U.S. President Donald Trump meets with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the White House on Aug. 18, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

President Donald Trump, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and European allies at the White House Monday celebrated Russian President Vladimir Putin’s concession of NATO-like security protections for Ukraine as part of a future peace deal between the two countries.

In a social media post on Monday night, Trump said he called Putin after the meetings were over and began arrangements for a meeting between Putin and Zelenskyy, at a location to be determined. After that meeting, all three would meet, Trump said.

At the White House earlier, Zelenskyy and officials from Western Europe called Putin’s acceptance of security guarantees for Ukraine protecting the nation against another attack a major step toward ending the three-year-old war. 

Dating to before the war, one point of tension between Ukraine and Russia has been Ukraine’s increasingly warm relationship with the West, with potential membership in NATO a major issue for Putin.

But Trump said Putin accepted something like it during the pair’s meeting in Alaska last week.

“The Alaska summit reinforced my belief that, while difficult, peace is within reach,” Trump said before a group meeting in the White House’s East Room. “In a very significant step, President Putin agreed that Russia would accept security guarantees for Ukraine.”

Trump and Zelenskyy met one-on-one in the Oval Office before a handful of European leaders joined them for a multilateral meeting in the East Room.

During introductions for the multilateral meeting, Zelenskyy said it had been his best meeting with Trump to date, and he was “very happy” with Trump about the possibility of winning security guarantees.

“We spoke about it, and we will speak more about security guarantees,” he said. “This is very important that (the) United States gives such (a) strong signal and is ready for security guarantees.”

The other attendees Monday were NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, French President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Finnish President Alexander Stubb.

‘Article 5-like’

Several European allies highlighted the issue of security guarantees for Ukraine, which they compared to the NATO charter’s Article 5 that compels every member state to defend any other member that has been attacked.

“It’s very good to hear that we’re working on the security guarantees,” von der Leyen said. “Article 5-like security guarantees: so important.”

The next step in the peace process would be to set up direct talks between Putin and Zelenskyy, possibly also to include Trump.

Trump said he had spoken to Putin “indirectly” on Monday and that he planned to phone the Russian president following the meeting with European leaders.

Ceasefire needed?

Before meeting with Putin, Trump had supported a ceasefire as a path toward a permanent end to the war, though he came out of the Alaska summit closer to Putin’s position that a ceasefire was not necessary before a final peace agreement.

Monday, he said he would like a ceasefire to immediately end violence, but that it was not strictly necessary from a diplomatic point of view. The United States had helped negotiate the ends of other conflicts without a temporary ceasefire in place, he said.

“All of us would obviously prefer an immediate ceasefire while we work on a lasting peace,” he said. “I don’t know that it’s necessary.”

Germany’s Merz pushed back, saying a ceasefire should be a precondition for a Putin-Zelenskyy meeting.

“I can’t imagine that the next meeting would take place without a ceasefire,” Merz said. “So let’s work on that, and let’s try to put pressure on Russia, because the credibility of these efforts we are undertaking today are depending on at least a ceasefire from the beginning of the serious negotiations.”

Smoother meeting with Zelenskyy in suit

At the open-press portion of Trump’s meeting with Zelenskyy, the two appeared on friendlier terms than they had during the Ukrainian leader’s last Oval Office visit in February, when Trump and Vice President JD Vance complained Zelenskyy was not appreciative enough of U.S. aid.

As the February meeting turned heated, Trump told Zelenskyy he had “no cards” to fight Russia on his own or make demands of the United States.

But Monday, Trump resisted an option to return to that argument, brushing off a reporter’s question about which country had “better cards.”

And Zelesnkyy also wore an all-black suit Monday after a writer at a pro-Trump media outlet questioned him at the February meeting about wearing military-style attire.

“You look fabulous in that suit,” the same writer said Monday.

“I said the same thing,” Trump echoed.

A member of the National Guard stands alongside a military vehicle parked in front of Union Station, near the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Monday, Aug. 18, 2025. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Four Republican governors are sending nearly 1,000 National Guard members to the District of Columbia after President Donald Trump last week activated 800 members from the district’s Guard as part of his federal takeover of the nation’s capital.

