injunction maintains Planned Parenthood Members’ ability to seek Medicaid reimbursements—and maintain their status quo level of service to patients,” Talwani wrote. “And an injunction requiring Defendants to continue funding Medicaid reimbursements in accordance with the status quo imposes no additional Medicaid costs on Defendants, where there is no dispute that Medicaid funds will still be provided only for reimbursable healthcare services.”

Congress has barred federal taxpayer dollars from going to abortion services with limited exceptions for decades. But GOP lawmakers used their sweeping tax and spending cuts package to eliminate Medicaid funding from going to Planned Parenthood for other types of health care, like annual physicals and cancer screenings.

The original House version of the bill included a 10-year moratorium on Medicaid reimbursements to Planned Parenthood, but that was changed to a one-year prohibition in the Senate.

Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit challenging the new law just days after President Donald Trump signed it during a ceremony on the Fourth of July.

Talwani, who was nominated to the bench by former President Barack Obama, issued a temporary restraining order the same day the case was filed, blocking that provision’s implementation.

The Trump administration argued against the court issuing a preliminary injunction, writing in a 58-page motion submitted last week that Planned Parenthood’s “constitutional claims are utterly meritless.”

“All three democratically elected components of the Federal Government collaborated to enact that provision consistent with their electoral mandates from the American people as to how they want their hard-earned taxpayer dollars spent,” the brief states. “But Plaintiffs—Planned Parenthood Federation of America (“PPFA”) and its members (together, “Planned Parenthood”)—now want this Court to reject that judgment and supplant duly enacted legislation with their own policy preferences.”

Talwani wrote in her ruling that it would apply to “Planned Parenthood Association of Utah and other Planned Parenthood Federation of America Members who will not provide abortion services as of October 1, 2025, or for which the total amount of Federal and State expenditures under the Medicaid program under title XIX of the Social Security Act for medical assistance furnished in fiscal year 2023 made directly to them did not exceed $800,000.”

Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts and Planned Parenthood Association of Utah — the three organizations that filed the suit — issued a written statement after the ruling that they were “disappointed that not all members were granted the necessary relief today.”

“Patients across the country should be able to go to their trusted Planned Parenthood provider for birth control, cancer screenings, and STI testing and treatment,” they wrote. “This is about patients and their right to get care — no matter their insurance. The court has not yet ruled on whether it will grant preliminary injunctive relief to other members. We remain hopeful that the court will grant this relief. There will be nothing short of a public health crisis if Planned Parenthood members are allowed to be ‘defunded.’”

The Department of Justice declined to comment whether it would appeal the preliminary injunction, though a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services said it doesn’t agree with the ruling.

“We strongly disagree with the court’s decision,” HHS Director of Communications Andrew Nixon wrote in a statement. “States should not be forced to fund organizations that have chosen political advocacy over patient care. This ruling undermines state flexibility and disregards longstanding concerns about accountability.”

The Trump administration filed a notice later Tuesday it intends to appeal the preliminary injunction to the United States Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit. 

Don Millis and Ann Jacob, the former and current chairs of the Wisconsin Elections Commission, testify Tuesday, Feb. 4, at an Assembly hearing on a commission rule for election observers. (Photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner)

Wisconsin was one of several states included in the U.S. Department of Justice’s request for statewide voter registration data — files that include data on millions of Americans. However, after DOJ was told that state law would require the Department to pay $12,500 for the data, it has not followed up on the request, according to a Wisconsin Elections Commission spokesperson. 

The DOJ requests for voter data from at least nine states have raised concerns about what the Trump Administration plans to do with the information as President Donald Trump has remained fixated on disproven  conspiracy theories that the 2020 election was stolen from him.

Correspondence from US DOJ to WEC – 6.17.25

Through the spring and early summer, DOJ officials have requested information from state election authorities based on allegations that states have violated federal election laws. The June 17 letter sent to Wisconsin alleges that Wisconsin has not complied with the Help America Vote Act, a 2002 law meant to streamline and modernize the election process. 

The letter requested that WEC give DOJ Wisconsin’s statewide voter registration list, provide information on how the state manages the files of  voters who become inactive by moving elsewhere or dying and how it verifies voter citizenship. Most of the questions surround topics that have been common complaints among purveyors of election conspiracy theories over the past half decade. 

On July 2, WEC’s chief legal counsel Jim Witecha sent a letter in response to DOJ on behalf of the six election commissioners. The letter gives detailed answers to many of the questions while asserting that state law prevents the commission from simply handing over the voter data. 

State law requires that the elections commission charge a fee for obtaining voter registration data and the price for obtaining the full list is set at $12,500.

USDOJ Response Letter

“Wisconsin law requires the Commission to charge a fee for access to voter registration data and makes no exceptions for elected officials, government agencies, journalists, non-profits, academics, or any other group,” the letter states. 

More than two weeks later, the DOJ has not yet filed a request to purchase Wisconsin’s voter rolls, according to WEC spokesperson Emilee Miklas. 

Information about DOJ’s request to WEC is located on the state agency’s FAQ webpage, along with answers to questions that have been repeatedly raised by election deniers in the state.

President Donald Trump holds up the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" that was signed into law during an Independence Day military family picnic on the South Lawn of the White House on July 4, 2025 in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Alex Brandon - Pool/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Republicans’ “big, beautiful” law will add $3.394 trillion to deficits during the next decade and lead 10 million people to lose access to health insurance, according to an analysis released Monday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

The updated assessment of the sweeping tax and spending cuts law came weeks after nearly every GOP lawmaker voted to approve the legislation ahead of a self-imposed Fourth of July deadline. The law made permanent the 2017 tax cuts from President Donald Trump’s first term and provided billions to carry out his plans of mass deportations, an immigration crackdown and increased defense spending.

Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, wrote in a statement that it is “still hard to believe that policymakers just added $4 trillion to” deficits after Republican lawmakers “have spent months or years appropriately fuming about our unsustainable fiscal situation.”

“This is a dangerous game we are playing,” MacGuineas wrote. “It has been going on for years, and it was brought to new levels with this bill. And it is time to stop.” 

CBO released numerous reports throughout the months-long process showing how various parts of the bill would affect federal spending and health care access, but the scorekeeper needed additional time to evaluate changes Republicans made during the last few days of debate.

The latest figures are similar to a preliminary report CBO released earlier this month projecting the final version of the package, which underwent considerable changes in the Senate, would likely lead to a $3.4 trillion increase in deficits between 2025 and 2034.

That total was significantly higher than the $2.4 trillion increase in deficits CBO expected the original House version of the bill would have had during the next decade.

Health spending to fall by more than $1 trillion

Republicans’ numerous changes to health programs, predominantly Medicaid, will reduce federal spending during the next decade by $1.058 trillion.

The law made more than a dozen changes to the state-federal health program for lower income individuals and certain people with disabilities, though some of those have larger budget impacts than others.

Language barring Medicaid spending from going to Planned Parenthood for one year would actually increase federal deficits during the 10-year window by $53 million.

The CBO score shows that policy change would decrease federal spending by $44 million this fiscal year and another $31 million during the next fiscal year, before increasing deficits by $91 million during fiscal year 2027 and continuing.

That section of the law is on hold for the moment after a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order earlier this month that required the Trump administration to continue paying Planned Parenthood for routine health care coverage for Medicaid enrollees.

Federal law for decades has barred the federal government from spending taxpayer dollars for abortion services with limited exceptions, so the one-year prohibition on Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood would have blocked patients enrolled in the program from going to their clinics for routine health appointments, like annual physicals and cancer screenings.

The CBO report didn’t include a state-by-state breakdown of the effects of the health care changes in the law, but the agency is expected to release more detailed analysis of the health impacts in the coming weeks.

Nutrition assistance cuts

Apart from Medicaid, two large projected deficit reductions in the law come in the agriculture title’s sections on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.

