Photo by Architect of the Capitol | U.S. government work via Flickr

The July jobs report released last Friday wasn’t pretty. It showed weaker than anticipated U.S. job growth in July, and there were substantial downward revisions of jobs numbers for May and June as well. Economists predicted a slowdown. The chaos of tariff threats has created substantial uncertainty, which is bad for the economy, and the tariffs that have gone into effect have raised prices. It’s no surprise, then, that we’re seeing a slowdown in jobs. 

Moody’s chief economist Mark Zandi noted on social media, “It’s no mystery why the economy is struggling; blame increasing U.S. tariffs and highly restrictive immigration policy. The tariffs are cutting increasingly deeply into the profits of American companies and the purchasing power of American households. Fewer immigrant workers means a smaller economy.”

But instead of reflecting on mistakes in economic policy or offering some austerity suggestion, like limiting U.S.  children to  two dolls each , President Donald Trump blamed the messenger, firing the government official in charge of the data release, commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Erika McEntarfer. He baselessly asserted that the bad news was “concocted” and suggested that he knows better than the data. The economy is great, according to him, and he will find a commissioner to tell him so.

Trump’s approach is a disaster for economic decision making and for public trust. The BLS is an independent agency with a strong legacy of providing the data that businesses, analysts and policymakers need. Good economic decisions require reliable data. As the American Economics Association wrote: “The BLS has long had a well-deserved reputation for professional excellence and nonpartisan integrity. Safeguarding this tradition is vital for the continued health of the U.S. economy and public trust in our institutions.” 

The BLS monthly jobs report provides a timely snapshot of labor market dynamics which inform investing and hiring decisions as well as policy choices. BLS data also measures the rate of inflation through the consumer price index. The rising price of goods is not only a key economic indicator but also the scale by which Social Security payments are adjusted and a point of reference in private and union wage negotiations.

BLS data are essential to understanding what is going on in the economy, when a slowdown is emerging, and the cost of daily life. The independence and integrity of the agency, long assumed and supported by both parties, is now under attack.

Wisconsinites lived through something like this more than a decade ago. Former Republican Gov. Scott Walker promised to create 250,000 jobs in his first term. He focused on the goal relentlessly, at least until it became clear that he would not meet it. (In fact, the Wisconsin economy didn’t even meet Walker’s first term goal across his two terms – adding just 233,000 jobs by the time he left office after serving for eight years.)

In the first years of Walker’s  “relentless focus on jobs” under his administration’s tagline  “Wisconsin is Open for Business,” the monthly numbers showed that Wisconsin’s economy was growing more slowly than the national labor market and neighboring states. 

Walker blamed the data. He insisted that we wait instead for a federal source which was more reliable, but had a substantial time lag. As someone who watches this data, I can assure that this was the only time in my three-decade career when differences between monthly and quarterly sources of federal jobs data were a policy talking point. 

But in the end, the data issue was just a distraction from the truth. Wisconsin was growing more slowly, and no amount of complaining about the data or waiting for another source on jobs could change that fact. Eventually, the Walker administration went silent on both the data and the promised 250,000 jobs. 

Trump’s approach is worse than waiting for another source of data. His firing of the commissioner suggests that he’ll only accept data that confirms his narrative. And that makes it harder for any of us to trust any data the federal government is willing to release. 

That’s bad for the economy and bad for democracy. As narrow and nerdy as this topic may seem, we all have an interest in facts and reliable data. We have had a government infrastructure capable of producing it. We lose it at our own peril.

A school bus drives along a rural road outside of Kenosha, Wis. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act established a national tax credit scholarship program, but state leaders can decide whether and how to participate. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

When President Donald Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, he gave state leaders — not federal regulators — the power to decide whether and how to participate in the first-ever national tax credit scholarship program.

That decision now looms largest in blue states, where Democratic governors and lawmakers must weigh whether to reject the law outright on ideological grounds — or try to reshape it into something that reflects their own values.

“This isn’t the federal voucher program we were worried about five years ago,” said Jon Valant, a senior fellow in governance studies at the left-leaning Brookings Institution who testified before Congress on earlier versions of the bill. “It still has serious problems — but states now have tools to mold it into something they might actually support.”

The final law gives states wide discretion, he said. They can opt out entirely. They can opt in passively, leaving the program to operate as written. Or, as Valant suggests, they can try to redraw its footprint — focusing less on private school tuition and more on public school supports like tutoring, transportation and enrichment services in underserved districts.

“My hope is that blue states take a hard look and ask: Can this be used to address our own needs?”

For progressives and education advocates who are wary of school vouchers, the decision is fraught. Opting in could draw criticism for approving what many see as a vehicle for privatization of K-12 education. But opting out could mean turning down federal dollars — education money that states with budding or robust private school voucher infrastructures, such as Arizona and Florida, will gladly take.

“There’s money on the table, and it can be used for more than just private school tuition,” Valant said. “If blue states want to keep that money from reinforcing inequality, they’ll have to get creative, and act fast.”

Since 2020, private school choice programs — once limited to low-income or special needs students — have rapidly expanded.

In 2023, $6.3 billion was spent nationwide on private school choice programs — less than 1% of total public K-12 operational spending, according to EdChoice, a nonprofit that advocates for school choice measures. From 2023-24 to 2024-25, participation in universal private school choice programs surged nearly 40%, growing from roughly 584,000 to 805,000 students in just one school year.

By 2026-27, about half of all U.S. students will be eligible, according to estimates by FutureEd, an independent think tank at Georgetown University.

These trends, combined with new federal tax credit, could fundamentally reshape the education funding landscape across state governments, experts say.

“States will need to decide whether to encourage the redirection of funding to support private and religious schools — either by expanding existing voucher programs or, if they don’t have one, by introducing such a program for the first time,” said Sasha Pudelski, director of advocacy for AASA, The School Superintendents Association. The group opposes the national voucher plan.

State regulations

As of this May, 21 states operated tax credit scholarship programs with varying degrees of funding and oversight. According to the EdChoice Friedman Index, the states of Florida, Arkansas, Arizona and Alabama rank highest in private school access, with 100% of students eligible for school choice programs.

Some states, like Florida and Arizona, already have extensive tax credit scholarship systems. Others, including Texas, are building new infrastructure such as statewide voucher programs and education savings accounts, known as ESAs.

States with no current programs face decisions about participation, regulation and equity, but without clear federal guardrails, education advocates told Stateline.

The federal policy builds on existing state-level tax credit scholarship programs — such as Alabama’s — but significantly expands eligibility, removes scholarship caps and broadens allowable uses to include not just tuition, but also tutoring, therapy, transportation and academic support services. Beginning in 2027, scholarships will be excluded from federal taxable income.

Valant, of Brookings, told Stateline that some of his initial concerns were addressed in the version of the bill signed into law.

“There was a very realistic scenario in the earlier version of the bill where a small number of very wealthy people could essentially make money off this,” Valant said. “That was mostly addressed.”

The enacted version eliminates stock donations and caps individual tax credits at $1,700. And with states that opt in having the power to shape their own program, Valant said that gives them the chance to establish their own guardrails, such as income eligibility caps or nondiscrimination policies for participating schools.

The scholarship-granting organizations, known as SGOs, would then be subject to new state regulations about where the money can go.

“States could say SGOs can’t give money to schools that discriminate based on sexual orientation. … There’s quite a lot of room here for state regulation,” he said.

Looking ahead, Valant said he’ll be watching how states interpret their regulatory powers — and how effective scholarship-granting organizations are at fundraising under the new rules, which prohibit large stock gifts and rely instead on millions of smaller donations.

“Now it’s a strange pitch: ‘Can you front me $300 to give to the SGO? I swear the IRS will give it back,’” he said. “It’s going to take time to figure out how to sell this to families.”

Concerns over transparency and equity remain. The program allows donors, scholarship-granting organizations and families to direct funds with little public accountability, critics say. And in states without robust oversight, Valant warns that funds could be misused — or channeled to institutions that exclude students based, for example, on identity or beliefs about sexual orientation.

He also emphasized that early participation is likely to skew toward families already in private schools, particularly in wealthier ZIP codes — mirroring patterns seen in programs in Arizona, Florida and Georgia.

“One big risk is that the funds will disproportionately flow to wealthier families — just like we’ve seen in many ESA programs,” Valant said.

What do these programs look like across the country?

FutureEd studied eight states — Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, Oklahoma and West Virginia — where 569,000 students participated in school choice programs at a cost to taxpayers of $4 billion in 2023-24.

The FutureEd analysis found significant differences among the states in design, funding and oversight.

Arizona’s ESA program was the first of its kind in 2011, and also the first to shift toward universal eligibility in 2022.

Florida operated the largest and most expensive program, with broad eligibility, no caps or accreditation requirements, and a major influx of higher-income families, though it mandated some university-led performance reviews. Iowa fully funded ESAs and, like other states, saw mostly existing private school families benefit.

Arkansas had a cautious rollout due to legal delays and geographic clustering of participants, while West Virginia allowed spending across state lines with no performance reporting.

Newcomer North Carolina began with income-based prioritization but quickly expanded under political pressure or demand, while Alabama and Louisiana will launch ESA programs in 2025-26 using general state revenues.

Utah enacted a universal voucher program in 2023, providing up to $8,000 per student for private school or homeschool expenses. A state teachers union sued, arguing that participating schools were not “free and open to all children” and that the program diverted public school funds. A state court this April ruled the program was unconstitutional.

As the new federal law opens the door for tax-credit-funded tuition support, Texas is building its first universal school voucher program, aided through ESAs to begin in the 2026-27 school year. The program is funded with $1 billion over two years, with $10,000-$11,000 per student — up to $30,000 for students with disabilities and $2,000 for homeschoolers.

The Texas comptroller will oversee the program, and private schools must be open for at least two years to be eligible for funds.

Voucher programs can drain state budgets, and budget wonks predict the cost for Texas could rise to around $4.8 billion by 2030, The Texas Tribune reported.

A spokesperson for the Texas comptroller’s office said that details are still being finalized; the state has issued a request for proposals due Aug. 4 to select eligible educational assistance organizations that would help funnel scholarship dollars to schools.

Other states may be more cautious. The Missouri National Education Association filed a lawsuit this summer to block $51 million in state appropriations to private school scholarships through the MOScholars program. The suit argues that using general revenue rather than private donations violates the state constitution and undermines public education funding.

Stateline reporter Robbie Sequeira can be reached at rsequeira@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.

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

President Donald Trump’s freeze on $8 billion of congressionally appropriated funding to the National Institutes of Health was illegal, the Government Accountability Office reported Tuesday.

Orders Trump signed in the early days of his return to office and related administration directives violated the Impoundment Control Act by failing to spend money that Congress, which holds the power of the purse under the Constitution, had approved, the GAO report said.

Roughly 1,800 grants for health research were held up by the administration, the report said.

Trump’s Inauguration Day order ceased funding for a variety of health research grants that related to diversity, equity and inclusion, transgender issues or environmental harms. The Department of Health and Human Services issued a memo directing its agencies, including NIH, to cease publishing notices in the Federal Register of meetings of grant review boards.

GAO, an independent investigatory agency that reports to Congress, called those meetings “a key step in NIH’s grant review process.” HHS has since restarted notices of the meetings.

From February to June, the NIH released $8 billion less than it obligated in the past two years, representing a drop-off of more than one-third, according to the GAO. The gap between 2025 spending and that of previous years continued to grow, GAO said, with NIH obligating a lower amount of grant funding each month.

Illegal impoundment

The failure to fund grant awards violated the Impoundment Control Act and the Constitution, which certified Congress as the branch of government responsible for funding decisions, said GAO.

If a law is passed by Congress and signed by a president, it must be carried out by the executive branch, the watchdog said.

“The President must ‘faithfully execute’ the law as Congress enacts it,” the report said. “Once enacted, an appropriation is a law like any other, and the President must implement it by ensuring that appropriated funds are obligated and expended prudently during their period of availability unless and until Congress enacts another law providing otherwise. … The Constitution grants the President no unilateral authority to withhold funds from obligation.”

There are specific circumstances that allow for a funding freeze — a rescissions law, such as the one Congress passed last month to defund public broadcasters and foreign aid, is one example — but they did not apply to this case, the GAO said.

Delays may be permissible to allow a new presidential administration to ensure grants are awarded based on its priorities. But a complete block on funding is illegal, the GAO said. There is no evidence that other grant awards — or any other type of funding at HHS — took the place of the $8 billion in unspent grant money, the report said.

“While it can be argued that NIH reviewed grants to ensure that funds were spent in alignment with the priorities of the new administration, NIH did not simply delay the planned obligations of the funds,” the GAO said. “Rather, NIH eliminated obligations entirely by terminating grants it had already awarded.”

GAO can sue the executive branch based on its findings. The report noted there is already litigation from other parties over the frozen grants.