The deployment would bring the total number of National Guard troops to roughly 1,800 in the district’s 68 square miles, following the president’s “crime emergency” declaration, even though violent crime in the district is at a 30-year low.

Because the district, home to more than 700,000 residents, is not a state, the president has the sole authority over its National Guard members.

The president has not only activated the National Guard but through the district’s Home Rule Act is using the Metropolitan Police Department’s 3,400-member police force for immigration enforcement.

The 1,000 National Guard members sent from the states are expected to arrive in the district Monday and through the coming days and are expected to be armed, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine will send 150 military police from his state’s National Guard; Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves will send 200 members; South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster approved 200 members; and West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey will send up to 400 National Guard members.

McMaster and Morrisey added that the federal government would cover the cost of deploying state troops.

Unknown how long Guard will stay

It’s unclear how long National Guard members will remain on duty in the district. National Guard members are usually deployed for natural disasters and kept in reserve. Most have civilian jobs and families that they are pulled away from when they are activated.

The Department of Defense did not respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment.

The president has 23 days left in his emergency declaration and has signaled he wants to extend the emergency longer, as well as request funding from Congress to finance his plans for the district. He’s directed federal law enforcement officers to not only conduct local policing, but to clear out camps of homeless people.

It’s not the first time Republican governors have signaled they will deploy their National Guard members at Trump’s request. Iowa’s Kim Reynolds has stated she will send troops to help with the Trump administration’s mass deportation plans.

And last week Tennessee Republican Gov. Bill Lee said he’s prepared to send his National Guard members to the district. He added that U.S. Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll told him that the military might request states to send troops to the district for law enforcement.

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 generally bars the use of the military for domestic law enforcement purposes.

Lee’s office did not respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment.

Vermont Gov. Phil Scott, a Republican, declined a request from the Trump administration to send the state’s National Guard to the district, according to Vermont Public.

DeWine, McMaster and Morrisey said the Pentagon made requests for additional National Guard members.

What other states might see deployments?

States Newsroom reached out to the offices of all 27 Republican governors to ask if the Trump administration had requested National Guard members.

The administration has not made any requests to Georgia, South Dakota and Virginia, according to spokespeople at those offices. Maryland, which borders the district and is led by Democratic Gov. Wes Moore, has not received a request from the Pentagon to send in National Guard members, according to a spokesperson for Moore’s office.

A spokesperson for Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt said there are no current plans for a deployment of National Guard troops from the state.

Laura Strimple, communications director for Republican Gov. Jim Pillen of Nebraska, said in a statement that the governor supported the president’s “initiatives to reduce crime and clean up the streets in our nation’s capital, including placing the Metropolitan Police Department under federal leadership and tasking the District of Columbia National Guard and National Guard troops from several nearby states with security in Washington.”

“At this time, the Nebraska National Guard is not part of this mission,” she added.

A spokesperson for Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis did not directly answer States Newsroom’s question if the state, which is preparing for Category 4 Hurricane Erin, had received a request from the Trump administration to send National Guard members to the district.

“We stand ready to mobilize any resources necessary in response to President Trump’s federal priorities,” the spokesperson said.

The rest of the state offices did not respond to States Newsroom’s requests for comment. 

Boxes of ballots wait to be counted at Milwaukee's central count on Election Day 2024. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)

A bipartisan group of former elected officials from Wisconsin on Monday criticized President Donald Trump’s promise to end mail-in voting and the use of electronic voting machines. 

In a Monday morning post on his social media site Truth Social, Trump said that he’d issue an executive order to end the practices ahead of next year’s midterm elections. 

“I am going to lead a movement to get rid of MAIL-IN BALLOTS, and also, while we’re at it, Highly ‘Inaccurate,’ Very Expensive, and Seriously Controversial VOTING MACHINES,” Trump wrote.

Neither the president nor the federal government has the authority to manage election administration in this way. The law gives individual states broad power to decide how to run their own elections. 

Wisconsin’s election system is the most decentralized in the country, giving much of the authority over how to conduct voting to the state’s 1,850 municipal clerks. The state allows mail-in absentee voting without requiring voters to provide a reason, and the electronic voting machines approved for use in the state are incapable of connecting to the internet. Electronic voting machines are more accurate at tallying votes than a human hand counting them. 