A provision requiring states to pay for some portion of SNAP benefits starting in fiscal 2028 would save the federal government between $5.7 billion and $6 billion per year, totalling just less than $41 billion for the first seven years it will be in effect.

And new work requirements for SNAP would result in $68.6 billion less in federal spending over the 10 years starting in fiscal 2026, the CBO projected.

Federal student loan program

Republicans’ streamlining of the federal student loan program is projected to reduce federal spending in the next decade by $270.5 billion.

As part of a sweeping overhaul of higher education, the law limits repayment options for borrowers with any loans made on or after July 1, 2026, to either a standard repayment plan or an income-based repayment plan.

Extension and expansion of tax cuts

The extension of Trump’s 2017 tax law, plus new tax breaks, will cost $4.472 trillion over the next decade, according to the latest CBO score.

The United States collects the majority of its revenue from individual taxpayers, and the continuation of lowered income tax brackets, plus an increased standard deduction, will comprise the bulk of lost revenue over 10 years, adding up to $3.497 trillion.

Trump also campaigned on several other tax cut promises, including no tax on tips and overtime, as well as no tax on car loan interest. The temporary provisions come with stipulations and will end in 2029. Together they will cost $151.868 billion.

The child tax credit increases under the new law to $2,200, up from $2,000, though lawmakers did not increase the amount lower income families can receive as a tax refund. The CBO estimates the bumped-up tax credit will cost $626.345 billion over the next decade.

Lawmakers offset some costs of the bill by repealing clean energy tax credits, including ending tax credits for personal and commercial electric vehicles, nixing energy efficiency improvement credits for homeowners, and terminating clean electricity production credits. In all, Republicans saved $487.909 billion from axing the measures meant to address the effects of climate change.

Jacob Fischler, Shauneen Miranda and Ashley Murray contributed to this report.

Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought testifies before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Jan. 15, 2025. (Screenshot from committee webcast)

WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Monday ordered the Trump administration to once again publish details about the pace at which it plans to spend money approved by Congress.

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Emmet Sullivan wrote in his ruling that Congress “has sweeping authority” to require the president to post a website detailing how it doles out taxpayer dollars throughout the year.

“As explained in this Memorandum Opinion, there is nothing unconstitutional about Congress requiring the Executive Branch to inform the public of how it is apportioning the public’s money,” he wrote. “Defendants are therefore required to stop violating the law!”

The ruling won’t take effect until Thursday at 10 a.m. Eastern, giving the Trump administration time to appeal and to seek the ruling be put on hold during the appeals process.

Sullivan was appointed to the federal district court by President Bill Clinton but was selected for two prior judicial appointments by President Ronald Reagan and President George H. W. Bush.

Website pulled down

More than two years ago, Congress began requiring the White House budget office to publicly post apportionment information and the Biden administration took that step, though Trump officials pulled down the website in March.

That decision led to two separate lawsuits, one from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and another from the Protect Democracy Project.

Apportionments are the first step the executive branch takes when spending money appropriated by Congress. The documents and their footnotes usually detail how quickly, or how slowly, departments and agencies plan to send money out the door throughout the fiscal year.

The documents and the public website would have been a window into whether the Trump administration was impounding, or refusing to spend, funding that lawmakers have said it should allocate on behalf of taxpayers.

Trump administration protested provision

An attorney for the Department of Justice argued during a May hearing the Trump administration believes the provision is unconstitutional and seeks to micromanage how the executive branch spends federal funds throughout the year.

The DOJ lawyer also said posting the information within two business days, as called for in the law, would require the White House budget office to divert staff from other work.

Lawyers for CREW and Protect Democracy Project told the judge the White House was in clear violation of the law and that the data is valuable information that helps the organizations monitor if a president were to cease spending on programs funded by Congress.

The watchdog organization attorneys noted during that hearing the Government Accountability Office is looking into dozens of instances where the administration held onto congressionally approved funding instead of spending it.

They said the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, wasn’t a helpful alternative to the website since it can take months or years for organizations to get a response to their request.

Public’s right to see decisions

Sullivan wrote in the 60-page ruling the Trump administration “complaining about the extra work” that goes along with posting the information on a public website represents “a management issue; not a constitutional one.”

“Here, Congress has determined that OMB’s apportionment decisions should be publicly available so that, among other things, it and the public can see whether they are consistent with congressional appropriations,” Sullivan wrote, adding the website aids Congress with “its undisputed oversight role.”

“The Acts do not dictate how OMB should apportion funds, nor do they establish a congressional management role in the administration of apportionments,” Sullivan wrote. “The Acts merely require that the final apportionment decisions be made publicly available to provide transparency to Congress and the public.”

Sullivan rejected an argument from the Trump administration that publicly sharing details about the pace at which it’s spending taxpayer dollars was unconstitutional because it required “the disclosure of privileged information.”

“There is no evidence in the record remotely supporting the notion that the apportionment documents are presidential communications or are in any way subject to the presidential communications privilege,” Sullivan wrote. “Accordingly, the Court rejects this constitutional claim.”

Advocates applaud ruling

Cerin Lindgrensavage, counsel for Protect Democracy Project, wrote in a statement the judge’s ruling “makes clear that the executive branch cannot simply ignore appropriations laws they disagree with on policy grounds, no matter what President (Donald) Trump or OMB Director Russell Vought thinks.

“Congress passed a law making sure the American public could see how their taxpayer dollars are being spent, and we will continue to hold the administration accountable for making good on that promise.”

Nikhel Sus, deputy chief counsel at CREW, wrote in a separate statement that the organization applauds “the court’s thorough and well-reasoned decision, which reaffirms Congress’s constitutional authority to require public disclosure of how taxpayer dollars are spent.

“Americans have a right to know how taxpayer money is being spent. Ensuring public access to this information serves as a critical check on the executive branch’s abuse and misuse of federal funds.”

Rachel Cauley, communications director for the White House Office of Management and Budget, wrote in a statement the administration strongly disagrees with the ruling.

“This leftist, anti-Trump judge undermines the President’s ability to effectively manage his agencies,” Cauley wrote. “Moreover, these progressive dark money groups have zero standing to claim injury for not having access to this privileged internal information.”

The Department of Justice did not return a request for comment about the ruling or whether the administration would appeal to the Circuit Court.

U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee ranking member Patty Murray, D-Wash., wrote in a statement that “the law is clear as day: every president is required to show the public how they are spending taxpayer dollars, and it is past time President Trump and Russ Vought get the website they illegally ripped down back up.”

Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, didn’t immediately return a request for comment. 

Emma Widmar, shown with her dog Zander, has relied on Medicaid while managing complex health problems that she has had since she was 12. (Photo courtesy of Emma Widmar)

At the age of 26, Emma Widmar has been chronically ill for more than half her lifetime.

Widmar was 12 when her symptoms first showed up — severe allergies to food, hormones and her environment. At the age of 18 she qualified for Social Security disability payments as well as for Medicaid. The combined federal-state health insurance program pays for her ongoing medical care, frequent emergency room visits and necessary home care.

“I equate Medicaid to a lifeline,” Widmar says. “Some people might think that’s an exaggeration, but it isn’t. It ensures all my needs are met.”

With the enactment on July 4 of the mega-bill extending the tax cuts passed during President Donald Trump’s first term along with deep cuts in Medicaid and other safety net programs, Widmar is uncertain how her life might change.

After she graduated from Gateway Technical College, Widmar worked for four years for the Racine County Eye, an online journalism outlet. A case of respiratory syncytial virus — RSV — in January 2024 brought on severe neuropathy and hampered her breathing, forcing her to give up a job she had loved.

“I lost my ability to walk,” Widmar says. “It really wreaked havoc on my body and I couldn’t keep up.”

As complex as her health problems are, they’ve also become deeply familiar to her. 

 “It has been my life, and I simply can’t ignore it,” Widmar says. “It’s just the way that it is.”