Dems call for reinstatement

Congressional Democrats responded to the report by harshly criticizing Trump and White House Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought and calling for the funds’ release.

“This is simple – Congress passed and the President signed into law investments in NIH research to help find cures and treatments for cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, ALS, diabetes, mental health issues, and maternal mortality,” U.S. House Appropriations Committee ranking Democrat Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut said in a statement. “But now, GAO has determined that President Trump and OMB Director Vought illegally withheld billions in funding for research on diseases affecting millions of American families—research that brings hope to countless people suffering.”

Senate Appropriations Vice Chair Patty Murray, a Washington state Democrat, said in a statement the funding freeze “dangerously set back” efforts to cure cancer, Alzheimer’s and other diseases.

“Today’s decision affirms what we’ve known for months: President Trump is illegally blocking funding for medical research and shredding the hopes of patients across the country who are counting on NIH-backed research to propel new treatments and cures that could save their lives,” Murray said. “It is critical President Trump reverse course, stop decimating the NIH, and get every last bit of this funding out.”

An HHS spokesperson deferred a request for comment Tuesday to OMB.

An agency investigated by the GAO is generally given a draft of the watchdog’s findings and asked to respond.

The HHS response, obtained by States Newsroom, said grant reviews were back on schedule, though it did not address grant obligations.

“Despite the short delay in scheduling and holding peer review and advisory council meetings to allow for the administration transition, NIH has been on pace with its reviewing grant applications and holding meetings and has caught up from the pause when compared to prior years,” the response said.

GAO’s summary of the HHS response said the department had restarted meetings of grant review boards and provided some “factual information” but did not justify the lack of grant spending or provide current status of payments for previously approved grants. 

Former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrive at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 20, 2025 in Washington, D.C. , for the inauguration of Donald Trump as president. (Photo by Shawn Thew-Pool/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The House Committee on Oversight issued subpoenas Tuesday for testimony from former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, among other ex-government officials from both Democratic and Republican administrations, regarding knowledge of Florida sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Committee Chair James Comer of Kentucky also subpoenaed the U.S. Department of Justice for records of Epstein’s federal sex trafficking investigation. Comer gave the department until Aug. 19 to turn over the files.

Comer issued the subpoenas following bipartisan committee support in late July to compel the release of records after President Donald Trump backtracked on his promise to open the files.

Epstein, who pleaded guilty to sex crimes in Florida in 2008, died in a New York City jail cell in August 2019 while awaiting federal trial on sex trafficking charges. Epstein’s co-conspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of a wealthy media mogul, is serving a 20-year sentence in federal prison for her role in the sex trafficking scheme.

The former financier had surrounded himself with wealthy and powerful figures, including Trump and the Clintons, among many other influential people.

Subpoena list

In letters to several former government officials, Comer wrote that congressional oversight of the government’s investigation of Epstein is “imperative.”

“The Committee may use the results of this investigation to inform legislative solutions to improve federal efforts to combat sex trafficking and reform the use of non-prosecution agreements and/or plea agreements in sex-crime investigations. Given your past relationships with Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell, the Committee believes that you have information regarding their activities that is relevant to the Committee’s investigation,” according to the letters.

In addition to the Clintons, Comer also subpoenaed testimony from:

• Former U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland
• Former U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr
• Former U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions
• Former U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch
• Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder
• Former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
• Former FBI Director James Comey
• Former FBI Director Robert Mueller

Comer outlined a span of deadlines for the depositions into early October.

Comer previously subpoenaed Maxwell for an Aug. 11 deposition. The Kentucky lawmaker denied Maxwell’s request for immunity but agreed to delay her testimony to the committee, according to multiple media reports.

Bondi won’t release Epstein files

Attention on the federal case against Epstein swelled after the Justice Department, under current Attorney General Pam Bondi, declined to publicly release case files, as Trump had promised on the campaign trail.

According to an unsigned July 7 Justice Department memo, “a systemic review revealed no incriminating ‘client list,’” and department and FBI officials concluded that “no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted.”

The declaration sparked an uproar among lawmakers and Trump’s voter base, including some in his own administration. The president’s supporters, and Trump himself, have long been fixated on what they describe as the “Epstein files,” with some perpetuating conspiracy theories.

House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana sent lawmakers home early for August break to avoid votes compelling the release of material. 

Details of the president’s past relationship with Epstein also surfaced, including a report from the Wall Street Journal that Trump gave the financier a 50th birthday note featuring a cryptic message and the outline of a naked woman with Trump’s signature mimicking pubic hair. The president denied making the note and swiftly sued the Journal.

The outlet also reported that Bondi briefed Trump in May that his name appeared in the Epstein materials. The context in which Trump appeared in the files is unknown.

Trump has since called for the release of grand jury testimony in the case, which a Florida judge denied.

Trump also dispatched Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, his former criminal defense lawyer, to interview Maxwell in Florida where she was being held.

The administration has since moved Maxwell to a Texas facility.

Former Gov. Tommy Thompson hasn't ruled out a run in 2026, while former Gov. Scott Walker has. Thompson pictured talking to reporters at the Republican National Convention in 2024. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner) Walker on the floor during the first day of the 2024 Republican National Convention. (Photo by Joeff Davis)

While Wisconsin’s incumbent governor is opting out of seeking a third term, the open and growing field has led a couple of former governors to stir conversation about whether they will run again in 2026 or beyond.

Democratic Gov. Tony Evers’ decision not to run makes 2026 the first open race for governor since 2010, when Scott Walker, then the Milwaukee County executive, defeated Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett. Former Gov. Jim Doyle, who served from 2003 to 2011, had declined to run for a third term. 

Evers said he chose not to run again next year because he wants to spend more time with his family.

Former Gov. Tommy Thompson did not rule out a run for governor in 2026 while speaking with 620 WTMJ on Monday afternoon. 

“Why not?” Thompson said in response to the question about whether he would run for governor. “I haven’t said no. There’s a lot of good candidates and I have no desire to get in the race, but the truth of the matter is, I’ll wait and see what’s out there.” 

There are two declared Republican candidates in the race so far: Washington County Josh Schoemann and Whitefish Bay manufacturer Bill Berrien. U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany has also been teasing a run for the last several weeks.  

Only one Democratic candidate, Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez, has officially launched her campaign since Evers’ announcement on July 24. Other potential candidates include Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, Attorney General Josh Kaul, state Sen. Kelda Roys (D-Madison) and former Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes. 

Thompson is the only governor in Wisconsin to have been elected to four terms, serving from 1987 to 2001. Wisconsin is one of 13 states in the U.S. without term limits on governors, according to Ballotpedia.

Thompson left the office to serve as President George W. Bush’s Health and Human Services secretary. He also previously served as University of Wisconsin system president. This is not the first time that he has floated seeking a potential fifth term, having mentioned it in 2022.

Thompson said Monday that his wife and children would be opposed to him running for another term, but he signaled that he feels he would be up to the task. By the time the next term starts, Thompson would be 85.  

“I’m in great physical health. My mind is sharp as hell. I’ve got things that I’d like to accomplish, but it’s way too early for me to make that decision, way too early,” Thompson said.

Walker, who served two terms as governor, recently said he wouldn’t be running for governor in 2026 after making cryptic posts on social media that pointed to potential nonconsecutive terms. He lost the office to Evers in a close election in 2018. 

“I’m not going to be a candidate, at least not next year. It doesn’t mean I’ll never run again,” he said in a video posted to social media. Walker, who is 57, added that he is a “quarter century” younger than former President Joe Biden. 

“Looking ahead, though, Tonette [Walker] and I will do everything we can at our home here in Wisconsin to ensure that we elect a common sense conservative as governor in next year’s election,” he said. 

Walker said he would be continuing his work as president of Young America’s Foundation, a conservative nonprofit focused on youth, and emphasized that Republicans need to do better outreach to young voters.

Wisconsin has only had one governor serve nonconsecutive terms.

Prior to Wisconsin adopting four-year terms for its governors, former Gov. Philip La Follette served his first term as governor from 1931 to 1933 as a Republican. 

According to the National Governors Association, La Follette, the son of former U.S. Sen. “Fighting Bob” La Follette, spent a significant portion of his time in office seeking the expansion of public works, including highway construction, increased government control over the electric power and banking industries and helped set up an unemployment insurance program, which became a model for similar legislation in other states. 

La Follette ran for another term in 1932 but was defeated by Democratic Gov. Albert G. Schmedeman. 

After one term out of office, La Follette ran for governor again in 1934, this time as a third party candidate for the newly formed Progressive Party. He went on to serve a second and third term from 1935 to 1939.

An elementary school student concentrates while performing a sit-up during physical education class. (Photo via Getty Images)  

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump is bringing back a physical fitness test to public schools after over a decade, but details of the new test, including timing and implementation, remain to be seen.

Trump signed an executive order July 31 that reestablished the Presidential Fitness Test — a source of both fear and achievement among youth — and committed to revitalizing the “President’s Council on Sports, Fitness, and Nutrition,” which would develop the test.

“Rates of obesity, chronic disease, inactivity, and poor nutrition are at crisis levels, particularly among our children,” the executive order notes. “These trends weaken our economy, military readiness, academic performance, and national morale.”

The president designated Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to administer the test.

The council is tasked with creating “school-based programs that reward excellence in physical education and develop criteria for a Presidential Fitness Award,” according to a White House fact sheet.

Expert hopes for ‘holistic’ revamp

The order did not provide any details on what the test will look like or how or when it will roll out.

Laura Richardson, a clinical associate professor of kinesiology at the University of Michigan, said she hoped to see an updated version of the test that focused more on level of activity than on a student’s performance.

“I’m hopeful that maybe it will be reevaluated and revised and really have some tools that don’t just look at how fast you are or how strong you are, but more holistic in the tools we need to get our children to be active in childhood that should then continue through the trajectory into adulthood,” Richardson told States Newsroom.

Richardson added that testing alone would not be sufficient to see improvement in kids’ physical fitness, and called for increasing resources to schools to help students be more active.

“Sedentary behavior is really widespread — we’re seeing increasing obesity among all ages,” Richardson told States Newsroom. “We can test … but if we’re not giving the tools to the teachers and the students and the parents, we may continue to see the same data.”

Bill would codify test

Rep. Jeff Van Drew announced last week that he will introduce a bill to codify Trump’s executive order.

In a statement, the New Jersey Republican said he coordinated with the administration, including Kennedy, when writing the bill.

“Every parent wants their kid to grow up strong and healthy,” he added. “This bill is about making sure they are given the tools to do just that.”

Latest version of test

The Presidential Fitness Test dates back to President Dwight Eisenhower, who set up the President’s Council on Youth Fitness in 1956 following alarming findings on the state of youth fitness in the United States compared to youth in European nations.

The test initially included sit-ups, a mile run, a shuttle run, pull-ups or push-ups and a sit-and-reach, according to Harvard Health.

Since then, the test has seen several versions. The most recent major revamp was in 2012, when President Barack Obama’s administration replaced the Presidential Fitness Test with the Presidential Youth Fitness Program, which aimed for a more individualized and health-focused approach.

The program, which came after criticism of the Presidential Fitness Test and concerns about its psychological effects on youth, aimed to minimize “comparisons between children and instead supports students as they pursue personal fitness goals for lifelong health,” according to the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion within the Department of Health and Human Services. 

President John F. Kennedy, an uncle of the current HHS secretary, expanded on Eisenhower’s efforts. In a 1960 essay, “The Soft American,” the president-elect at the time described physical fitness as a “vital prerequisite to America’s realization of its full potential as a nation.”

According to HHS’ Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, President Kennedy also promoted “taking the 50 mile hikes previously required of U.S. Marine officers” in a national public service advertising campaign.

President Lyndon B. Johnson established the Presidential Physical Fitness Award Program in 1966 for “exceptional achievement by 10- to 17-year-old boys and girls,” per HHS. 

Nearly all abortions, except those to save a patient’s life, would be banned at U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals and would no longer be covered by VA medical benefits under a rule proposed by the Trump administration. The policy change comes from the Project 2025 playbook. (Getty Images)

The Trump administration has taken its first step toward restricting access to abortions for veterans who are covered by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs’ medical benefits, reversing a 2022 rule.

Former Democratic President Joe Biden’s administration enacted the rule following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, which ended federally protected access to abortion. More than a dozen states implemented abortion bans after that decision, and the policy was meant to preserve access to abortion for veterans in certain circumstances, regardless of where they lived. Veterans Affairs medical centers were allowed to provide abortions in cases of rape or incest, and when the life or health of the pregnant person was in jeopardy. Counseling about abortion was also permitted.

Under the proposal, nearly all abortions, except those to save a patient’s life, would be banned at U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals and would no longer be covered by VA medical benefits.

In eight states with abortion bans, there are no rape or incest exceptions, including Texas, Alabama and Oklahoma, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Five states with bans also don’t have an exception in cases where the pregnant person’s health is at risk, only to save their life.