After Trump’s post, the Democracy Defense Project-Wisconsin board, which includes former Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes, former Attorney General JB Van Hollen, former U.S. Representative Scott Klug, and former Democratic Party of Wisconsin Chair Mike Tate, said in a statement that such an action would increase inaccuracy in the state’s elections. 

“The Constitution is clear: the federal government does not administer elections at the state level,” the group said. “In fact, improved access to voting methods, including the electronic machines Wisconsin uses that produce paper ballots and are unable to be connected to the internet, have benefitted Republicans just as much as Democrats. Wisconsin has displayed time and time again that our elections are safe and secure, and while we can always make them more efficient, there is no tolerance for inaccuracy in our results.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Former AmeriCorps service member Daniel Zare, 27, visits Project Change at Sligo Middle School on Monday, Aug. 11, 2025 in Silver Spring, Maryland, where he mentored students before federal government cuts in April. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

SILVER SPRING, Md. — Daniel Zare worked one-on-one as an AmeriCorps member with students going through rough times in school, lightening teachers’ workload in the classroom.

At AmeriCorps Project CHANGE, based in Silver Spring’s Sligo Middle School, Zare was one of several in his group who tracked adolescents’ emotional and social wellbeing over months using a system dubbed “My Score.” They then helped support the kids who were struggling the most.

In April, though, the program screeched to a halt. That’s when the Trump administration abruptly canceled nearly $400 million in active AmeriCorps grants across the United States that fund volunteers who embed in communities, in exchange for a small stipend and education award.

“All the work that we had culminating toward the end of the year, the relationships that we built with teachers and students and officials, it just completely went kaput because we were told we weren’t allowed to go to work at all,” Zare, 27, told States Newsroom.

Like so many longstanding federal programs and institutions severely reduced or dismantled as part of President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency project, AmeriCorps — and its nonprofit partners — are now assessing the damage and seeking a way forward.

AmeriCorps programs that survived last spring’s DOGE cuts are slowly beginning a new year of service amid major uncertainty over whether they will be able to continue their work in classrooms, food banks, senior centers and other community hubs.

Winners and losers among states

AmeriCorps, a federal agency signed into law in 1993 by former President Bill Clinton, places roughly 200,000 members across the United States at 35,000 service locations, according to current agency data.

Members serve in schools, local governments and with a wide range of nonprofits that focus on health, disaster relief, environmental stewardship, workforce development and veterans.

The staffers, who pledge to “get things done for America,” are paid a modest living allowance that hovers around the poverty line. Some, but not all, can get health insurance while in the program.

Members who complete their service term, which usually lasts from 10 to 12 months, receive an education award that can be used to pursue a degree, earn a trade certificate or pay student loans.

AmeriCorps federal dollars reach programs via a couple routes. In many cases, grants flow from AmeriCorps to governor-led state and territorial commissions that divvy them up according to local priorities. In other cases, federal dollars flow straight to a program via a competitive grant process. 

Kaira Esgate, CEO of America’s Service Commissions, said when the Trump administration ordered the cuts in April, some states lost large portions of their AmeriCorps portfolio, while other states fared better.

“There were no real clear trend lines around what or who got terminated and why,” said Esgate, whose member organization represents all 49 state commissions (South Dakota doesn’t have one) and the commissions for the District of Columbia, Guam and Puerto Rico.

Abby Andre, executive director of The Impact Project, an initiative of Public Service Ventures Ltd., a private corporation that launches and scales solutions to strengthen public service and communities., has been collecting data and plotting on an interactive map where AmeriCorps programs have been canceled. Andre, a former Department of Justice litigator, has also worked with her team to build other maps showing where federal workforce cuts have been felt across the country.

“AmeriCorps is a really great example of the federal dollars being kind of invisible in communities. Communities often don’t know that a local food bank or a senior center are supported by AmeriCorps volunteers and AmeriCorps money,” said Andre, who taught administrative law at the Vermont Law School after working under President Barack Obama and in Trump’s first administration.