While she and her family along with many others hope that science will one day unlock treatments for intractable illnesses such as hers, “these are chronic, lifelong conditions that right now there’s no cure for,” she says. For now, “it’s about finding the best quality of life for myself.”

Widmar lives with her parents in Mount Pleasant. Her mother is a primary caregiver.

Wisconsin’s home- and community-based care Medicaid waiver covers the cost of medications “that allow me to function,” she says.

 It also makes it possible for her to have additional home and personal caregivers. With Medicaid “those caretakers can be compensated,” Widmar says. “It ensures that I always have eyes on me and that I’m getting what I need.”

Her chronic food allergies require a special diet, with food that is more expensive than the typical grocery store purchase. Widmar’s disability has qualified her for benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — SNAP, known as FoodShare in Wisconsin.

“Health care and food assistance are not just line items in a budget — they are a matter of life and death for American families,” said Sondra Goldschein, executive director of Family Friendly Economy, which campaigned against the mega-bill and shared the stories of people affected by it, including Widmar.

The bill passed despite widespread popular opposition. Widmar says she wants to encourage people “to continue voicing their opinions to policymakers, lawmakers and politicians,” not give up in resignation. “We are the ones that employ the government,” she says. “They work for us and we have to remind them of that.”

Widmar suspects most people wouldn’t consider her a typical Medicaid recipient — younger, coming from a middle-class upbringing and with a family that is able to support her. But that’s really the point: Medicaid, she observes, has helped people from all different backgrounds, regardless of class, race, ethnicity or education.

She also expects the spending cuts will ripple far beyond the Medicaid population.

“We’re altering health care as a whole, which will have an impact on everyone,” Widmar says.

For several years, the Affordable Care Act has helped drive down the number of people without health insurance. The mega-bill’s changes not just to Medicaid but also the ACA have been forecast to reverse that trend, increasing the uninsured population by 17 million over the next decade.

One Medicaid change, scheduled to take effect in 2027, will be the imposition of work requirements for some recipients. Nationally, two-thirds of Medicaid recipients already work full- or part-time, according to KFF, a nonprofit health policy research, polling and news organization, and researchers have found that some people who qualify are excluded due to paperwork problems.

Widmar has already experienced a work requirement as part of her SNAP enrollment. When her illness made work impossible, the requirement was waived.

With the extent of her current disabilities, she hopes that she would qualify for an exemption from the coming Medicaid work requirement.

She might not know for sure until late 2026, however. Wisconsin won’t be able to draw up the details of how it implements the work requirement until the publication of the federal rules, which aren’t due until next June.

In her previous experience with SNAP, Widmar said work requirements didn’t always match the realities for people with disabilities.

“Unfortunately we don’t make it easier for people who are disabled to have a job and contribute,” she says. “It’s not a system that says, ‘We have a work requirement — do what you’re able to do…’”

When she was able to work, “I loved my job,” Widmar says. Her employer was understanding and accommodated her disabilities.

That was no small matter. Because of her condition, Widmar says, she can’t be alone: Her low blood pressure can cause her to faint unpredictably. Her hours also had to be flexible to match her erratic energy levels.

“It’s difficult to work and have a disability and be on these programs,” Widmar says. “It’s like an agility course you have to go through.”

While Widmar is concerned about what lies ahead for her when the changes to Medicaid take effect, her foremost worry is for people whose lives are more difficult.

“I have a support system to help me get through it. But there’s people that don’t know where to turn for help. And it’s really unfortunate for them,” she says.

For people living at or near poverty, she sees life on the verge of becoming more harsh.

“We’re already at bare bones,” Widmar says, “and now we’re taking away more from the most vulnerable populations.”

As power-hungry data centers proliferate, states are searching for ways to protect utility customers from the steep costs of upgrading the electrical grid, trying instead to shift the cost to AI-driven tech companies. (Dana DiFilippo/New Jersey Monitor)

Regular energy consumers, not corporations, will bear the brunt of the increased costs of a boom in artificial intelligence that has contributed to a growth in data centers and a surge in power usage, recent research suggests.

Between 2024 and 2025, data center power usage accounted for $9 billion, or 174%, of increased power costs, a June report by Monitoring Analytics, an external market monitor for PJM Interconnection, found. PJM manages the electrical power grid and wholesale electric market for 13 states and Washington, D.C., and this spring, customers were told to expect roughly a $25 increase on their monthly electric bill starting June 1.

“The growth in data center load and the expected future growth in data center load are unique and unprecedented and uncertain and require a different approach than simply asserting that it is just supply and demand,” Monitoring Analytics’ report said.

Data centers house the physical infrastructure to power most of the computing we do today, but many AI models and the large AI companies that power them, like Amazon, Meta and Microsoft use vastly more energy than other kinds of computing. Training a single chatbot like ChatGPT uses about the same amount of energy as 100 homes over the course of a year, an AI founder told States Newsroom earlier this year.

The growth of data centers — and how much power they use — came on fast. A 2024 report by the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission in Virginia — known as a global hub for data centers — found that PJM forecasts it will use double the amount of average monthly energy in 2033 as it did in 2023. Without new data centers, energy use would only grow 15% by 2040, the report said.

As of July, the United States is home to more than 3,800 data centers, up from more than 3,600 in April. A majority of data centers are connected to the same electrical grids that power residential homes, commercial buildings and other structures.

“There are locational price differences, but data centers added anywhere in PJM have an effect on prices everywhere in PJM,” Joseph Bowring, president of Monitoring Analytics said.

Creeping costs

At least 36 states, both conservative and liberal, offer tax incentives to companies planning on building data centers in their states. But the increased costs that customers are experiencing have made some wonder if the projects are the economic wins they were touted as.

“I’m not convinced that boosting data centers, from a state policy perspective, is actually worth it,” said New Jersey State Sen. Andrew Zwicker, a Democrat and co-sponsor of a bill to separate data centers from regular power supply. “It doesn’t pay for a lot of permanent jobs.”

Energy cost has historically followed a socialized model, based on the idea that everyone benefits from reliable electricity, said Ari Peskoe, the director of the Electricity Law Initiative at the Harvard Law School Environmental and Energy Law Program. Although some of the pricing model is based on your actual use, some costs like new power generation, transmission and infrastructure projects are spread across all customers.

Data centers’ rapid growth is “breaking” this tradition behind utility rates.

“These are cities, these data centers, in terms of how much electricity they use,” Peskoe said. “And it happens to be that these are the world’s wealthiest corporations behind these data centers, and it’s not clear how much local communities actually benefit from these data centers. Is there any justification for forcing everyone to pay for their energy use?”

This spring in Virginia, Dominion Energy filed a request with the State Corporation Commission to increase the rates it charges by an additional $10.50 on the monthly bill of an average resident and another $10.92 per month to pay for higher fuel costs, the Virginia Mercury reported.

Dominion, and another local supplier, recently filed a proposal to separate data centers into their own rate class to protect other customers, but the additional charges demonstrate the price increases that current contracts could pass on to customers.

In June, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission convened a technical conference to assess the adequacy of PJM’s resources and those of other major power suppliers, like Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., ISO New England Inc., New York Independent System Operator, Inc., California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) and Southwest Power Pool (SPP).

The current supply of power by PJM is not adequate to meet the current and future demand from large data center loads, Monitoring Analytics asserts in a report following the conference.

“Customers are already bearing billions of dollars in higher costs as a direct result of existing and forecast data center load,” the report said.

Proposed changes

One of the often-proposed solutions to soften the increased cost of data centers is to require them to bring their own generation, meaning they’d contract with a developer to build a power plant that would be big enough to meet their own demand. Though there are other options, like co-location, which means putting some of the electrical demand on an outside source, total separation is the foremost solution Bowring presents in his reports.

“Data centers are unique in terms of their growth and impact on the grid, unique in the history of the grid, and therefore, we think that’s why we think data centers should be treated as a separate class,” Bowring said.