The rule also applies to recipients of the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs (CHAMPVA), which provides coverage to veterans’ families, including children, along with caregivers of veterans.

Officials wrote in the proposal that the 2022 policy was enacted because the administration expected increased “demand” for abortion services, but the rule cited abortion bans in several states that created an environment of uncertainty for veterans who might need care.

The Department of Veterans Affairs provided 88 abortions in the first year after the rule went into place, 64 of which were performed because of a threat to the pregnant person’s health, according to VA data reported by Military.com.

Rescinding the rule was a directive in Project 2025, the blueprint document published by the conservative Heritage Foundation and co-authored by anti-abortion organizations such as Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America. The first of what the document calls “needed reforms” calls for rescinding all department clinical policy directives that are “contrary to principles of conservative governance, starting with abortion services and gender reassignment surgery.”

“Neither aligns with service-connected conditions that would warrant VA’s providing this type of clinical care,” the Project 2025 document reads.

U.S. law already mandates that federal funding cannot be used for abortions except in cases of rape, incest and in certain medical circumstances. The administration argues the 2022 rule violated the “bright line between elective abortion and health care services” and should return to a policy that only allows abortion care to save the pregnant person’s life. Counseling about abortion options would no longer be permitted.

“Taken together, claims in the prior administrations rule that abortions throughout pregnancy are needed to save the lives of pregnant women are incorrect,” officials wrote in the proposed rule description. “Prior to September 9, 2022, abortions and abortion counseling were excluded from the medical benefits package, with no exceptions.”

According to estimates from nonprofit National Partnership for Women and Families, more than 400,000 women veterans lived in states that already had an abortion ban in place or were likely to ban it in 2023. That figure represents more than half of the women veterans in the country.

Public comment on the proposed rule will be accepted until Sept. 3. 

A researcher surveys wild rice on the Pine River. (Wisconsin SEA Grant)

Through executive orders and the Republican reconciliation bill signed into law in July, the administration of President Donald Trump has cancelled or proposed the cancellation of about $75 million in grants and loans meant for climate-focused projects in Wisconsin, according to data collected by the environmental policy group Atlas Public Policy. 

The cancelled projects include money for the state’s Department of Military Affairs to make infrastructure more resilient to climate change and a grant for the Milwaukee-based water quality non-profit Reflo, Inc. to help children in the city learn about sustainability and the environment. 

Since taking office in January, Trump and congressional Republicans have attacked federal government efforts to address climate change by slashing programs and withholding money. Many of the projects that have lost money in Wisconsin were aimed at marginalized communities such as Native American tribes and Milwaukee’s Black residents — putting them in Trump’s crosshairs because of his aversion to diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. 

Through the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act and the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the administration of President Joe Biden targeted billions of dollars to help communities undertake projects meant to help transition to renewable sources of energy, restore local waterways and make homes more energy efficient. 

Under Trump, that money has been clawed back as Republicans have become even more hostile to efforts to address climate change. For example, U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, who represents much of northern Wisconsin and is considering running for governor next year, has spent a significant amount of time fighting the construction of solar energy in the state. 

“The loss of this funding represents a profound missed opportunity for Wisconsin, especially for its most vulnerable and disadvantaged communities,” says Jaclyn Lea, an associate at Atlas Public Policy. “These canceled projects would have supported investments in communities building energy efficiency, workforce development, and climate resilience. The impact of these cancellations will be felt across the state, slowing progress on critical environmental and resilience efforts.” 

Milwaukee energy efficiency

Among the projects that have lost their funding is a grant program under the Inflation Reduction Act to help the city of Milwaukee’s Environmental Collaboration Office work with non-profit organizations to help residents of the city’s predominately Black north side and predominately Latino south side connect with programs to make their homes more energy efficient. 

About $200,000 of the $1 million grant would have supported energy audits of 250 homes in the two neighborhoods. Many of the aging homes in the city have problems with old electrical systems, causing energy bills to rise for some of the city’s poorest residents and posing a fire risk. The program would have also helped connect residents with programs to weatherize their homes and remediate lead contamination. 

Erick Shambarger, Milwaukee’s director of environmental sustainability, says the program would have helped the city’s lowest income residents —  who are at the greatest risk of environmental harms —  lower their energy costs while helping the city as a whole cut emissions. 

It was rolled back as part of the tax- and spending-cut mega-bill that congressional Republicans passed this summer and Trump signed into law on July 4. 

“We also have to do a better job of maintaining and improving our existing housing stock,” Shambarger says. “And this was one tool that we had to try to do that, and it got pulled away. And then now you look at all of the other things that the big, ugly bill did in terms of eliminating tax credits for energy efficiency and all of the rest. And so this isn’t just one [decision], there’s a real pullback at the feds to support low- to moderate-income households.” 

He adds that the grant program project highlighted the ways it would help minority communities because that’s what the Biden administration was looking for, but he doesn’t think the program should be controversial. 

“At the end of the day, we are trying to help the people that need the help the most, help them save on their energy bills and help them get their families stabilized, and create better environments for kids, and better environmental conditions for kids to have a better chance in life,” he says. 

Shambarger says that political instability is one of the greatest obstacles to addressing climate change. The instability caused by the Trump administration taking back money the federal government had already promised to deliver makes it more difficult for industries and businesses relying on more predictable government action, he adds. 

“It is just very, very frustrating just to not have the consistency of policy that we need to address the climate crisis,” he says. “It should be frustrating for every American, including our contractors, who have to plan for the future, who have to hire workers with skill sets, and all of that takes time to set up training programs for new industries. It takes time to build partnerships for the financing for all of this.”

Shambarger is particularly frustrated by the federal government canceling contracts in midstream. 

“It’s one thing to say ‘wind down this contract, and maybe you don’t get renewed, and you have time to adjust,’” he says, “but to just terminate stuff without notice, without looking into the particulars of what our program was achieving is really, really disruptive.”

The effects of climate change are here, Shambarger says. Wisconsin and the Midwest have faced days of poor air quality because of wildfires across Canada this summer. Floods have continued to get worse every year. 

Meanwhile, lower-income working Americans are getting less help, “and that’s too bad, because this country, in order for it to really be great, we’ve got to make sure that we are providing really safe and affordable housing that is climate resilient,” he says.

Global warming continues to heighten risks, from wildfire smoke in the Midwest air to floods and wildfires threatening cities, “and all of that threat is not going away,” Shambarger says. “We just appeal to all levels of government to recognize that there is something we can do about this … It’s a benefit to all Americans.”

Brothertown Tribe wild rice restoration 

Another project cancelled by the Trump administration is a $3 million grant meant to help researchers at the University of Wisconsin work with the Brothertown Indian Nation to restore wild rice habitat in the Lake Winnebago watershed and study the effects of that restoration on the lake’s water quality. 

While the project would have helped the tribe connect with a plant that many of the state’s tribes view as sacred, it would also have served as a wetland restoration project on the drinking water source for hundreds of thousands of people in the Fox River valley. Wetland restoration is a major tool for improving water quality because wetlands can serve as a sort of filter to block potentially harmful nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrates from running off of farm fields and into the water system. 

“There’s over 200,000 people that rely on Winnebago alone for drinking water, and we know the positive impact of having better health for that water,” Jessica Ryan, the tribe’s vice chair, says. “And the community has been trying to improve the water quality for a long period of time in that area. But there’s, there’s a long way to go yet. There’s tremendous negative impacts that have happened from prior generations. So we need to keep our foot on the gas.” 

The grant was meant to fund five years of rice seeding and studying to see if the rice population can be increased and if that increase can improve the quality of water, both for drinking and for supporting populations of fish such as sturgeon and waterfowl such as geese and ducks. The grant was designed as a collaboration between indigenous and western methods of science and involved a number of the state’s tribes as well as local groups and farmers.

“We’d like to have the support of all of the state and the federal politicians to support us because we see the similarities in these interests,” Ryan says. “We see how it lifts up the entire community. Regardless of whether we’re American Indian or not, we have this common core value of looking after the land and the water.”

Those values are shared by local farmers and by the large tribal communities in the area — along with the Brothertown, the Oneida, the Stockbridge and the Menominee, she says. 

The Brothertown Indian Nation began in 18th century New England as a community of Christian Native Americans. The tribe later moved west to Wisconsin to avoid the conflicts over land that pushed out most of the East Coast’s native populations. The tribe settled east of Lake Winnebago. 

But in 1838 the federal government then tried to force the tribe out of Wisconsin and into Kansas. Looking for a way to prevent the government from taking their land, the tribe requested the allotment of their land and U.S. citizenship. Members believed that this would allow private ownership of their land and protect the tribe. 

But unbeknownst to the members, this agreement terminated the federal government’s recognition of the tribe — ending its status as a sovereign nation. The tribe continues to work toward once again being recognized by the federal government. But Ryan says that the Trump administration’s cancellation of the Brothertown grant was especially painful because it was another promise to the tribe broken by the U.S. government. 

“The federal government, in my opinion, has an opportunity to make it, to do the right thing, and they have chosen not to do the right thing,” she says. “They’ve chosen to do the opposite. And I don’t know what’s behind that decision making, right? Like, I don’t know if it’s a political decision, if it’s a racial decision, I don’t know what that is, but to us as the recipients who worked diligently, we’ve complied with all that’s been expected of us. We followed the rules, right? And the application process, it was a competitive process. We were selected. And to have the government again unilaterally go back on its word, it’s pretty devastating.” 

Because the tribe isn’t recognized, it has very little resources. All of its budget comes from charitable support, grants and what the tribe can make selling crafts at its store. It can’t cover the work that was supposed to be covered by a $3 million grant. For now, the tribe has kept one person on its payroll to keep collecting data through the project and is hoping for volunteers to help with the additional work. 

“We had so much good in mind that we were going to do with the funds that would benefit far more than just us,” Ryan says. “This was going to have a tremendous positive impact on the entire community within the watershed. It’s not just something that was going to look after our people or a small group of people. This was intended to have a statewide positive impact.”

The research the tribe wants to continue collecting “is something that can be used on a larger model for the entire region,” Ryan says.  “This is a long-term ecological restoration effort, and we are three years into this project, and it’s a really critical, pivotal moment.”

A nurse gives an MMR vaccine at the Utah County Health Department on April 29, 2019, in Provo, Utah. The vaccine is 97% effective against measles when two doses are administered. (Photo by George Frey/Getty Images)

The Wisconsin Department of Health Services (DHS) is urging residents to get vaccinated amid the confirmation of the first measles cases in the state this year and as families begin back-to-school preparation with vaccine rates still down. 

DHS confirmed nine cases of measles in Oconto County over the weekend — the first cases in the state this year. The agency said no public points of exposure have been identified and the risk to the community remains low. 

The first case was confirmed through testing at the Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene, and the eight other cases were confirmed based on exposure and symptoms. Each person was exposed from a common source during out-of-state travel.

Dr. Ryan Westergaard, chief medical officer of DHS’s Bureau of Communicable Diseases, told reporters during a press conference Monday afternoon that given the number of cases across the country, the agency has been preparing for its case investigations and outbreak response for months. 

“While we were surprised that we had our first cases this past week, we were prepared,” Westergaard said. “We’ve been making sure that we have adequate MMR vaccine in stock and have worked in partnership with all of our local and tribal health departments to make sure that we have a solid response that everyone is aware of, and so far for this case,… things have gone well.”

Cases of the highly contagious disease have hit a 33-year high nationally, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). There are reports of over 1,300 cases this year, with more than 150 people having been hospitalized for measles. Three people have died this year. 

Measles was declared eliminated in 2000, but decreasing vaccine rates, which have fallen below herd immunity, have led to a resurgence of the disease. Prior to 2025, the last similar outbreak was in 2019 when more than 1,200 cases were confirmed in the U.S. 

Westergaard said the state agency is not considering the nine cases in Wisconsin an outbreak because  the investigation found a common source during out-of-state travel. He said the agency won’t be releasing additional information about the cases due to state privacy laws. The agency has said it is working to identify and notify people who may have been exposed. 

The agency is urging families to get vaccinated in light of the cluster of cases and reported Monday that vaccination rates among students mostly held steady during the 2024-25 school year. Vaccination rates are still below pre-pandemic levels. 

“Vaccination is the first line of defense for your child’s health. Each vaccine is approved only after being proven safe and effective,” Stephanie Schauer, director of the Wisconsin Immunization Program, said in a statement. “Taking time now to ensure your children have received the recommended vaccines will make them less likely to get seriously ill, meaning less time out of school and away from work. And routine vaccines don’t just protect your child — they help keep classrooms and the whole community safe.”

During the 2024-25 school year, 86.4% of students met the minimum immunization requirements — a 2.8 percentage point decrease from the 2023-24 school year. 