Andre said communities with a lack of social services, including in rural areas, will likely feel the biggest losses without an AmeriCorps presence because the agency “facilitates pennies-on-the-dollar type services through volunteer work.”

“It’s not as though if these community services folded, those communities would have the money to fund equal or better services through the private market,” she said.

Losing trust

The Maryland Governor’s Office on Service and Volunteerism gave the green light to Project CHANGE to keep its program, which serves Montgomery County in suburban Washington, D.C., running through the upcoming school year.

Paul Costello, director of Project CHANGE, is now scrambling to launch a new AmeriCorps cohort after receiving the news on July 22 that the initiative had been funded. He estimates members won’t be able to begin until almost a month into the school year.

“Sadly, AmeriCorps, as a brand name, is badly damaged, I think. I mean, I’ve got a meeting on Wednesday with a major partner who told us two weeks ago ‘We thought you were dead,’” Costello told States Newsroom in an Aug. 11 interview.

Costello’s program not only places service members in Montgomery County Public Schools, where Zare served, but also with partners including Community Bridges, Montgomery Housing Partnership and Family Learning Solutions.

The nonprofits respectively focus on helping adolescent girls from diverse backgrounds, children whose families live in community-developed affordable housing units and teens eyeing college and career paths.

The county’s school system is the largest in the state and serves a highly diverse population. About 44% of the system’s 160,000 students qualify for free and reduced meals, and close to 20% are learning English while continuing to speak another language at home.

Costello’s 18 cohort members embedded in those schools and nonprofits this past academic year were suddenly yanked in April when the government cut his grant. The partners, which had planned and budgeted to have the members through June, were thrown into “total chaos,” Costello said.

“So some of them are so desperate, they rely on their members. They had to dig into their pockets to keep them on as staff. And then we go back to them this year and say, ‘You want members this year?’ AmeriCorps has made no attempt to make them whole. So they’ve been screwed,” Costello said.

AmeriCorps did not respond to States Newsroom’s questions about nonprofits losing money.

Legal action

The federal courts granted some relief to members and organizations who abruptly lost living allowances and contractually obligated funding.

A Maryland federal district judge ordered in June that funding and positions  be restored in 24 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia that sued the agency.

Another district judge in the state also handed a win to more than a dozen nonprofits from across the country that sued to recover funding they were owed.

But for many it was too late, and AmeriCorps’ future still feels shaky.

After suddenly losing his living allowance in April, Zare had to leave Silver Spring.

“I was renting a room off of Georgia (Avenue), and I was not able to pay rent there anymore, so I actually moved back to my mom’s in Germantown for the time being,” he told States Newsroom in August, referring to another Maryland suburb.

Hillary Kane, director of the Philadelphia Higher Education Network for Neighborhood Development, said by the time the court orders were issued, many of her AmeriCorps members had already found other positions and she had completely let go of one of her full-time staffers.

While the court injunctions were “welcome news,” reinstating the programs remained “questionable,” Kane wrote in a July 21 update for Nonprofit Quarterly.

Kane’s organization is a member of the National College Attainment Network, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit that was among the successful plaintiffs.

Other organizations that joined the lawsuit are based in California, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Dakota and Virginia.

The Democratic-led states that won reinstatement for AmeriCorps members include Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.

Going forward?

Kane got news on July 10 that PennSERVE, Pennsylvania’s state service commission, reinstated funding for her AmeriCorps program that places members in four West Philadelphia high schools to mentor students on their post-graduation plans.

The late notice meant Kane could only begin recruiting new members in mid-July.

“And so our start date has to be a bit fluid,” Kane told States Newsroom during a July 22 interview. “We have to essentially recruit people into this one-year cohort position, and say, ‘We’re hoping to start September 2, but we’re not 100% sure. Can you kind of just roll with it?’ It’s an awkward position to have to be in.”

Other AmeriCorps programs have not fared so well, as the Trump administration’s Office of Management and Budget continues to withhold funds that were appropriated by Congress for the ongoing fiscal year.

Trump signed legislation in March that extended the $1.26 billion for AmeriCorps for the full 2025 fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30.