Some data centers are already voluntarily doing this. Constellation Energy, the owner of Three Mile Island nuclear plant in central Pennsylvania, struck a $16 billion deal with Microsoft to power the tech giant’s AI energy demand needs. 

But in some states, legislators are seeking to find a more binding solution.

New Jersey Sen. Bob Smith, a Democrat who chairs the Environment and Energy Committee, authored a bill this spring that would require new AI data centers in the state to supply their power from new, clean energy sources, if other states in the region enact similar measures.

“Seeing the large multinational trillion dollar companies, like Microsoft and Meta, be willing to do things like restart Three Mile Island is crazy, but shows you their desperation,” said co-sponsor Zwicker. “And so, okay, you want to come to New Jersey? Great, but you’re not going to put the basis (of the extra cost) on ratepayers.”

New Jersey House members launched a probe into PJM’s practices as the state buys its annual utilities from the supplier at auction this month. Its July 2024 auction saw electrical costs increase by more than 800%, which contributed to the skyrocketing bills that took effect June 1.

Residents are feeling it, Smith said, and he and his co-sponsors plan to use the summer to talk to the other states within PJM’s regional transmission organization (RTO).

“Everything we’re detecting so far is they’re just as angry — the other 13 entities in PJM — as us,” Smith told States Newsroom.

Smith said they’re discussing the possibility of joining or forming a different RTO.

“We’re in the shock and horror stage where these new prices are being included in these bills, and citizens are screaming in pain,” Smith said. “A solution that I filed in the bill, is the one that says, ‘AI data centers, you’re welcome in New Jersey, but bring your own clean electricity with them so they don’t impact the ratepayers.”

Utah enacted a law this year that allows “large load” customers like data centers to craft separate contracts with utilities, and a bill in Oregon, which would create a separate customer class for data centers, called the POWER Act, passed through both chambers last month.

If passed, New Jersey’s law would join others across the country in redefining the relationship between data centers powering AI and utilities providers.

“We have to take action, and I think we have to be pretty thoughtful about this, and look at the big picture as well,” Zwicker said. ”I’m not anti-data center, I’m pro-technology, but I’m just not willing to put it on the backs of ratepayers.” 

Economist Darrick Hamilton’s work shows publicly funded savings accounts for children could reduce income inequality over time. But he said the $1,000 accounts for babies that Congress approved this month were poorly designed and will benefit the wealthy. (Photo by Brandon Bell/Getty Images)  

With fertility rates declining in the United States, Republicans backed a policy tucked inside the megabill President Donald Trump signed earlier this month that they say will help save for children’s futures.

The $1,000 investment accounts established by the government have some passing similarities to baby bonds, a concept proposed by economist Darrick Hamilton more than 15 years ago as a way to reduce income inequality.

But Hamilton told States Newsroom the design of these so-called Trump accounts, which hinge on contributions from a child’s relatives instead of the government, will benefit those who come from wealthier families that have more money to chip in.

“They’re subsidizing the transmission of intergenerational wealth for those that already have wealth in the first place,” he said.

Money plays a significant role in deciding whether to grow a family, according to a United Nations Population Fund report on falling fertility rates released in June.

Fifty-three percent of Americans surveyed said the ideal number of children to raise is two, but 38% said financial limitations led them to have fewer children than they initially wanted. Unemployment or job insecurity, housing limitations and lack of sufficient child care options — also financial factors — rounded out the list.

Policies restricting abortion play a role, too. Some young Americans have sought voluntary sterilizations or delayed having children, citing how pregnancy care has been diminished by the U.S. Supreme Court decision that overturned federal abortion rights.

The U.S. fertility rate reached a historic low: 54.4 births per 1,000 women of reproductive age in 2023, down 3% from the previous year, according to the latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The GOP that’s branded itself “pro-family” has voiced concerns about fewer people having children in the United States.

A provision included in the tax break and spending cut bill Trump signed into law on July 4 establishes $1,000 savings accounts for babies born between 2025 and 2028. 

Parents, other relatives and friends can contribute up to $5,000 annually, and employers can add up to $2,500 yearly for an employee’s dependent. The Treasury Department will roll out the accounts, which have several tax rules, next year.

Initially, lawmakers included caveats in the policy that said people could only use half of the money for education, home ownership or entrepreneurship when they turn 18, but the final version Trump signed is less restrictive when the account holder reaches adulthood.

Before the bill passed, conservative and liberal tax experts told States Newsroom’s D.C. Bureau that the proposal favors the wealthy and contains so many rules that a 529 savings plan — tax-free accounts that must be used for college expenses — would be a better option for parents saving for their child’s future.

Democrats have pitched their version of these accounts since 2019. The American Opportunity Accounts Act, introduced by New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker and Massachusetts Rep. Ayanna Pressley, would create savings accounts for babies. The legislation was introduced in recent sessions but never gained momentum.

One key difference: Trump accounts rely on individual contributions, while in Booker and Pressley’s proposal, the federal government would contribute up to $2,000 yearly depending on the family’s income. A child born to a family with low income could have a decent-sized launchpad of cash at age 18.

Booker and Pressley’s initiative would be considered baby bonds, according to Hamilton, a professor at The New School and founder of the Institute on Race, Power and Political Economy. 

Hamilton has been writing about how baby bonds could reduce the widening wealth gap since 2010. Since then, several states and cities have enacted baby bonds programs.

He said baby bonds stemmed from “understanding the role of assets in poverty” and studying the work of economists focused on income inequality, the racial wealth gap and how they manifest generationally.

Hamilton’s personal experience shaped his scholarship, too: He grew up in the Bed-Stuy neighborhood of Brooklyn, New York, where he said he was exposed to networks of wealth and poverty. He learned that economic mobility is not about motivations, attitudes or astuteness, but access.

“Individuals from one set of environments will grow into families that can provide a foundation in terms of capital to allow them to get into an asset like a home, like higher education without debt or some capital to start a business,” Hamilton said. “Other individuals will not have access to those things.”

States Newsroom spoke to Hamilton about state baby bonds programs, the pros and cons of Trump accounts, and how investing in children’s futures is connected to reproductive justice.

The following interview has been edited and condensed.

States Newsroom: Baby bond programs have been piloted in 10 places total, including California, Connecticut, Washington, D.C, and most recently Rhode Island. What aspects of the state policies are working?

Darrick Hamilton: The thing that is percolating is the political momentum, as well as a better understanding of the role of the state as it relates to engaging with families, particularly low-income families, one of investment. Narratives are changing, and resources are being invested in children for which we’ll see the full rewards once the children are of age to receive the accounts.

SN: Is there anything that could be improved in the places where baby bond programs have been piloted so far? For instance, I know the latest D.C. mayoral budget hasn’t necessarily given funding to the baby bonds program there.

DH: Yes, so there are several places for which there’s been legislative movement, but one needs executive movement as well. As exemplified in Washington, D.C., the municipal legislator made clear what their priority was in terms of passing the law, but the mayor has yet to offer the resources to yield the accounts. That’s a problem.

Big shout out to Connecticut, for instance, and in particular, (former) Treasurer (Shawn) Wooden and Treasurer (Erick) Russell for not only ensuring that the legislation passed, but being diligent in both economically and politically generating the funds — politically building up momentum and movement to command it from the executive branch, and then economically having the wherewithal and the astuteness to be able to best find within the state budget how to fund the accounts.

But the big point is at the end of the day, it is the federal government that really has the capacity to fully fund this in the way that it should be funded.

SN: The tax break and spending cut bill approved by Congress earlier this month includes a provision that sets up $1,000 savings accounts for babies born between 2025 and 2028, and lets them use the money, whatever that may end up being, when they turn 18. What’s your take on these so-called Trump accounts?

DH: Well, they co-opted a good idea in both rhetoric and design. The regressive design is essentially tax shelters akin to the 529 college and education savings plans that will lead to further inequities. The problem of wealth inequality in America is largely one of endowment and capital, rather than the behavior of active savings, so they’re going to further facilitate the capacities of those people that have resources in the first place.