“This tells us that most Wisconsin families are protecting their children with vaccines,” Westergaard said at the press conference. “Unfortunately, this level is below where we need to be to protect our state against outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases. As we head into the new school year as a physician and as the father of kids who attend public schools, I want to encourage all caregivers to reach out to a trusted health care provider with any questions or concerns that you have to concern to ensure that students are up to date on their vaccines this year.” 

The agency attributed the overall decrease in meeting the immunization requirement to people being unfamiliar with a new meningitis vaccination requirement for 7th and 12th grade students. Without data on the meningitis vaccination, 89.3% of Wisconsin students met the minimum requirements — a 0.1% increase from the 2023-24 school year.

DHS reported in December that families in the state have fallen behind other states when it comes to receiving childhood vaccines including polio, pertussis, diphtheria and tetanus (DTaP), and measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR). When it comes to measles in particular, Wisconsin has one of the lowest vaccination rates in the country.

Measles can spread from person to person through the air, and the vaccines to prevent it are highly effective. One dose of the MMR vaccine provides about 93% protection from measles, while two doses are about 97% effective.

“Our school vaccination data tells us there are children in our schools who are not protected from an outbreak of preventable diseases like measles,” State Health Officer Paula Tran said in a statement. “In public health, we know that 95% of people in a community need to be vaccinated against measles in order to prevent an outbreak, which is why it’s so important to get children the vaccines they need on time.”

Milwaukee city leaders, looking to take preventative steps due to the measles cases, also urged residents to get vaccinated on Monday.

“As a father and as mayor, I take this threat seriously,” Mayor Cavalier Johnson said in a statement. “We’ve seen how quickly diseases can spread when vaccination rates fall behind.”

Children’s Wisconsin President of Pediatrics Dr. Mike Gutzeit emphasized that serious side effects from the MMR vaccine are rare. 

“The risk from measles itself is far greater. When families choose not to vaccinate, they’re not just putting their own children at risk, but also newborns and people with weakened immune systems,” Gutzeit said. “Measles was nearly eliminated in the U.S., but now we’re seeing hundreds of cases and hospitalizations again. We can’t afford to go backward.”

Other vaccine-preventable illnesses surged in classrooms last year, according to DHS. Nearly 3,000 cases of pertussis, or whooping cough, were reported.

The measles cases and data on school vaccine rates come as some Republican lawmakers are seeking to increase awareness of vaccine exemptions. Sen. Rachael Cabral-Guevara (R-Appleton) and Rep. Lindee Brill (R-Sheboygan Falls) recently introduced a bill that seeks to highlight Wisconsin’s vaccine exemptions, saying there isn’t enough transparency around them. Current law already requires that schools and day care providers “inform the person in writing of the person’s right to a waiver.” 

During the 2024–2025 school year, 6.7% of students had a waiver for one or more vaccinations. Of those, 5.8% of students had a personal conviction waiver, 1% had a religious waiver and 0.4% had a health waiver. 

Westergaard said the rate of waivers in Wisconsin is higher than other states. 

“We’re one of only 13 states that has the personal conviction waiver. Many states do not allow that,” Westergaard said, adding that health forms typically include notice of the waiver availability. 

“We feel in public health that knowledge of the exemptions of the waivers is commonplace,” Westergaard said. “We don’t hide them, but our recommendation is that people get their kids vaccinated because we, as a public health entity, feel any risks far outweighed by the benefit, both to individual health and to our community health.”

Westergaard said those with concerns should speak with a trusted physician and be open with their questions. 

“For many families, childhood immunizations are a fact of life, and they’ve accepted them when they’re recommended, but we know other families have questions and concerns,” Westergaard said. “If there are questions you have, if there is information that you’ve seen online or heard that makes you question the safety or the effectiveness, let’s talk about them… There’s near unanimity among people who have seriously reviewed MMR safety data and other childhood vaccine data that they are on balance very safe and very effective and continually monitored for safety and adverse effects.”

Melissa Beson. (Photo courtesy LDF Police Department)

The Lac du Flambeau Tribal Police Department has received new information about a tribal member missing since March 17, Melissa Beson, 37.

The new information has redirected searches on the reservation in Vilas County and raised a new theory that she may have been picked up while walking along a county road.

Initially, Beson was last reported on Indian Village Road in Lac du Flambeau on the afternoon of March 17. Subsequently, thousands of acres of the forested reservation in the vicinity were searched.

New information received by the police reveals that after Beson had been seen on Indian Village Road, she received a ride from three local individuals in a van that ended up at a Kiboniki Lake boat landing on Highway D, where Beson got out of the vehicle and walked toward the south.

Police report that a male in the van said he was concerned for Beson’s safety because of the remoteness of the area, and he followed her and encouraged her to return to the van.

When a northbound vehicle stopped near Beson, the man said he ran into the woods because he had an outstanding warrant, and he believed the vehicle was law enforcement.

Police have identified the driver of the northbound vehicle, who reported that Beson appeared to be “highly agitated,” and refused a ride. She continued walking south as the driver continued northbound.

After this new information was reported, search efforts were conducted in an area near Highway D, south of the Kiboniki Lake boat landing, according to the tribal police department. Searches have been conducted on foot and using drones and dogs with no success in finding Beson.

Police Chief TJ Bill said his office is also considering the possibility that Beson may have been picked up by another driver on Highway D.

Previously, police investigated reports that Beson may have been staying with friends in the Wausau area, but those reports have never been confirmed.

Beson’s mother, Winifred Ann Beson, “Winnie,” has expressed concerns that human traffickers may have taken her daughter.

Beson is a Native American female, 5’7”, with a medium build, brown hair and brown eyes. She has numerous tattoos, including on her neck, arms and legs.

The Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians Tribal Governing Board has authorized a $25,000 reward for credible tips leading to the recovery of Beson, to charges against  those who might be responsible for her disappearance, or both. 

Anyone with any information regarding the disappearance of Beson is asked to call either the Lac du Flambeau Tribal Police Department at (715) 588-7717 or the Vilas County Sheriff’s Office at (715) 479-4441.

A voter leaves a polling place after casting a ballot in the state’s primary election on March 5, 2024, in Mountain Brook, Ala. Before the November 2024 election, the Alabama secretary of state initiated a purge of thousands of registered voters but was blocked by a federal judge. (Photo by Elijah Nouvelage/Getty Images)

Alabama resident Roald Hazelhoff treasures his newly won right to vote. When election officials flagged the naturalized U.S. citizen’s voter registration for possible removal last August, the Dutch native fought back.

Hazelhoff, then a 67-year-old college instructor, sued to stop Alabama Secretary of State Wes Allen, a Republican, from seeking to kick him and more than 3,200 other registered voters off the rolls. The lawsuit was part of a multifront legal challenge led by him and three other voters, along with voting rights groups and the Biden-era U.S. Department of Justice.

A federal judge halted Alabama’s effort within weeks — and Hazelhoff voted in his first presidential election last November without incident.

Ten months later, Hazelhoff is watching with deep concern as the Department of Justice, in President Donald Trump’s second term, is demanding that states turn over their voter registration lists and other election information, citing unspecified concerns with voter list maintenance.

“My initial reaction was of sadness that this could happen but that still a mistake could be made,” Hazelhoff, who lives in the Birmingham area, told Stateline. “Now, I’m more in a stance of saying this is the most fundamental right afforded to citizens of the United States, and I am a legal citizen of this country and I will fight for that right.”

The Trump administration’s effort to scoop up voter registration lists and other information from a growing number of states underscores how state-controlled voter lists are a major battleground in fights over access to the polls. The Justice Department told the National Association of Secretaries of State that it will eventually contact all states, an association spokesperson wrote in an email.

Minnesota, New Hampshire and Wisconsin have so far declined to provide full voter registration lists to the department amid questions over the legality of the requests and uncertainty over how the information will be used. Maine Democratic Secretary of State Shenna Bellows plans to deny a similar request, telling the Maine Morning Star that federal officials can “go jump in the Gulf of Maine.”

The Justice Department declined a Stateline request for comment.

Even before states began tangling with the department, how election officials oversee these lists — including when and why voters can be removed — was under increasing scrutiny. The stakes for voters are foundational: How states maintain the lists determines who is on them — and therefore who is able to vote. Power over voter registration lists is the power to shape the electorate.

“Voting should be easy, not akin to trying to get a U.S. passport when it’s been lost or stolen and you’re in Nicaragua, you know what I’m saying?” Hazelhoff said. “It should be something that we encourage and this is not encouraged. This is the exact opposite.”

Some states in recent years have signed up for competing systems to help identify duplicate or noncitizen voter registrations, after the largest operation came under fire from Trump. Election officials in some states have also entered into ad hoc agreements with some of their counterparts to share data.

Other states continue to tighten voter list maintenance requirements as well. New Hampshire legislators in June approved a bill requiring local officials to verify voter lists annually instead of once a decade; the governor signed the bill on Friday. Idaho lawmakers passed a bill, signed by the governor in April, that requires state agencies to share data with the state secretary of state to help check the accuracy of voter registrations.

Chief election officials in some states tout their annual or regular elimination of registrations.

Georgia Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger announced in mid-July that his office was sending cancellation mailers to 477,883 inactive registrants. Last week, Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, a Republican, directed local election officials to begin a new round of removals. The registrations will be eligible for cancellation in 2029 following a federally mandated notification process, he said in a news release.

The Trump administration is also pushing states to use a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services tool, typically used to determine the immigration status of people seeking government benefits, to identify noncitizen registered voters. The agency now allows state and local officials to conduct bulk searches using the tool, the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, or SAVE, program, instead of one at a time.

Voter fraud and noncitizen voting rarely occur. But Trump’s false claims of a stolen election in 2020, along with an uptick in anti-immigrant sentiment among conservatives before last year’s election, has driven attention to the voter registration lists.

Election officials and voting rights activists across the political spectrum agree accurate, up-to-date voter rolls ensure that elections remain secure. They split over how to balance cleaning the lists with protecting voters from accidental deletion — and where to draw the line between legitimate maintenance and politically driven purges.

“It has to be done fairly. It has to be done transparently. And it has to be done legally,” said Celina Stewart, CEO of the League of Women Voters, a nonpartisan group that often challenges voter restrictions in court, including the Alabama effort.

“I think that any time you are doing voter list maintenance in a way that disenfranchises more people or is careless, then there has to be a hard ‘no’ on things like that,” Stewart said in an interview.

After initial request, U.S. DOJ has not obtained Wisconsin voter data

New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan, a Republican, said he wants to find a middle ground where “everything is balanced.”

Scanlan declined to provide the Justice Department with his state’s voter rolls. He wrote in a July 25 letter that state law doesn’t authorize him to release the list to the department. Still, he noted that under the law the department could obtain voter lists by contacting local election officials.

In an interview, Scanlan also predicted the New Hampshire legislation requiring annual verification wouldn’t be an onerous change and would improve the accuracy of the rolls. He said he wants a system that makes voting easy, but one that’s also transparent and ensures everyone casting a ballot is a legitimate voter.

“I think that’s where we’re headed,” Scanlan said. “It’s not a straight line to get there.”

Undermining ERIC

Trump helped usher in the current era of division over cleaning voter rolls in March 2023 by attacking the Electronic Registration Information Center, or ERIC, and calling on states to pull out of the group. He posted on social media at the time that it “‘pumps the rolls’ for Democrats and does nothing to clean them up.”

Within months, eight Republican-led states had withdrawn.

The Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit allows member states to submit voter registration and motor vehicle department data. It also has access to Social Security death data and address change information from the U.S. Postal Service.

ERIC then identifies potential duplicate and out-of-date registrations, dead voters and possible illegal voting. Member states also reach out to individuals who are likely eligible to vote but haven’t registered, a requirement that angers some Republicans.

Some Democrats are now quick to point out what they see as the irony of Trump’s Justice Department voicing concerns with voter list maintenance practices after the president undermined ERIC — a system they say is effective in helping states clean their voter rolls.

“It is an extra layer of … hypocrisy and ridiculousness that they would turn around and be critical of the one organization” ensuring voter rolls are clean and up to date in its member states, said New York state Sen. James Skoufis, a Democrat who sponsored a bill passed by the state legislature to require New York to join ERIC. The measure hasn’t been delivered to the governor.

Twenty-five states — a mix of red and blue states, as well as presidential swing states such as Michigan, Minnesota and Pennsylvania — and the District of Columbia currently use ERIC. In an email, ERIC Executive Director Shane Hamlin wrote that the organization remains committed to attracting new members. Hamlin cited the New York legislation and noted that Hawaii recently joined.

Republican states haven’t coalesced around a single alternative to ERIC, but an Alabama-led system comes closest. The Alabama Voter Integrity Database, or AVID, includes Alabama and 10 other mostly Southern states; the latest state, Virginia, joined in late May.

The Alabama secretary of state’s office, which maintains the database, didn’t respond to multiple interview requests or written questions from Stateline.

“Voter file maintenance is the foundation of election integrity,” Allen, the Alabama secretary of state, said in a June news release. “Ensuring that Alabama’s voter file is the cleanest and most accurate voter file in the country has been a top priority of mine since day one.”

As states weigh the value of ERIC and AVID, some election officials aren’t racing to pick a side.

Idaho Secretary of State Phil McGrane, a Republican, said ERIC likely isn’t the right solution, though he said he had no reason to criticize it. To have an effective system, every state needs information from their neighboring states, as well as the states where their “snow birds” go, he said.

He identified those states as Florida in the East, Texas in the Midwest and California and Arizona in the West. Florida and Texas belong to AVID, while Arizona belongs to ERIC. California belongs to neither.

“We need a broader solution. … It’s tough in this environment, where everyone’s guards are up on the political spectrum,” McGrane said in an interview.

‘A total shock’

In Alabama, Hazelhoff said his experience demonstrates the nightmare that can unfold when voter roll cleaning crosses the line into an illegal purge.

“That was a total shock when that happened,” said Hazelhoff, who was born in the Netherlands, moved to the United States in 1977 and became a citizen in 2022.

In August 2024, he received a letter from the Board of Registrars in Jefferson County, where he lives, informing him his voter registration had been made inactive and that “you have been placed on a path for removal from the statewide voter list.”

The reason, the letter said, was that Allen had provided information showing Hazelhoff was issued a noncitizen identification number by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security while also being a registered voter.

After Hazelhoff and others sued, U.S. District Court Judge Anna M. Manasco, a Trump appointee, ruled that Allen had blown past a deadline in federal law that prohibits systematic purges of ineligible voters less than 90 days before a federal election.

Allen had announced his purge 84 days before the election, she wrote, and had later admitted his purge list included thousands of U.S. citizens. He had also referred everyone on the list to the Alabama attorney general’s office for criminal investigation, despite the inclusion of citizens.

When Hazelhoff went to his polling place last year, he said he still felt some trepidation, even after the court ruling. He questioned whether he would be escorted out for casting an illegal vote.

“It worried me,” Hazelhoff said. “But then the actual voting experience was great and the people were polite. The system seemed to be working.”

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.

Madison Mayor Satya Rhodes-Conway and other Wisconsinites took part in a city celebration for Transgender Day of Visibility in March. Wisconsin and 14 other states are suing in opposition to a Trump administration executive order blocking gender-affirming care for people under 19. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

A coalition including 15 state attorneys general have filed a multistate lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s effort to restrict access to medically-necessary care for transgender, intersex and nonbinary youth.

The lawsuit challenges recent federal action to deter doctors and medical providers from offering gender affirming care to youth under the age of 19 years old, including states like Michigan where that care is legal and protected.

Joining the suit are the attorneys general of Michigan, New York, California, Massachusetts, Illinois, and Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia, as well as Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro.

“The Trump administration shouldn’t be interfering with the provision of health care,” said Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul in a statement Friday. “The administration should be respecting individual liberty and equal rights, not shamefully targeting transgender people.”

The attorneys general have asserted that President Donald Trump’s White House is overstepping its authority, using threats of criminal prosecution and federal investigations to pressure health care providers.

“The Trump Administration is attempting to strip away lawful, essential healthcare from vulnerable youth. These orders are illegal and dangerous and have no medical or scientific basis,” said Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel in a statement. “I will continue to protect families, defend doctors, and stop politicians from putting our kids’ lives at risk.”

Trump in the beginning of his second administration signed an executive order stating that the U.S. would only recognize two sexes, and called for an end to what Trump labeled “gender ideology.” A second order focused on medical restrictions, directing the U.S. Department of Justice to pursue enforcement actions related to that care.

Since then, Nessel’s office said the Department of Justice has issued subpoenas to providers under the guise of criminal law enforcement, but the attorneys general filing the lawsuit Friday argue those efforts lack legal standing and are intended only to intimidate.

“Health care decisions for kids should be made by parents and doctors, not by politicians,” said Erin Knott, executive director of Equality Michigan, a LGBTQ+ advocacy group, in a statement. “The federal government is using funding as a weapon to force providers to abandon their patients and override parents’ rights to make health care decisions for their own children.”

Patricia Wells, a doctor and the medical director of The Corner Health Center in Ypsilanti, Michigan, said in a statement that she and her colleagues are distressed by new punitive changes to funding and regulations, which threaten to dismantle essential care.

“These policies do not protect children; they endanger them,” Wells said. “They undermine trust in the medical system and place affirming providers in an impossible position, forcing hospitals to close clinics and providers to stop offering the very care that helps young people survive and thrive. The loss of these services would not simply be a policy failure; it would be a moral one.”

Wells said the nation must do better.

“These young people deserve our compassion, our evidence-based care, and our unwavering commitment to their well-being,” she said. “I applaud the leadership of the state of Michigan for protecting transgender and gender nonconforming youth, their families, and the caregivers who are saving lives every day.”

Erik Gunn of Wisconsin Examiner contributed to this report.

Michigan Advance is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Michigan Advance maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jon King for questions: info@michiganadvance.com.

Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin stands outside Woodlawn Coffee and Pastry in Portland, Oregon, on July 31, 2025. (Photo by Jacob Fischler/States Newsroom)

PORTLAND, Oregon — Democrats must be more aggressive organizers and campaigners to win back the working-class coalition they have increasingly lost to President Donald Trump, according to Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin.

Too often in recent decades, the party has ceded ground to Republicans, Martin told States Newsroom in a one-on-one July 31 interview during a stop on a visit to community groups, activists and fundraisers in Oregon.

Since 2009, the national party’s infrastructure has deteriorated, allowing the GOP to build organizational advantages across the country, define Democratic candidates before they can define themselves and put too many states out of reach, he said.

In sometimes more pugnacious terms than might be expected from someone with Martin’s clean-cut corporate look and Midwestern demeanor, he said his task as party leader is to reverse that trend.

“We’re not here to tie one of our hands behind our back,” Martin said. “In the past, I think our party would bring a pencil to a knife fight. We’re going to bring a gun to a knife fight.”

The knife-fight analogy was an answer to a question about how Democrats should respond to Texas Republicans redrawing congressional district lines as the GOP struggles to keep its slim U.S. House majority, but it could apply to other aspects of Martin’s vision for the party.

Martin, whom Democrats elected in February to lead them for the next four years, said Democrats should never turn off their messaging and campaigning apparatus, and work to build party infrastructure in regions, states and cities where they have not competed in decades.

Over 45 minutes, he invoked the late U.S. Sen. Paul Wellstone, a liberal whose populist approach to campaigning and governing practically sanctified him among Democrats in Martin’s native Minnesota, several times and indicated Wellstone would be an effective model for Democrats in 2024 and beyond.

“I think what the American people are looking for is people who are going to stand up and fight for what they believe in,” he said. “People didn’t always agree with Paul Wellstone all the time, but they still voted for him. They said … ‘He’s not one of these finger-in-the-wind politicians. He’s standing up for what he believes, and I’m going to give him credit for it even if I don’t agree with him on a particular issue.’ They want authenticity.”

Texas redistricting

The day after Texas Republicans released a map of proposed new congressional districts in a rare mid-decade redistricting effort that could net them five more U.S. House seats, Martin implied he would support blue-state leaders who retaliated with their own maps to give Democrats an advantage — even as he disparaged the move by Republicans.

He called the redistricting effort “a craven power grab” by Trump and Republicans, accusing them of “trying to rig the system.”

“If they can’t win on their own merits, they’re going to cheat and steal,” he said. “That’s essentially what they’re doing right now.”

But, even as Martin condemned those moves, he said Democrats should feel empowered to respond in kind. “We can’t be the only party that’s playing by the rules,” he said.

Leading Democrats in California, New York and Illinois have openly explored the possibility of emergency redistricting if the proposed Texas map becomes final, even though the issue has raised the ire of some usual allies who support less partisan election infrastructure.

The national party would be “very involved” in challenging the Texas map, as well as working with governors seeking to change their own maps, Martin said.

Never stop campaigning

Martin brought up, unprompted, some of the challenges his party faces.

Twice as many voters had an unfavorable view of Democrats as a favorable one in a July Wall Street Journal survey that showed the party with only 33% of support.

Voters now see Republicans as the party of working-class voters and Democrats as representatives of the elite, Martin said. In the 2024 election, the party did worse with nearly every slice of the electorate other than college-educated voters and wealthy voters.

Martin noted Trump made historic inroads with some traditional Democratic constituencies, earning a higher share of Latino, Black, Asian and Pacific Islander, young and working-class voters in 2024 than any Republican candidate in years.

That result was part of an ongoing trend going back 20 years, Martin said, and represents an existential threat to the Democratic party.

“We lost ground with every part of our coalition,” he said. “If we continue to lose ground with working people in this country, with all of the other parts of our coalition, we’re toast. We’ve got to reverse course.”

Democrats’ slide with those constituencies is in part “a branding issue,” permitted by the party’s willingness to let Trump and other Republicans’ campaigning in off-years go unanswered and a lack of a positive message articulated to voters, said Martin.

“We didn’t start our campaign until the spring of 2024 — way too late,” he said. “I would argue that they had already defined us before we ever had a chance to define ourselves. That can never happen again. Never, ever, ever. So that means we have to be campaigning all the time, year-round. Year-round organizing, year-round communications. We never stop talking to voters. We never stop campaigning.”

‘We all do better’

That campaigning should be focused on a positive view of what Democrats offer voters and include an appeal to “the vast majority of Americans, not just the people at the top.”

“We have to fix our brand,” Martin said. “We have to give people a sense that we’re fighting for them. We have to stand up and fight with everything we have right now, not just against Donald Trump, but for something. We have to give people a positive vision of what their lives would look like with Democrats in charge.”

Democrats’ message should be about a rising tide lifting all boats, Martin said, quoting Wellstone, for whom Martin, 52, interned at the beginning of his career and still considers an inspiration.

“Remember Paul’s famous slogan: ‘We all do better when we all do better,’” he said. “That should be the slogan of the Democratic Party.”

He praised Zohran Mamdani, the winner of New York City’s Democratic mayoral primary, for running an energetic campaign that was focused on showing how he could improve New Yorkers’ lives.

That should include a policy focus on affordability, health care access and a government that works for people beyond the elite.

But even as Martin articulated the positive message he said Democrats should focus on, he slipped into slamming Trump and Republicans, saying the tax and spending cuts law Trump signed last month would take health care away from people. The law was among the least popular in decades, he noted.

There was room for both a positive campaigning and highlighting Republicans’ unpopularity when appropriate, said Martin.

“It’s a both/and,” he said. “Let’s tell folks what is happening and let’s tell folks what Democrats are going to do.”

Senate in reach?

The unpopularity of Republicans’ law, which is projected to cut more than $1 trillion over 10 years from Medicaid, food stamps and other programs while lowering taxes on high earners, gives Democrats an opening in a difficult cycle for U.S. Senate races, Martin said.

Democrats — who control 47 seats, including two independents, compared to 53 for Republicans, who also hold a tie-breaking vote in Vice President JD Vance — need to net four additional seats in next year’s elections to win the majority in the chamber, which Martin said was possible under the right circumstances.

That view is out of step with current projections, which show Democratic seats in Georgia and Michigan at least as likely to flip as Republican seats in North Carolina and Maine. Democrats would have to win all four of those most competitive races, plus two that would be further stretches, to gain a majority.

Beyond North Carolina and Maine, Martin said the map to Democrats’ regaining the Senate would go through traditionally red states.

Iowa, where incumbent Sen. Joni Ernst could be vulnerable, and Alaska, where former U.S. Rep. Mary Peltola would be a strong challenger to incumbent Republican Dan Sullivan, could be Democrats’ 50th and 51st Senate seats, he said.

Or, if right-wing primary challengers defeat more establishment incumbents in Louisiana and Texas, those states could turn into pickup opportunities, he said — though Trump won both states easily, by more than 20 points in the former.

Growing the party, growing the map

To win next year and beyond, Democrats must unify, he said.

Elements of the party that would impose purity tests on others — whether that’s progressives excluding moderates or vice versa — make that harder, he said.

“I believe you win elections by addition, not subtraction,” he said. “You win by bringing in people, new voices, and growing your coalition.”

Martin also wants to grow the map and compete across the country, using a strategy pioneered by former DNC Chair Howard Dean, who was chair from 2005 to 2009.

When President Barack Obama’s political team took control of the party apparatus in 2009, it “completely eviscerated” the state party infrastructure Dean had built, Martin said.

Earlier this year, he announced an initiative to provide at least $1 million a month to all state parties. The goal is to expand the number of competitive states and districts, reversing a trend that has seen fewer presidential contests focused on fewer states.