The legislation as is doesn’t address the benefit cliff. A $1,000 seed growing over time would render individuals perhaps ineligible for some of the social safety net programs. That’s a regressive design that I don’t know if they even did it intentionally.

The $1,000 seed in and of itself is not bad. However, if you add on the regressive component, that’s going to grow inequality rather than reduce inequality. And a $1,000 seed, even if compounding over time with interest, is not going to be nearly enough to achieve the goal of the program, which is to allow individuals who otherwise would not have access to something like a home and education without debt, or to be able to start a business.

SN: The Democratic-backed American Opportunity Accounts Act would create $1,000 savings accounts the federal government would add money to annually, depending on the family’s income. How would this proposal affect economic inequality?

DH: I’d say two things. One is the progressive design — it will have an impact on reducing inequality. So it facilitates those that will have the least resources to actually have enough to get into an asset that will appreciate over their lives. It facilitates the capability of wealth-building in a progressive way, in an inclusive way, which is the opposite of what the Trump accounts do. The second part is it will have the added benefit of redressing the racial wealth gap, because if we look at the dimension by which Blacks and whites are most disparate, it’s wealth.

SN: Do baby bonds, in your view, have a connection to reproductive justice?

DH: You can’t isolate these so-called Trump accounts from the larger reconciliation bill that passed in the first place. What they’re investing is trivial compared to the ways in which they’re structuring inequality writ large with the tax code for the wealthy. This is a rhetorical distraction that’s aimed at trying to appear populist, especially when they’re cutting Medicaid, SNAP and other investments that go toward low-income individuals. So that’s thing one. We’d be naive to ignore the political context in which this comes up.

The second part is, again, with the larger package that they’re putting forth. This is almost trying to manage the demography, and if they’re not saying it out loud, they certainly are saying it implicitly. With policies aimed at trying to promote additional births, the subtext is which women are they trying to incentivize to have children or not.

In contrast, what baby bonds do is they invest in the fertility decisions of our people. A good way to promote fertility and family formation is to trust the American people, to ensure that there’s resources directed at them in fair and just ways, and allow them to make fertility decisions for themselves. In other words, part of our humanity should be able to reproduce, to be able to form family formations in ways in which we identify. We need a role of government to facilitate these decisions in ways that are just and inclusive.

Nasal Narcan, used to reverse an overdose, stock the inside of Milwaukee County's first harm reduction vending machine. (Photo | Isiah Holmes)

Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley is proposing to utilize over $9 million in opioid settlement funds to support seven initiatives aimed at expanding treatment and reducing opioid use disorder. Crowley said in a statement that his administration “continues to deploy opioid settlement dollars across Milwaukee County.” 

“These upstream investments are proving to be effective,” Crowley said, “but we know there’s more work to do in expanding substance use prevention, harm reduction, treatment, and recovery efforts.” 

The Milwaukee County Board Committee on Finance unanimously approved Crowley’s proposal during a meeting Thursday. Next week, the full county board will vote on whether to approve the plan. The projects, proposed for the 2026-28 fiscal years, include providing outreach to older adults with disabilities through door-to-door canvasing and  funding community-based organizations which partner with the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Providing more staffing to the medical examiner’s office, funding residential room and board programs for people struggling with addiction and enhancing the county’s publicly available data analysis of the overdose crisis are among the other proposed initiatives. 

“Through these proven initiatives and by working together, we will keep leading the way to change the lives of individuals affected by substance use disorder and reduce the likelihood of overdose-related fatalities in our community — because lives depend on it,” Crowley said in a statement. 

Shakita LaGrant-McClain, executive director of DHHS, said the funding will allow the department to “continue the life-saving work that began with the initial round of opioid settlement funds…We are seeing promising trends and look forward to continuing our prevention, harm reduction, treatment and recovery work, including ensuring residents have access to harm reduction supplies, targeted community outreach, and collaboration with community partners.”

A publicly available dashboard illustrates the toll the overdose epidemic has taken on Milwaukee County. It provides information on both fatal and non-fatal overdoses, which communities are most impacted, how much anti-overdose Naloxone has been utilized, and more. Across Milwaukee County, over 4,500 people have lost their lives to an overdose between 2016 and 2024. The deaths peaked in 2022, which saw 674 people lose their lives to an overdose. Non-fatal overdoses are even more common; more than 5,400 occurred during 2022. There have been 1,061 non-fatal overdoses so far this year and 124 people have died of an overdose in 2025. 

The data shows that so far this year, 14% of fatal overdoses have been people between 55-59 years old and 11% were  60-64. People aged 35-39 made up 13% of the fatal overdoses this year. The lowest percentages came from young people 15-29 years old, and much older people aged 75-85 years or more. 

Over 18 years, Milwaukee County will receive a total of $111 million in opioid settlement funds. So far, $34 million has been allocated across three cohorts of funded projects focused on breaking cycles of addiction, advancing racial equality and improving community health.

Then-Detective Joseph Mensah testifies before the Senate Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety in 2025. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

Detective Joseph Mensah, a  Waukesha County Sheriff’s detective who attracted protests and controversy for his involvement in three fatal shootings over a five year period while employed at the Wauwatosa Police Department (WPD) will resign from the Sheriff’s office. Mensah, hired to the Waukesha County Sheriff’s Department in 2021, issued a resignation letter on July 17. In a resignation letter, Mensah said he plans to leave the law enforcement profession all together. 

A version of the letter was posted on social media by Jessica McBride, a contributor to the right-wing media outlet Wisconsin Right Now. Mensah’s resignation will be effective on July 31, according to the letter.

A Waukesha County Sheriffs Department spokesperson sent a slightly different version of the letter to Wisconsin Examiner upon request. “After much consideration, I feel it would be in the best interest of the Sheriffs Department, the community, my family, and my own personal well-being, that I transition out of the law enforcement profession,” Mensah wrote in the letter. “Words can not express how grateful I am that you, Sheriff Severson, along with Inspector Gumm, Deputy Inspector, the command staff, and the Waukesha County Sheriff’s Department accepted me and brought me into your family when I needed you most. I am beyond grateful and thankful, that I had the opportunity to serve alongside the men and women of this agency. If there is anything I can do to assist with this process, please let me know.”

Mensah was hired by the Waukesha County Sheriff’s Department after resigning from WPD in 2020, following months of protests. After he was  hired by WPD in 2015, Mensah was involved in three fatal shootings. In his first year on the job Mensah shot 29-year-old Antonio Gonzales, who was wielding a sword when officers arrived at his home. Less than a year later, Mensah fatally shot 25-year-old Jay Anderson Jr., who was sleeping in his car in a county park. Mensah said that Anderson lunged for a handgun that sat beside him on the front passenger seat. Four years later in early 2020, Mensah killed 17-year-old Alvin Cole, who was fleeing Mayfair Mall with his friends after being involved in a fight, and brandishing a handgun. Mensah said that Cole attempted to shoot him during the chase. 

The Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office declined to charge Mensah in any of those shootings, stating that his actions were either justified or privileged. 

Residents and elected officials in Wauwatosa called for criminal charges against Mensah for the three shootings. When the district attorney declined to issue charges in the Cole shooting, protests ensued and a curfew was declared in Wauwatosa with  protesters confronted by militarized law enforcement.

An independent investigation found that Mensah violated department policies when he gave radio interviews in which  he discussed the Cole shooting, which was still under investigation at the time, and gave misleading information about his fatal shootings, according to the report, authored by attorney Steven Biskupic. 

Mensah’s three shootings in Wauwatosa also became the subject of several lawsuits. In 2021, a John Doe hearing was called to review the Anderson shooting, after which a Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge ruled that probable cause existed to charge Mensah with a crime. Special prosecutors appointed to the case, however, declined to pursue charges. 