“There’s no such thing as a perpetual red state or a perpetual blue state,” he said. Turning states from Republican strongholds to competitive, or from competitive to favoring Democrats — or even to maintain Democratic strength — takes investment of money and energy, he said.

“It’s critical, and it’s something I firmly believe in,” he said. I’ve seen for so many years our national party and other party committees not making the investments to actually call themselves a national party,” he said. “You can’t be a national party if you’re just competing in seven states.”

Diana Higgenbottom is pictured during the filming of “Love Differently,” a short documentary film depicting her journey of adoption and finding her identity. (Photo by Emma Siewert/Courtesy of Racine County Eye)

This report is republished by agreement with the Racine County Eye, where it originally appeared.

If a bill making its way through the sponsorship process becomes law, adult Wisconsin adoptees for the first time will have access to their original birth certificates.

Advocates say the measure is a long-overdue correction to a system that keeps vital identity and medical information hidden from the very people it concerns.

“We’re not asking for anything extraordinary,” said Diana Higgenbottom Anagnostopoulos. “We’re just asking for the right to know who we are.”

Renewed push, familiar champions

The proposed legislation — currently known as LRB-3879/1 — was introduced by State Rep. Paul Tittl (R-Manitowoc) and State Sen. André Jacque (R-New Franken). According to Steve Hall, spokesperson for Tittl, this is not the first time Tittl has championed this cause.

“This was the first bill that he introduced back in 2014,” Hall said in an interview. “And he’s introduced it every session since.”

Hall noted that Tittl is not adopted himself but believes strongly in adoptees’ rights. “He just thinks that people ought to have that right,” he said.

The bill would give adult adoptees access to their original, unredacted birth certificates—something currently restricted under Wisconsin law. While most modern adoptions are open, Hall said that a small but significant number—about five percent—remain closed, which can leave adoptees in the dark about crucial health and identity information.

“We spoke with someone who was close to 50 years old,” he added. “She had been worried about health conditions she thought ran in the family, only to learn after her adoptive parents passed away that she’d been adopted. When she finally got her real family history, it turned out she was concerned about the wrong things all along.”

Groundwork from the grassroots

Behind the renewed momentum is former Racine resident and adoptee Diana Higgenbottom Anagnostopoulos, who has worked with legislators and advocates across the country.

She traveled to Madison in late July to speak with lawmakers and staff, sharing clips from “Love Differently,” a documentary she produced that highlights the emotional and legal struggles adult adoptees face.

“When we were in Madison, we knocked on as many doors as we could,” she said. “It’s about educating lawmakers. Most people don’t even realize this is still an issue.”

According to Anagnostopoulos, several lawmakers have shown early support. Rep. Angelito Tenorio (D-West Allis) and Sen. Rob Hutton (R-Brookfield) — who now represent Anagnostopoulos’s district after redistricting — were among the first to notify her when the bill began circulating. She now lives in Wauwatosa.

“Tenorio emailed me first thing the morning it started to circulate,” Anagnostopoulos said. “He made a promise to help restore our civil rights.”

She also credited the office of state Rep. Robert Wittke (R-Caledonia) with keeping her updated.

“They’ve been stellar. They actually sent me the draft of the new bill introduction,” Anagnostopoulos explained.

Civil rights and medical realities

Anagnostopoulos sees the legislation as a civil rights issue, not a challenge to birth parents’ privacy.

“We’re not asking for our full adoption file,” she explained. “We just want our original birth certificate. There’s nothing in it that should be controversial—it’s just a record of who we are.”

She also pointed out that adoptees face practical barriers because of redacted records.

“With REAL ID requirements, some of us can’t even prove who we truly are with the documents we have,” she said.

While some critics argue that birth parents may have chosen closed adoptions for privacy reasons, Anagnostopoulos and others believe that does not outweigh an adoptee’s right to know.

“I didn’t sign up for this. I was a baby — I didn’t consent to having my identity sealed,” she said. “We’re not trying to show up for Thanksgiving. We just want to know who we are.”

A long legislative road

Despite the growing support, Hall said it’s too soon to predict whether the bill will pass this session.

“There’s a lot of momentum, yes—but as we’ve seen with other bills, anything can happen,” he said, pointing to Tittl’s previous efforts that stalled despite early enthusiasm.

The co-sponsorship period for the bill closes July 31. After that, the Speaker of the Assembly Robin Vos has 10 working days to assign a bill number and refer it to a committee.

“We’ll know more in the next couple weeks,” Hall said. “But there’s no question: the groundswell of support is bigger than it’s ever been.”

A story told on screen

The issue gained visibility with the release of “Love Differently,” which features Anagnostopoulos’s own story and others across the country. The film was screened earlier this year in Sturtevant and won an award at the 2024 Door County Film Festival.

According to a story from CBS 58, the documentary showcases both the emotional and legal dimensions of adoptee experiences.

One scene features a New York state senator changing his position during live testimony. Anagnostopoulos shared that clip with lawmakers in Madison to show what can happen when people truly listen.

“This feels different,” she said of the current bill. “It feels like we’re closer than we’ve ever been.”

Broader momentum across the U.S.

According to a report from Adoptees United, Wisconsin’s efforts mirror a broader national movement. States like Oregon, New York, and Illinois have passed laws restoring unrestricted access to original birth certificates.

Wisconsin has introduced several similar bills in past sessions, including SB 483/AB 502 in 2021, but none have passed.

“Change is coming,” Anagnostopoulos said. “Whether it’s this year or not — I believe we’ll get there.”

Reports republished from Racine County Eye are not available for republishing elsewhere.

U.S. President Donald Trump displays a signed executive order during the "Winning the AI Race" summit hosted by All‑In Podcast and Hill & Valley Forum at the Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium on July 23, 2025 in Washington, DC. Trump signed executive orders related to his Artificial Intelligence Action Plan during the event. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

An executive order signed by President Donald Trump last week seeks to remove “ideological agendas” from artificial intelligence models sold to the federal government, but it’s not exactly clear how the policy would be enforced, nor how tech companies would test their models for these standards, technologists and policy experts say.

The executive order says that AI companies must be “truth-seeking” and “ideologically neutral,” to work with the government, and mentions removing ideologies involving diversity, equity and inclusion from AI models.

“Really what they’re talking about is putting limitations on AI models that produce, in their mind, ideology that they find objectionable,” said Matthew  F. Ferraro, a partner at Crowell & Moring’s privacy and cybersecurity group.

Ferraro said that refinement of AI models and testing them for bias is a goal that gets support on both sides of the aisle. Ferraro spent two years working with the Biden administration on the development of its AI policy, and said that Trump’s AI Action Plan, rolled out last week, shares many pillars in common with the Biden administration’s AI executive order.

Both named the potentials for biohazard threats enabled by AI and the impact on the labor force in their AI action plans, and the importance of growing AI for American innovation, Ferraro said. Biden’s plan prioritized protections against harms, while Trump prioritized innovation above all else.

“It just so happened the Biden administration put those concerns first, not last, right?” Ferraro said. “But I was struck when reading the Trump AI action plan how similar the provisions that made recommendations the Department of Labor were to initiatives under the Biden administration.”

In the executive order, Trump assigns the Office of Management and Budget to issue guidance for compliance in the next 120 days. But Ferraro said as it stands, the order doesn’t provide enough clarity around the technical compliance companies would need to meet, nor how to reach a standard of “truth.”

“It’s not at all clear to me, one, what exactly this executive order seeks to prevent, beyond sort of a gestalt of political speech that the administration found objectionable,” Ferraro said. “Second, it’s not all clear to me, technically, how this is possible. And third, it’s not at all clear to me that even by its own terms, it’s going to be enforceable in any comprehensive way.”

Technical challenges

AI companies looking to contract with the government under the policies in this executive order would likely need to prepare for ongoing testing of their models, said David Acosta, cofounder and chief artificial intelligence officer of ARBOai.

When an AI model is in its early days of training, developers are mostly looking for its technical functionality. But ongoing reviews, or audits, of the model’s growth and accuracy can be done in a process called “red teaming,” where a third party introduces testing scenarios that help with compliance, bias testing and accuracy.

Auditing is a part of what Acosta’s company specializes in, and he said his team has been flooded with requests since last year. The team anticipated there could be a struggle around objectivity in AI.

“This is something that essentially we predicted late last year, as far as where this narrative would come from,” Acosta said. “Who would try to steer it, load it and push it forward, because essentially it’s going to create a culture war.”

Many AI models have a “black box” algorithm, meaning that the decision-making process of the model is unclear and difficult to understand, even for the developers. Because of this, constant training and testing for accuracy is needed to assess if the model is working as intended.

Acosta said that AI models should seek to meet certain accuracy requirements. A model should have a hallucination score — how often a model produces fabricated, inaccurate, or misleading information — below 5%. A model should also have “uncertainty tax,” the ability to tell a user that there’s a level of uncertainty in its output. 

This testing is expensive for AI firms, though, Acosta said. If the federal Office of Management and Budget requires some sort of testing to meet its requirements, it may limit smaller firms from being able to contract with the government.

Third-party red teaming uses thousands of prompts to prod models for hallucinations and politically loaded responses, Acosta said. A well-balanced model will refuse to answer questions using certain ideology or rhetoric, or produce primary sources to validate factual information.

“Explainable AI and reasoning have always, always, always, always been important in order to make sure that we can substantiate what the feedback is,” Acosta said. “But at the end of the day, it always comes down to who it is that’s training these machines, and if they can remain neutral.”

What is “truth-seeking?”

The dataset that an AI model is trained on can determine what “truth” is. Most datasets are based on human-created data, which in itself can contain errors and bias. It’s a system many laws around discrimination in AI are aiming to address. 

“One would hope that there’s a surface level of, not unified — because you’re never going to get a 100% — but a majority agreement on what absolute truth is and what it isn’t,” Acosta said.

He used an example of textbooks from decades ago; much of the information widely known as truth and taught in schools in the 1980s is now outdated. If an AI model is trained on those textbooks, its answers would not stand up to an AI model trained on a much larger, more diverse dataset.

But the removal of “ideological” information like race and sex from AI model training, as outlined in Trump’s executive order, poses a risk for inaccurate results. 

“It’s such a slippery slope, because who decides? Data sanitization – when you’re filtering the training of data to remove ‘overtly ideological sources’ — I mean the risk there is, that in itself, is a subjective process, especially when you’re coming to race, gender and religion,” Acosta said.

The concept of ideological truth is not something the AI algorithm considers, Ferraro said. AI does not produce truth, it produces probabilities.

“They simply produce the most common next token,” based on their training, Ferraro said. “The AI does not know itself what is true or false, or what is, for that matter, ideological or not. And so preventing outputs that expressed [Trump’s] favorite ideological opinions can simply basically exceed the ability of the model builders to build.”

Compliance

Enforcement of this executive order will require clarity from the OMB, said Peter Salib, an assistant professor of law at the University of Houston Law Center.

“It seems like there is one thing happening at the level of rhetoric and then another thing happening at the level of law,” Salib said.

The OMB would need to define the political ideology outlined in the executive order, and what is included or excluded, he said. For example, is a dataset tracking racial wealth inequality over 150 years considered some kind of DEI?

The order also puts companies that wish to comply with the executive order in a position to decide if they want to develop two versions of their AI models — one for the private sector, and one that fits Trump’s standards, Ferraro said.

There are exceptions carved out for some AI systems, including those contracted by national security agencies, the executive order said. Salib also highlighted a section that walks back some of the intent of the order, saying that it will consider vendors compliant as long as they disclose the prompts, specifications, evaluations and other training information for their model to the government. 

“It’s saying you don’t actually have to make your AI ideologically neutral,” Salib said. “You just have to share with the government the system prompts and the specifications you used when training the AI. So the AI can be as woke or as right wing, or as truth seeking or as falsity seeking as you like, and it counts as compliance with the neutrality provision if you just disclose.”

In this case, the executive order could turn out to be a de facto transparency regulation for AI, more so than one that imposes requirements on AI’s ideology, he said.

The rollout of Trump’s AI Action Plan and the executive orders that accompanied it, including one that fast tracks data center permitting and expands AI exports, are the first real look into how the administration intends to handle the quickly growing AI industry.

If the OMB rolls out technological and accuracy-focused requirements for the order, it could be a win for those looking for more transparency in AI, Acosta said. But the office needs to be clear in its requirements and seek true neutrality.

“I think the intent is well with this, but there needs to be much, much, much more refinement moving forward,” Acosta said. 

From left, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, Rhode Island Gov. Dan McKee, Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly, Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers and Kentucky Gov. Tony Evers said Democratic governors need to respond "in kind" to GOP mid-decade redistricting that's intended to protect the Republican House majority. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner.)

MADISON — Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers, Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly and other Democratic governors said responding “in kind” to Republican mid-decade redistricting is necessary at a Friday Democratic Governors Association press conference.

Kelly said she thinks courts would rule that redrawn maps from Republicans and Democrats are unconstitutional. If Republicans take this path, however, Democratic governors must also pursue mid-decade redistricting to “protect the American people,” she said.

“It’s incumbent upon Democratic governors, if they have the opportunity, to respond in-kind,” Kelly said. “Things are bad enough in Washington right now. What it would look like if there’s even a greater majority that this President controls — God help the United States of America.”

Kelly and other Democratic governors were in Madison for the DGA’s summer policy conference. 

Discussion over redistricting ahead of midterm elections started in Texas, where President Donald Trump’s political team pressured state leaders to redraw its map to gain more seats in the U.S. House and help Republicans maintain their congressional majority in 2026. Trump said a “very simple redrawing” of the state’s maps could help pick up five seats. 

Redistricting, the process of redrawing state legislative and congressional district boundaries, typically happens every ten years after the U.S. Census. 

Other Republican-led states, including Florida and Ohio, also said they would look at redrawing their maps mid-decade.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who was not at the press conference, was the first Democrat to float the idea of gerrymandering the Democratic state to have fewer Republican seats in response. Democrats in New York and Maryland have also been looking for a path to gain additional seats in their states as well. 

None of the governors at the press conference said they would pursue that route but said they supported those that had a path to use it. Kelly joked that she “could” do mid-decade redistricting. “But what would I do? I’d just give them another Republican.” 

Evers said the blatant direction from Trump to pursue redistricting is a “constant threat to our democracy.” 

“I’m really pissed frankly, and we’re going to do whatever we can do to stop this,” Evers said, adding that Wisconsin would not be changing its maps. He said the state has already worked hard to “get fair maps.”

The Republican-led Legislature and Evers adopted new maps for the state Legislature in 2024 following a state Supreme Court ruling. Some have been calling for new Congressional maps, though those efforts have so far been rejected by the state Supreme Court. 

Wisconsin’s current congressional maps were drawn in 2022 by Evers and selected by the state Supreme Court with a conservative majority at the time. Democrats and their allies filed a new challenge to the maps in Dane County Circuit Court in July, arguing they are unconstitutional because they’re anti-competitive. Republicans currently represent six of Wisconsin’s eight congressional districts. 

“Because of those fair [state legislative] maps that we had, we were able to pass a relatively bipartisan budget, and it was a good budget, and so, in my heart of hearts, this is where we have to be, but… when you have a gun up against your head, you gotta do something,” Evers said.

“This move is unconstitutional. It’s again breaking the system. It’s, again, meant to game the system,” Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz said. “Democrats are expected to have the decorum — we’re expected to protect the institutions, we’re expected to follow the rules on this.”

The times call for a different approach, however, he argued. 

“We’re not playing with a normal administration,” Walz said. “We’re playing with one that has thrown all the rules out of there… I think it is incumbent upon states that have the capacity or the ability to make sure that we are responding in kind.”

Governors criticize GOP over effects of the Republican megabill 

The Democratic governors also warned about the potential effects of Republicans’ federal reconciliation package. Kelly, who chairs the Democratic Governors Association, said government systems and programs being cut are not set up for states to operate on their own. 

“They were set up with the federal government as a very robust partner, and without them being a partner, there is no way that any of our states will be able to pick up the tail,” Kelly said. “The best we could do is perhaps mitigate the pain, but even that will be difficult.” 

The legislation, ” signed by President Donald Trump on July 4, made major changes to the federal Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

Trump and Republicans in Congress are “trying to gut programs that Wisconsin families count on,” Evers said. “They’re willing to break our constitutional system to make that happen.” 

The megabill is just one tool, he suggested. “Whether it’s the Republican budget or the continued illegal action to fire Wisconsin workers, strip funds away from our state, damage public education, we have to fight.” 

A memo released this week by the nonpartisan Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau found that the exact effects of the federal reconciliation law on Medicaid and FoodShare in Wisconsin are uncertain, but will likely result in fewer enrollees.

Currently, about one in five Wisconsin residents rely on Medicaid for health care coverage. 

“The full impact of the Act’s Medicaid provisions on the state’s MA enrollment and costs remains uncertain,” the fiscal bureau memo states. “This is partly because some of the details of implementation requirements will depend upon forthcoming federal guidance, but also because the eligibility and enrollment requirements are new for the program and so little is known about their actual effects.” 

Starting in January 2027, childless adults will be required to complete 80 hours per month of paid work, school, employment training or community service per month to maintain their Medicaid eligibility. There are about 184,000 childless adults currently enrolled in Wisconsin. DHS estimates that 63,000 Wisconsinites will be at high risk of losing their coverage.

The LFB memo said that enrollment will likely drop due to the work requirement provisions. 

“Enrollment reductions could occur either because of the additional complexity of the application process or because the work requirements cause some individuals to increase their earnings to above the eligibility threshold. The magnitude of the program disenrollment, and associated reduction in [Medicaid] benefits costs, is uncertain,” the memo states. 

The governors warned that hospitals still face a difficult environment under the federal law. 

“Our rural hospitals in particular are extremely at risk,” Kelly of Kansas said. “We’ve already closed 10 of them in those 10 years and many more are on the brink, and this reconciliation bill is going to throw them over the edge.” 

Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear said 35 hospitals are at risk in his state, making it the state with the most hospitals at risk in the nation. 

“Donald Trump’s big ugly bill is the single worst, most devastating piece of legislation that I have seen in my lifetime. It is a direct attack on rural America,” Beshear said. 

Three hospitals in Wisconsin have been identified as at risk of closure. 

Costs for the SNAP program will increase in Wisconsin as the law reduces the federal share of the program — known as FoodShare in Wisconsin — from 50% to 25%. This will leave states responsible for 75% of the costs, a change that the Wisconsin Department of Health Services estimates will require an additional $51 million annually from the state. 

The FoodShare program currently helps nearly 700,000 Wisconsinites access food, and nearly 90,000 Wisconsinites will be at risk of losing their benefits due to the new federal provisions, according to the Wisconsin Department of Health Services. 

Rhode Island Gov. Dan McKee echoed concerns over the ability of the state  to pick up the gaps left by federal cuts in social programs.

“We’re not going to be able to absorb in funding what’s coming our way,” McKee said. “The taxpayers are going to pay for it in our states or the benefits are going to get reduced.” 

The law extends work requirements for SNAP recipients from the current top age of 54 to age 64. It narrows the work requirement exemption for caregivers and parents by changing the definition of “dependent child” from under 18 years of age to under 14, meaning that parents of 15- to 17-year-olds could now be required to have employment in return for their SNAP benefits. 

It provides an exception from work requirements for a married person responsible for a child under age 14 and residing with someone who complies with the work requirements. It also exempts individuals who are eligible for the Indian Health Services. 

“While Wisconsin just passed a Wisconsin budget that invests in our kids, cuts taxes for working families and supports our rural hospitals, Trump and Congressional Republicans are moving in just the opposite way,” Evers said. “Democratic governors aren’t going to just sit idly and watch it happen. When Trump tried to strip hospital funding, we moved real quickly to protect $1.5 billion dollars in health care funding for Wisconsin. When they threaten our schools, we stand up and fight back. When they attack programs that matter to working families, we find ways to fill the gaps.”

“Republican governors fall in line behind Trump’s agenda. Democratic governors are standing up for the people that we serve,” Evers said before mentioning 2026 elections. He said Wisconsinites will “make a choice about the future of our state when they elect our next governor. They’re going to choose a leader who will work together and expand health care, support working families and build an economy that works for everybody.”

Evers announced on July 24 that he would not be running for a third term in office, setting up the first open race for governor in Wisconsin since 2010.

“I know that [Evers’] leadership is not going to end just because the title might, and that he is going to be out there fighting for what he believes in moving into the future,” said Kentucky Gov Andy Beshear, who won’t be able to run for another term in 2027 due to term limits.

So far, Wisconsin Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez has announced her campaign, Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley is planning on entering the race and other Democrats are still mulling a decision. There will likely be a crowded Democratic primary. Two Republicans have officially launched their campaigns for governor, while U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany has been teasing a run.

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

WASHINGTON — The Corporation for Public Broadcasting announced Friday that it will be shutting down.

The announcement came just one day after a major Senate appropriations bill omitted funding for the nonprofit that funds public media and a week after President Donald Trump signed a bill into law that yanked $1.1 billion in previously approved spending for CPB. 

CPB, which Congress authorized in 1967, provides funds for National Public Radio, the Public Broadcasting Service and hundreds of local stations across the United States. President Donald Trump and fellow Republicans have criticized NPR and PBS of left-leaning bias, an accusation the public media organizations have rejected.

“Despite the extraordinary efforts of millions of Americans who called, wrote, and petitioned Congress to preserve federal funding for CPB, we now face the difficult reality of closing our operations,” Patricia Harrison, president and CEO of CPB, said in a statement Friday.

“CPB remains committed to fulfilling its fiduciary responsibilities and supporting our partners through this transition with transparency and care,” Harrison said.

She added that “public media has been one of the most trusted institutions in American life, providing educational opportunity, emergency alerts, civil discourse, and cultural connection to every corner of the country.”

CPB said employees were notified Friday that the majority of staff positions “will conclude with the close of the fiscal year on September 30, 2025,” and a small transition team will stay through January 2026.

The Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday approved the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education spending bill for fiscal year 2026, which did not include any CPB funding.

Sen. Patty Murray of Washington state, the top Democrat on the panel, expressed her disappointment over the lack of a CPB allocation in the bill during a committee markup. 

“It is a shameful reality and now communities across the country will suffer the consequences as over 1,500 stations lose critical funding,” Murray said.

In a win for the Trump administration, Congress passed a rescissions package in July that clawed back $9 billion in previously approved spending for public broadcasting and foreign aid, including $1.1 billion for CPB.

Trump signed the measure into law just days later. 

A container ship arrives at the Port of Oakland on Aug. 1, 2025 in Oakland, California. President Donald Trump announced that his Aug. 1 deadline for trade deals will not be extended and sweeping tariffs will be imposed on certain countries beginning that day. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump pushed ahead with his promise to raise tariffs on foreign goods by Aug. 1, signing an order late Thursday increasing import taxes on products from nearly every U.S. trading partner.

Trump’s directive, and new data on weaker job growth, sent markets tumbling Friday.

The president imposed a 15% base tariff on products imported from nearly three dozen nations across five continents, plus the 27 trading nations that comprise the European Union. Trump slapped higher rates on select other countries, ranging from 18% on goods from Nicaragua to 30% on South Africa and 50% on Brazil.

The White House hailed the “reciprocal” tariffs as “a necessary and powerful tool to put America First after many years of unsustainable trade deficits that threaten our economy and national security,” according to a press release accompanying the executive order.

Trump describes the tariffs as “reciprocal” because they are his response to countries that have trade deficits with the U.S. — meaning that country sells more products to the U.S. than it buys.

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer called the new rates “historic.”

“Over the past few months, the President’s tariff program and the ensuing ‘Trump Round’ of trade negotiations have accomplished what the World Trade Organization and multilateral negotiations have not been able to achieve at scale: expansive new market access for U.S. exporters, increased tariffs to defend critical American industries, and trillions of new manufacturing investments and purchases of goods that will create great American jobs and help reassert American leadership in key strategic sectors,” Greer said in a statement Wednesday.

The tariff announcement, combined with a weaker-than-expected jobs report Friday from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, caused sell-offs Friday from the three major U.S. stock indexes, according to financial media reports.

Trump fumed Friday afternoon about report adjustments that significantly decreased jobs numbers for May and June, even calling for the commissioner for labor statistics to be fired.

Tariffs and lawsuits

Trump made history earlier this year when he became the first president to trigger tariffs under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

The move sparked legal challenges from small businesses and Democratic-led states, and the plaintiffs faced the Trump administration Thursday in federal appeals court.

Tariffs are taxes on imported products that U.S. companies and other buyers pay to the U.S. government.

Trump announced staggering tariffs under an emergency declaration on April 2, what he referred to as “Liberation Day,” but delayed the new import taxes after global markets plummeted in response to the shock announcement.

Trump also separately announced Thursday a 35% levy on imported products from Canada that fall outside the bounds of an already established trade agreement between the U.S., Canada and Mexico.

Trump continued a 25% tariff on certain Mexican goods, but paused any rate increases to allow for 90 days of negotiations, according to media reports. The U.S. is continuing negotiations with China, whose products face a base import tax rate of 30%.

Marc Noland, executive vice president and director of studies for the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said Trump’s latest tariff rates are “unfortunate.”

“It will contribute to higher prices and slower growth here in the United States,” Noland said, adding there’s “a question about how sustainable they are legally here in the U.S.”

“And it’s particularly unfortunate, because I’m looking at the entire list of countries and see that the countries with the highest rates are the countries that are in the worst shape — Laos gets 40%, Syria got 41%,  Myanmar gets 40%. It’s the poorest, most desperate countries that are getting hit with the highest tariffs. So it’s bad for us and it’s bad for the world,” Noland told States Newsroom in an interview Friday.