In 2025, Mensah testified before state legislative committees to advocate for prohibitions against the use of the John Doe law to review fatal shootings by police. Mensah told Wisconsin Examiner that he’d sought a promotion to lieutenant while at the sheriff’s department, but was unsuccessful. 

Another federal civil lawsuit involving the Cole shooting was brought to trial, and a judge found that Mensah and other officers provided contradictory statements. Wisconsin Examiner also found that Mensah and other officers violated policies related to police shooting investigations in the Milwaukee area. The Cole trial in 2025 ended in a hung jury, with a retrial scheduled for early September. 

In a statement to Wisconsin Examiner, a spokesperson for the Waukesha County Sheriff’s Department said that agency staff “support Detective Mensah and wish him the best.” 

Attorney Kimberley Motley, who has represented the families of those killed by Mensah and the protesters who supported them, said in a statement to Wisconsin Examiner that the Cole family “is looking forward to the trial that is set in September against Joseph Mensah. Both the Alvin Cole and Jay Anderson family continue to focus on fighting for justice on behalf of their loved ones.”

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

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s administration confirmed Friday that it’s releasing funds that support before- and after-school programs as well as summer programs, a portion of the $6.8 billion in withheld funds for K-12 schools that were supposed to be sent out two weeks ago.

The administration has faced bipartisan backlash over its decision to freeze billions of dollars that also go toward migrant education, English-language learning, adult education and literacy programs, among other initiatives. Those other funds apparently remained stalled on Friday, and Democrats, a key Republican appropriator and school leaders called for them to be released as well.

The funds that will be released total $1.3 billion, according to Democrats on the Senate Appropriations Committee, and are intended for the 21st Century Community Learning Centers initiative.

The Education Department says the program “supports the creation of community learning centers that provide academic enrichment opportunities during non-school hours for children, particularly students who attend high-poverty and low-performing schools.”

A senior administration official said the programmatic review for 21st Century Community Learning Centers has concluded and funds “will be released to the states.”

“Guardrails have been put in place to ensure these funds are not used in violation of Executive Orders,” the official added. 

Pressure from GOP senators

The announcement came after 10 Republican senators sent a letter to Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought on July 16 urging him to release the $6.8 billion in funds to states.

West Virginia GOP Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, who led the letter, said in a statement Friday that “21st Century Community Learning Centers offer important services that many West Virginians rely on.”

“This program supports states in providing quality after-school and summer learning programs for students while enabling their parents to work and contribute to local economies,” said Capito, who chairs the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies.

Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who leads the broader Senate Appropriations panel, also signed the July 16 letter, along with: Sens. Katie Britt of Alabama, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, John Boozman of Arkansas, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Deb Fischer of Nebraska, John Hoeven of North Dakota, Mike Rounds of South Dakota and Jim Justice of West Virginia.

While Collins said in a Friday statement she is glad she and her colleagues were able to work together to “effectively urge the Administration to get these funds released,” she noted that “there is more funding that still needs to be disbursed.”

“I will continue to work to ensure it is delivered swiftly so educators can prepare for the upcoming academic year with certainty and Maine students and families have the resources they need to succeed,” she said.

July 1 notification

The Education Department notified states of the freeze just a day before July 1, when these funds are typically sent out as educators plan for the school year, saying the funds were under review.

A slew of congressional Democrats and one independent pushed back on the funding freeze.

Thirty-two senators and 150 House Democrats urged Vought and Education Secretary Linda McMahon in two letters dated July 10 to immediately release the funds they say are being withheld “illegally.”

A coalition of 24 states and the District of Columbia also sued the administration over the withheld funds.

The rest of the school money

Sen. Patty Murray of Washington state, the top Democrat on the Senate spending panel, called on the Trump administration to release the rest of the frozen funds.

“After we spoke up — and after weeks of needless chaos — the Trump administration is now releasing funding for after school programs while continuing to block billions more in funding for our students, teachers, and schools,” Murray said in a statement Friday.

“Every penny of this funding must flow immediately,” she said. “Whether or not parents know the afterschool program they depend on will exist should not depend on whether Republicans will push back against Trump’s lawlessness — he should simply get the funding out, just as the law requires him to do. I am going to keep pushing until every dollar goes.”

David Schuler, executive director of AASA, The School Superintendents Association, expressed similar concerns in a statement Friday.

“While we’re pleased to see crucial dollars going to afterschool programs which are vital for students across the nation, the bottom line is this: Districts should not be in this impossible position where the Administration is denying funds that had already been appropriated to our public schools, by Congress,” said Schuler, whose organization helps to ensure every child has access to a high quality public education.

“The remaining funds must be released immediately — America’s children are counting on it.” 

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

WASHINGTON — House Democrats sent a letter Thursday to the heads of Homeland Security and the State Department seeking more information about the financial agreement between the United States and El Salvador to detain more than 200 men at a notorious megaprison.

“Congress has the right and the obligation to conduct oversight over the executive branch and determine what deals our government has struck with a foreign dictator to imprison individuals seized in the United States in an effort to place them beyond the reaches of our court,” according to the letter by California’s Robert Garcia, Maryland’s Jamie Raskin, Mississippi’s Bennie Thompson and New York’s Gregory Meeks.

In March, the Trump administration flew several planes to El Salvador containing 238 men removed either under an 18th-century wartime law, known as the Alien Enemies Act, or because they are immigrants who had final orders of removal and are citizens of El Salvador. The men arrived at the notorious prison known as CECOT.

The letter challenges the Trump administration’s position publicly and in courts that any individuals removed to El Salvador to be detained are no longer in U.S. custody and any court order to facilitate the return of wrongly removed immigrants cannot be fulfilled.

According to court documents filed last week, testimony from Salvadoran officials noted that those individuals removed and detained at CECOT were considered in the jurisdiction of the U.S. government.

“The actions of the state of El Salvador have been limited to the implementation of a bilateral cooperation mechanism with another state, through which it has facilitated the use of the Salvadoran prison infrastructure for the custody of persons detained within the scope of the justice system and law enforcement of that other state,” according to the court document submitted by the American Civil Liberties Union.

That document was submitted in a court case that relates to the Trump administration’s use of the wartime law, and whether or not officials violated a federal judge’s order to return the planes to the U.S. The planes still landed in El Salvador.

“Court filings last week suggest the Administration misled federal judges, Congress, and the American people about the legal status of individuals the U.S. government has spirited away to El Salvador and who are being held in torture prisons like Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo (CECOT),” the Democrats wrote. 

The Democrats addressed the letter to DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, asking to see the agreement between the U.S. and El Salvador to accept non-Salvadoran citizens and information on the men detained at CECOT.

“This document indicates that the Department of Justice has misled federal courts in assertions regarding the agreement with El Salvador,” wrote the  Democrats, who sit on House committees on Homeland Security, Foreign Affairs, Judiciary and Oversight and Government Reform.

$15 million payment to El Salvador

The State Department is paying up to $15 million to house immigrants removed from the U.S. at CECOT, but the agreement has not been made publicly available. Former State Department officials and foreign policy aides have raised concerns that the State Department payments violate a human rights law.

The Leahy Law bars financial assistance to “units of foreign security forces” — which can include military and law enforcement staff in prisons —  facing credible allegations of gross human rights violations, such as CECOT.

The State Department has denied any wrongdoing.

The Trump administration has resisted court orders to return wrongfully deported men from CECOT, such as in the high-profile deportation case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, and a separate case out of Baltimore, Maryland concerning another wrongly deported man sent to the megaprison. Abrego Garcia detailed how he experienced physical and psychological torture while at CECOT.

Noem visited CECOT earlier this year, and said the prison would be one of the Trump administration’s tools amid its aggressive immigration crackdown. 

At the location of the future Moss Universal Park, surrounded by about 50 people, including Democratic lawmakers and community members, Vining focused her remarks on creating a world where everyone can thrive. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

WAUWATOSA — Continuing Senate Democrats’ effort to flip control of the state Senate next year, Rep. Robyn Vining (D-Wauwatosa) announced her campaign late Thursday afternoon for Wisconsin’s 5th Senate District, which is currently represented by Sen. Rob Hutton (R-Brookfield). 

At the location of the future Moss Universal Park, surrounded by about 50 people, including Democratic lawmakers and community members, Vining focused her remarks on creating a world where everyone can thrive.

“It’s going to take some construction — just like at this park,” Vining said, referring to the playground, which is designed to be accessible to children with disabilities and open to everyone in the community. “If we want a world that works for everyone, we need a government that works for everyone — not the few and the connected, but for everyone. That is the world I want to fight for. That is the world that we all deserve, and when we flip this seat and when we win the majority, we will work hard to create that world. We will move closer to a government that works for everyone.” 

November 2026 will be the first time new, more competitive legislative maps adopted in 2024 will be in effect for the 17 odd-numbered Senate seats up for election. All the seats in the  state Assembly and the governor’s office will also be up for election.

“We’re going to have a trifecta,” Senate Minority Leader Dianne Hesselbein (D-Middleton) told reporters. “We’re finally going to be able to get things done for the very first time in a very long time. We’re going to be able to fund K-12 education, higher education, child care and all the priorities that we’ve been fighting for for over a decade.”

Whether Democrats achieve “trifecta” control of both houses of the Legislature and the executive branch of state government hinges in part on a Democrat holding the governor’s seat. Gov. Tony Evers has not yet announced whether he’ll seek a third term in office, but the decision could come any day. 

“It’s my understanding that Gov. Evers is going to make up his mind in the next week and a half,” Hesselbein said. “If the governor wants to run again, we’re behind him all the way.” 

“It’s either going to be him or it’s going to be someone from the absolutely fabulous bench that we have, so we’re not worried,” Vining said. 

The path to the Senate majority, Vining and Hesselbein said, runs through Senate District 5. Republican lawmakers currently hold an 18-15 Senate majority, meaning Democrats need to flip two seats and hold all of their current seats to win the majority for the first time in more than 15 years. Two other competitive seats include Senate District 17, where Sen. Howard Marklein (R-Spring Green) is up for reelection and Rep. Jenna Jacobson (D-Oregon) announced her candidacy last week, and Senate District 21, where Sen. Van Wanggaard (R-Racine) is up for reelection. 

Senate District 5 includes portions of Milwaukee County, encompassing West Allis and Wauwatosa, and Waukesha County, including Pewaukee, Brookfield and Elm Grove. 

According to data from the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, the current 5th Senate District went for former Vice President Kamala Harris by 6 percentage points and Sen. Tammy Baldwin by 5 percentage points. The three Assembly districts that make up the Senate District are split — represented by Vining, Rep. Angelito Tenorio (D-West Allis) and Rep. Adam Neylon (R-Pewaukee).

“We see this as like a 50-51-ish… race where we’re favored ever so slightly,” Vining told reporters. “I mean, that’s the challenge.”

Vining is not the first Democrat in the race. Sarah Harrison, a Brookfield small business owner who ran a failed campaign for the Assembly in 2024, launched her campaign for the seat last month.

The incumbent, Hutton, hasn’t said whether he will run for another term in office. 

Hutton was first elected to the seat in 2022. In the Senate, he currently serves as the chair of the Senate Universities and Technical Colleges Committee and vice-chair of the Senate Transportation and Local Government Committee and has introduced legislation related to transgender Wisconsinites, including banning transgender girls from sports teams that align with their gender and allowing for civil action against medical professionals who provide gender affirming care, and some criminal justice bills, including some related to parole revocation and Wisconsin’s John Doe law.

Prior to the Senate, Hutton served in the Assembly from 2012 to 2018 and on the Waukesha County Board of Supervisors from 2005 to 2012.

Vining said of Hutton that constituents are “frustrated because they don’t know where he stands” on many issues, adding that education funding should be one of the top priorities for lawmakers. 

“What’s the special ed reimbursement rate that he supports? What is it? He’s not going to tell you. There’s going to be issue after issue where you really don’t know where he stands because he’s not going to tell you. I’m going to tell you, I support a 90% special ed reimbursement [rate], I’m going to tell you where I stand on issues,” Vining said. 

Vining has some experience running in competitive races. She flipped Assembly District 14 in 2018, beating out Matt Adamczyk, a former Wisconsin State Treasurer, by slightly more than 130 votes — less than half of 1 percentage point. In her reelection campaign in 2020 with Republicans targeting the seat, Vining beat the Republican candidate by 8 percentage points. In 2024 with new legislative maps in place, Vining ousted one of her Republican colleagues with whom she shared the new district.

“I’ve been the same person in politics the whole time — fighting for families as if they’re my own, fighting for affordable health care. I’m fighting for the things that people care about. People care that you A) listen to them and B) act on it,” Vining said. “I want to continue being the person that hears that you want a 90% special ed reimbursement rate and write the bill to do it and when your EpiPen is too expensive, I’m going to write a bill to try to make that better.”

Showing up to talk to constituents helps win tough districts, Vining said. She has represented about two-thirds of the new Senate district and said she is excited to get out and meet voters in areas she is less familiar with. 

“We have events. We talk with people. We listen. We build relationships,” Vining said.

“Democrats want to take the majority, and we can now spend the next 16 months casting vision for what it would mean to Wisconsinites for us to be in the majority,” Vining said. “It’s our job to cast vision so that people can latch onto it.” 

Vining’s vision focuses on finding the best way to serve people. She listed a number of issues that would be her priority to work on if she were elected and Democrats won the majority, including boosting education funding, improving child care, finally passing postpartum Medicaid expansion and addressing gun violence. She also said she wants to finally pass some of the bills she has proposed over the years while in the Assembly minority, including mental health related measures and a bill that would mandate universal adult-sized changing stations in restrooms in public buildings and encourage businesses to install them as well to help ensure accessibility for those who need it. 

“What we do as representatives is we need to see what we’re missing, and then make sure that we’re talking about those things,” Vining said. In the Assembly, Vining currently serves on the Children and Families Committee, the Health, Aging and Long-Term Care Committee, the Mental Health and Substance Abuse Prevention committee and the Small Business Development Committee. 

Constituents brought the issue of universal changing stations to her attention, she says  — something that other states across the country, including Alabama, have taken action on. A voter named Sarah and her son Matthew, who is disabled, had trouble going to public events because he would have to be changed on the floor of restrooms, she said. 

“Sarah came into my first office hours in February of 2019, right after I was elected, with Matthew [her son]. I met them, then she told me about the problem,” Vining said. “We wrote the legislation. We introduced the legislation and I’ve introduced it every cycle since.” 

Vining said she plans to introduce the legislation again next week. 

“Getting the majority also means making Wisconsin more accessible,” Vining said.

The U.S. Capitol on July 2, 2025. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. House cleared legislation just after midnight Friday that will cancel $9 billion in previously approved spending for public broadcasting and foreign aid, marking only the second time in more than three decades Congress has approved a presidential rescissions request.

The 216-213 mostly party-line vote sends the bill to President Donald Trump for his signature and notches another legislative victory for the White House, following passage earlier in July of a giant tax and spending cut package. Republican Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and Mike Turner of Ohio voted against approval along with Democratic lawmakers.

The Senate voted to pass the bill earlier this week after removing the section that would have eliminated hundreds of millions of dollars for the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR.

South Dakota Republican Sen. Mike Rounds also secured a handshake deal with the White House budget director to transfer $9.4 million from an undisclosed account within the Interior Department to Native American radio stations in rural areas.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting will lose $1.1 billion in funding that Congress had previously approved for the fiscal year slated to begin Oct. 1 and for the year after that.

The corporation provides funding for National Public Radio, the Public Broadcasting Service and hundreds of local stations throughout the country.

Another $8 billion of foreign aid will be eliminated once Trump signs the legislation.