The 15% rate on imports from dozens of countries mirrors the deals Trump announced in recent weeks with Japan, South Korea and European Union — though many details remain unknown.

“There are real questions about what exactly did anybody agree to,” Noland said. “And you know this, these don’t have the force of law that a treaty negotiated and passed by our Congress and somebody else’s national legislature have like, say, the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement, which, as we see, was unilaterally abrogated.”

‘Predictable’ trade agenda urged

Trade and industry advocates have also reacted to the new tariffs.

Gary Shapiro, CEO and vice chair of the Consumer Technology Association, issued a statement Thursday saying Trump’s new rates “highlight the uncertainty American innovators face in today’s trade environment.”

“CTA continues to urge the Administration and Congress to pursue a predictable, forward-looking trade agenda rooted in fairness and collaboration with trusted partners,” said Shapiro, whose organization hosts the annual CES trade show in Las Vegas, Nevada. “American innovation thrives when markets are open, trade rules are clear, and businesses are free to focus on creating jobs and bringing groundbreaking technologies to market.”

The National Foreign Trade Council warned that “Whatever progress that’s ultimately achieved as part of these new trade deals will come at the steep price of significant U.S. tariff increases and the erosion of trust with America’s key partners.”

The statement Thursday from the industry group’s president, Jake Colvin, continued: “Institutionalizing the highest U.S. duties since the Great Depression, coupled with ongoing uncertainty, will ultimately make American businesses less competitive globally and consumers worse off while harming relationships with close geopolitical allies and trading partners.” 

First District U.S. Rep. Bryan Steil (R-Janesville) holds an in-person listening session at Elkhorn High School in Elkhorn, Wisconsin, Thursday evening July 31, 2025. (Copyright Mark Hertzberg/for Racine County Eye)

ELKHORN — At a raucous listening session in a high school auditorium Thursday evening, U.S. Rep. Bryan Steil (R-Janesville) defended the immigration and tariff policies of  President Donald Trump and the Republican budget reconciliation law that Trump signed on July 4.

From the roars of the crowd, critics of the congressman appeared to account for the majority of the group that filled nearly two-thirds of the 600-seat Elkhorn High School auditorium. But there were also recurring cheers, shouts and applause at key moments from a smaller coterie of supporters in the room.

Steil represents the 1st District in Congress, which covers Southeastern Wisconsin from Janesville and Beloit east to Racine and Kenosha on the shores of Lake Michigan.

Over the last several months, Republican members of Congress have been counseled not to hold in-person events with constituents after publicity about angry crowds turning up at some GOP town halls.

Steil’s constituents have been protesting weekly outside his office in Racine for months, calling on him to hold an in-person meeting rather than telephone ones. 

Taking the stage shortly after 5 p.m. and lasting for about 80 minutes there, Steil stuck with a cheerful, breezy tone. He treated the loud, impassioned and often angry audience cries as mostly a difference of opinion.

When an audience member asked Steil how he might take a stand against other congressional Republicans “who lie to the American public and malign the dignity of 70 million people on Medicaid by suggesting that they are lazy,” Steil lamented the tone of political discourse and vowed not to denigrate anyone. Then he turned the subject back to the boisterous auditorium.

“I’d say the overall majority of people here want to learn and understand my perspective, want to hear the question,” he said. “And then there’s a small group of people that are challenging.”

It was left to the moderator of the session, Janesville radio host Tim Bremel, to lecture the crowd to refrain from shouting over Steil’s answers during a Q&A period.

During one interruption, the radio host scolded, “Ladies and gentlemen, we will never get questions if we can’t keep the auditorium quiet. And please do the person who asked the question the respect of allowing his question to be answered.”

Pledge of Allegiance

Steil kicked off the session with the Pledge of Allegiance, inviting the audience to join him. They did so, some shouting the final words “and justice for all” with vehemence.

He followed with a short talk offering “just kind of an overview of where we’re at in this country to get ourselves back on track” — words that prompted more angry taunts.

Steil said that the nation’s spending is about “$1.8 trillion more than on the revenue side,” a comment that prompted scattered shouts scoffing at “tax breaks.”

He defended the expansion in the budget reconciliation law of work requirements for SNAP food aid, saying the change followed a model that Wisconsin had already instituted for the program in the 1990s.

When he switched to immigration and a graph that Steil said showed “the dramatic drop, the decrease that we have seen in border apprehensions,” a cry of “We are all immigrants!” came up from several rows of seats.

Nine minutes in, Steil made a pitch for his office’s constituent services, then appealed for restraint from the crowd.

“The more civil we are with each other — there’s people that have different views in here, we heard applause and boos on the border security issue, we’ve heard it a couple of times,” he said. “We have people on all sides, it’s great, that’s what makes us so great.”

Tariffs, ICE and deportation

The questions that followed came from members of the audience who filled out forms at tables in the school lobby.

Bremel told the crowd that the questioners would be chosen at random. Some greeted that claim with loud skeptical scoffs. Over the course of the hour, however, the vast majority of people who were chosen asked questions sharply critical of Steil, Trump, the Republican congressional majority, or all three.

Criticizing Trump’s tariffs, Tom Burke asked Steil “what dire economic circumstances” justified the president’s executive orders to impose them.

“What we need to do is make sure that we’re having other countries treat the United States fairly,” Steil replied, adding that the U.S. should “work collectively with our allies to address the real culprit, which is China.”

Burke wasn’t satisfied with the answer. U.S. allies, “seem to be alienated beyond belief,” he told Steil, adding that until he got a satisfactory answer to his question about their rationale, “I’m going to be totally opposed to these tariffs — period.”

Specifying that her question was about “not politics, but morality,” Jean Henderson of Elkhorn told Steil, “What I see happening to our immigrant population embarrasses me, terrifies me.”

Henderson criticized the deployment of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) personnel, their faces hidden by masks, against immigrants “who are doing the right thing by going to the immigration office,” only to be taken into custody. “It is a trap,” she said. “Why is this happening and why aren’t you stopping it?”

Steil began in reply, “What I view is the moral hazard created by the Biden administration…,” prompting a roar of disapproval from the crowd, then a shout of “Joe Biden sucks!” from someone perhaps more sympathetic to the congressman.

The rest of Steil’s response was largely drowned out.

When it was her turn at the microphone, Kelly Neuens connected the experiences of her grandparents and great aunt and great uncle, who were held in U.S. internment camps during World War II as U.S. citizens of Japanese descent, to the conditions in the El Salvador prison where the Trump administration has sent some immigrants taken into custody.

“President Trump said, ‘Homegrowns are next’ when he was speaking to the El Salvador president,” Neuens told Steil. “My worry is that we are repeating history here.”

A plea for the climate

In his answer, which was repeatedly interrupted, Steil described the World War II internment as “one of the more darker chapters of American history,” then added, “As we look at the engagement that law enforcement is doing now against immigrants who are in the country illegally, I don’t see the  exact parallel.”

Another questioner asked Steil to explain “why you support Linda McMahon and defunding the Department of Education?”

Congress, Steil said, is still “analyzing what the spending will be for the upcoming fiscal year.” He added that the department “has burdened a lot of our local school districts with unnecessary red tape” in the course of distributing funds to the states. “I think what we will see as we negotiate this going forward is a way to make sure that those funds are there” for local schools, he said.

When it was her turn to ask a question, Sharna Ahern of Fontana thanked Steil and his staff “for answering all the contacts I’ve made with you over the years.”

She enumerated a wide range of concerns she has had — about the Department of Education, about the treatment of immigrants, “about the rule of law and civil rights” — and then turned her focus on the environment.

“Extreme weather conditions are happening more frequently as we experience them,” she told Steil. “The EPA is deregulating the standards that are in place to fight climate change, to protect the citizens. Where do you stand on this issue? And how can you be an advocate for us to initiate legislation to restore our safeguards?”

Steil praised Wisconsin as “one of the most beautiful states in the country” and asserted that “making sure that we’re protecting our air and water and soil is absolutely essential.” He said that on the issue of climate change, “what we need to be doing is focused on addressing that global aspect. But again, make sure other countries are doing their fair share of it.”

The crowd largely jeered at the response. When another audience member asked about Trump’s executive orders rolling back Biden administration measures to address climate change, Steil said that action was necessary to “correct … the overreach in the previous administration.”

It was after 6 p.m. when Bremel called for the final question.

A few minutes earlier, someone had shouted a question about “children starving in Gaza,” and the woman whose turn it was asked Steil to address that topic as well as to defend the SNAP cuts.

“I can do them both,” Steil said. He started with SNAP, reiterating his earlier assertion that Wisconsin would not be affected by the program’s changes to work requirements because of policies the state had in place already.

Turning to Gaza, Steil said, “To me the easy answer to address this crisis is for Hamas to surrender and release the hostages. Release them. Israel was unfairly, unjustly attacked.”

His comments gave rise to another brief demonstration, punctuated by repeated chants of “60,000 people are dead!”

By the time the chanting ended, Steil had left the stage. 

The photos accompanying this report are not available for republishing except by agreement with photographer Mark Hertzberg. 

A health care provider bandages a child after giving a vaccination shot. (Photo by Scott Housely/CDC)

A pair of Wisconsin Republicans want to increase awareness of the state’s vaccine exemptions by requiring waiver forms be given to parents with the health forms they receive from schools and child care center providers. 

Coauthors of the bill Rep. Lindee Brill (R-Sheboygan Falls) and Sen. Rachael Cabral-Guevara (R-Appleton) said in a cosponsorship memo that there is a “lack of transparency” around the exemptions that “can create confusion and unnecessary barriers for parents” and “increase administrative burden on schools when immunization documentation is incomplete or delayed.” 

Wisconsin law requires children in elementary, middle, junior or senior high school, a child care center, or a nursery school to get vaccinated for various diseases based on their grade or age. The vaccine and booster schedule covers mumps, measles, rubella, diphtheria, pertussis, poliomyelitis and tetanus. 

Wisconsin allows parents to get the requirement waived if they submit a written statement objecting for reasons including health, religious or personal conviction. 

Lawmakers noted that the bill would not change current requirements for vaccines. The bill would require schools, child care centers and nursery schools to create a process to present a vaccine waiver form with each health-related form it requires before a student can be enrolled.

“Many parents are unaware of this right or are unclear about how to obtain that waiver and feel pressured to make medical decisions for their children that they otherwise would not have,” Brill said in a statement. “This bill ensures that schools make parents aware of the rights already afforded them by Wisconsin law and include information about the waiver from the vaccine requirement and a procedure for presenting it in any required pre-enrollment health-related forms.”

The proposal comes as Wisconsin’s vaccination rates have not caught up with pre-pandemic levels. According to a 2024 U.S. Centers for Disease Control report, Wisconsin is falling behind other states in childhood immunizations for illnesses including polio, pertussis, diphtheria and tetanus, and measles, mumps and rubella. 

The decline in vaccine rates is partially to blame for diseases, including measles and pertussis, increasing across the country, according to health officials. 

According to the Wisconsin Department of Health Services, 86.4% of students met the minimum immunization requirements during the 2024-25 school year — a 2.8 percentage-point decrease from the prior year. The agency also reports that 6.7% of students had a waiver for one or more immunizations, representing a 0.6 percentage-point increase from last year, though the number of students waiving all vaccines fell to 1.3%. 

Amid falling rates, DHS officials have ramped up efforts to encourage vaccinations to help improve effectiveness. 

Wisconsin has one of the lowest measles vaccination rates in the country, with only Alaska falling below it. One dose of the MMR vaccine, which fights measles, provides approximately 93% protection, while two doses are about 97% effective.

As measles vaccine rates have fallen, cases of the highly contagious disease have hit the highest level in 33 years, according to the CDC with 1,288 cases this year. More than 150 people have been hospitalized from measles, and three people have died this year. No cases have been reported in Wisconsin so far, but its neighboring states, including Illinois and Minnesota, have had cases.

The lawmakers’ efforts to increase awareness of vaccine exceptions comes amid a national wave of skepticism to vaccination, including from U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is a leading and prominent vaccine skeptic and was appointed by President Donald Trump this year. 

Brill thanked Kennedy for his work on his “Make America Health Again” agenda in her statement about the bill.

Cabral-Guevara, a board certified family nurse practitioner, has supported legislation that would loosen vaccine requirements before including a 2024 bill that would have allowed immunization exemptions at higher education institutions without documentation. 

The bill passed the Senate and Assembly, but was vetoed by Gov. Tony Evers, who said in a veto message that he objected to “the Wisconsin State Legislature’s efforts to micromanage decisions to respond to public health incidents and restrict existing tools available to higher education institutions to keep students, faculty, staff safe and healthy on their campuses.”