The White House budget office’s original rescissions request included more than a dozen accounts for reduced spending, including those addressing global health and democracy programs.

The proposal called on lawmakers to cancel $500 million the U.S. Agency for International Development used for “activities related to child and maternal health, HIV/ AIDS, and infectious diseases.”

“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. “Enacting the rescission would reinstate focus on appropriate health and life spending. This best serves the American taxpayer.”

The final bill includes that spending cut but says the cancellation cannot affect HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, nutrition, or maternal and child health programs. It also says that “does not apply to family planning and reproductive health programs.”

The White House asked to eliminate $83 million from the State Department’s democracy fund, writing that “aligns with the Administration’s efforts to eliminate wasteful USAID foreign assistance programs and focus remaining funds on priorities that advance American interests. This best serves the American taxpayer.”

Lawmakers included that request in the bill, along with nearly all the others, without any caveats or additional guardrails.

Congress last approved a stand-alone rescissions bill in 1992 following a series of requests from President George H.W. Bush, according to a report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

The first Trump administration sent Congress a rescission request in 2018 that passed the House, but didn’t receive Senate approval.

‘Wasteful spending’ or ‘stealing from the American people’?

House debate largely fell along party lines, with Republicans citing disagreements with how the Biden administration spent congressionally approved funding as the reason to claw back money that would have otherwise been doled out by the Trump administration.

North Carolina Republican Rep. Virginia Foxx said the $9 billion, spread across accounts that have existed for decades, was a prime example of “wasteful spending (that) overtook Washington during the Biden-Harris administration.”

“The American people saw the fiscal ruin that was created by the previous administration,” Foxx said. “That’s why they overwhelmingly chose Republicans to lead the nation and restore fiscal sanity. That restoration is here.”

The federal government spends about $6.8 trillion per year, with $4.1 trillion going to mandatory programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Another $1.8 trillion is spent on discretionary accounts, including for the departments of Agriculture, Defense, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Justice, Transportation and State. Nearly $900 billion goes toward net interest payments on the country’s debt.

Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, said during floor debate the bill represented the Trump administration “stealing from the American people.”

“This bill will shut down rural television and radio stations, cutting off coverage of local news; eliminating emergency information, like severe weather alerts; jeopardizing access to PBS Kids children’s programs, like Sesame Street,” DeLauro said.

The foreign aid spending reduction, she said, “rips life-saving support away from hungry, displaced and sick people in developing countries and conflict zones.”

DeLauro raised concerns that U.S. withdrawal as a source of support for people and nations that are struggling would leave space for non-democratic countries to increase their influence.

“When we retreat from the world, diplomatically and through our assistance to vulnerable people, America will be alone — without allies, in a less stable world, without the support of the international community,” DeLauro said. “And do you know who will come out ahead? China, Russia, Iran.”

Cindy Eastling, Isaiah Eastling, Robert “Bobby” Bintz and David Bintz (from left to right). Photo courtesy of Carla Broadnax of Jarrett Adams Law. 

David and Robert Bintz appeared at a hearing of the Wisconsin Claims Board last week, seeking compensation for decades spent behind bars before their release in September for a wrongful conviction. 

The brothers’ attorney and the Brown County District Attorney expressed different views on a confession made by David Bintz prior to conviction. 

The Bintz brothers spent more than two decades in prison for the murder of Sandra Lison. Robert Bintz is now 69 years old and David is 70, and the brothers have faced health problems and challenges reintegrating into society. In February, Adams’ law firm sent the Examiner their compensation requests, which sought over $2 million for each brother. 

“I missed all the simple things in life that makes life beautiful,” Robert Bintz said via a statement read by his lawyer, Jarrett Adams, at the hearing. 

In April, the Examiner reported on the Bintz brothers’ return from prison and the gap in support to help exonerees in Wisconsin re-enter society. 

“We don’t know if David will still have his housing the next day,” Jarrett Adams, an attorney representing the brothers, said at the hearing. “We don’t know if David will have resources for his medical needs and medication. We don’t know a lot of things…But what we do know is that David is in need right now.”

Wrongly convicted people in Wisconsin can attempt to obtain compensation through the state law, which caps payouts at $25,000 and $5,000 per year of imprisonment. The exception is when the state Legislature approves a higher amount, which is rare. The claims board can recommend that the Legislature issue more compensation. 

Wrongly convicted people can also try to obtain a payout through a lawsuit. The Examiner previously reported that Adams said the brothers might not have an opportunity to get compensation if the state does not award it.

“This may be their only shot,” Adams said at the hearing. 

Brothers’ attorney, DA view case differently 

The claims board has said that the Wisconsin statute does not provide money to someone who only establishes that their conviction was vacated. The board must find that there is clear and convincing evidence of innocence, not just that a conviction was overturned. 

The statute says that the board will decide an amount of compensation for a person if it finds the person is innocent and that they did not contribute to bring about their conviction through their act or failure to act. 

Adams argued that the brothers did not contribute to their convictions. He said David had a documented learning disability and was made to sit under questioning for hours until he signed a confession. 

Brown County District Attorney David Lasee said he didn’t think it was his role to take a position on whether the Bintz brothers should receive additional funds, but he disagreed with Adams’ portrayal of the confession, saying that concern was considered during the legal process.

“…They were not charged until 12 years after the death of Ms. Lison, and that was based on statements that were made by David,” Lasee said at the hearing. “And there’s a confession from David. There’s also statements that David made to other inmates in prison, which is what prompted the investigators to come back and interview him. So that didn’t happen in a vacuum. And again, I take issue with the notion of the statement being coerced…so the defense attorney for David litigated the motion of whether it was a coercive statement that should be suppressed, and the statement obviously was not suppressed, and we proceeded to trial.”

Lasee was asked about how it was determined that the statement was not coerced. He said it was litigated but he did not recall the specifics of the decision.  

The Brown County District Attorney’s Office prosecuted the Bintz brothers with a theory of robbery and murder. 

According to the National Registry of Exonerations, when David’s trial began, the prosecution’s theory changed from the way the case had been investigated at the outset. 

“It was no longer that Lison had been robbed, raped, and killed,” the registry says. “Now, the prosecution contended that the Bintz brothers went to the bar to rob it because they felt Lison had overcharged them for a case of beer and ended up killing her because she could recognize them.”

The registry says that “by the time David’s trial began in May 2000, DNA testing had excluded both brothers from the semen found in the rape kit. Blood found under Lison’s body was not their blood, according to testing.” 

According to the registry, during closing argument in Robert’s trial, the prosecution argued that it was “‘clear that this was not a sexual assault, and whoever the donor of those spermatozoa is, [he] was not involved in this murder.’”

In 2006, the Wisconsin Innocence Project obtained additional DNA testing that confirmed blood found on Lison’s dress came from the same male whose sperm was found in the rape kit, the registry says. A motion for a new trial based on the testing was denied. 

The registry also says that police interviewed 32 year-old David Bintz and his brother, as well as a friend, Vincent Andrus. 

“David reported that Robert and Andrus had gone to the bar from David’s house during the evening to buy a case of beer,” the registry says. “Lison had sold them four six-packs for $3.50 each. When Robert and Andrus got back to David’s home, David, who was intellectually disabled, became angry because he thought Lison should have charged them for the price of a case, which was cheaper. 

“He had called the bar at one point and chewed out Lison. Some would later say he threatened to come over and blow up the tavern.”

The exonerations registry says prisoners testified that David had made various admissions to the crime. 

The registry says that when detectives interviewed David, he eventually agreed to a statement admitting he and Robert were involved and that Robert had strangled Lison. David also said he was home at the time of the crime and was not involved. 

Lasee said that he would “unequivocally state that based on the evidence that exists right now, I do not believe that the state of Wisconsin would be able to prove their guilt at trial.” 

But he said that “we did not stipulate that there was clear and convincing evidence of their innocence, because that’s not what we do. That’s not the standard we operate under.”