Kane said the most “insidious” part of the recent AmeriCorps storyline is that programs that receive grants directly from the federal agency are being strung along by OMB.

“So there are agencies who have been theoretically awarded money, but they’re like, ‘Is it actually going to happen? Should I spend all this money and then not be able to bill the federal government to reimburse me if OMB is going to hold it hostage?’”

Programs at risk include 130 recently expired contracts for AmeriCorps Foster Grandparent and Senior Companions programs that support roughly 6,000 senior citizen volunteers across 35 states. The programs are eligible for just over $50 million for the new service year, which should be off to a start.

Congress pleads with budget office

A bipartisan group of U.S. senators pressed the executive branch agency on Aug. 1 to release the funds.

“Further delays in grantmaking will have immediate and irreversible consequences for programs, AmeriCorps members, and communities,” the senators wrote in a letter to OMB Director Russ Vought.

Republican Sens. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Thom Tillis of North Carolina joined Democratic Sens. Chris Coons of Delaware, Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York in signing the letter. All are members of the Senate National Service Caucus.

The White House and AmeriCorps did not respond for comment.

The Republican-led Senate Committee on Appropriations voted on July 31 to preserve $1.25 billion in AmeriCorps funding for fiscal year 2026. Collins chairs the committee.

U.S. House appropriators, which for the last two years under Republican leadership have sought to cut AmeriCorps funding, are expected to debate its budget in September. But it’s almost certain Congress will have to pass a stopgap spending bill when the end of the fiscal year arrives to stave off a partial government shutdown, so a final decision on funding may not come for months.

Change for everyone

Zare never did have a chance to say goodbye to all his students in April.

And even though the option was on the table, he did not sign up to serve a third year with AmeriCorps.

Before he applied and earned a spot with Project CHANGE, Zare was working odd jobs, including as a utilities contractor for Comcast. He had also earned his associate’s degree.

“I don’t think there’s any other program to take someone like me who was working a couple of different jobs and put them in an environment like this, to see firsthand as an American citizen how our classrooms operate and what position I would need to be in to actually be of benefit,” Zare told States Newsroom.

Zare is now freelancing and debating his next move, whether that’s a new job or further higher education.

“AmeriCorps is something that I’m always going to cherish because a lot of the people there still help me,” he said.

Editor’s note: D.C. Bureau Senior Reporter Ashley Murray served in AmeriCorps in 2009-2010.

Democrat Gage Stills, right, meets with voters and a recent event for his 1st Congressional District campaign. (Stills Congressional Campaign photo)

The number of Democrats hoping to represent the party in the 2026 race for Wisconsin’s 1st Congressional District has grown to three, all from Racine County and all positioning themselves as working-class candidates who contrast sharply with the incumbent.

Gage Stills, a 25-year-old community activist, said he comes to the race with “a strong working-class perspective on things, and I know what a lot of these families are going through — I’ve lived it.”

Stills said Friday that he launched his campaign in mid-July, running “under the radar” without a mass media announcement but with a campaign website and a Tik-Tok account to which he posts videos once a week.

That made him the second entry into the Democratic field for the 1st District, following Randy Bryce, who ran and lost in 2018 and announced May 20 he would try again. A third Democrat, nurse Mitchell Berman, entered the race August 12.

Each of the three are seeking the Democratic nomination to run against U.S. Rep. Bryan Steil (R-Janesville), the incumbent now in his fourth term.

In an interview, Stills described his upbringing as one of a family “living paycheck to paycheck and not entirely certain where the next meal is going to come from.”

Even in those circumstances, however, he added, “My parents, they took good care of me and they raised me right and they raised me to care about the world and care about people.”

Stills said that “a big factor” in his decision to run was “the One Big Beautiful Bill and how much it does to hurt the working class and how much it does to hurt folks who are in the lower middle class.”

The “One Big, Beautiful Bill” is what Trump and the legislation’s GOP backers dubbed the mega-bill that extended tax cuts enacted during Trump’s first term in 2017. The legislation, which Trump signed on July 4, also made significant cuts to Medicaid and federal food assistance and rolled back clean energy tax breaks that Congress and then-President Joe Biden enacted in 2022, among a number of other provisions.

Stills said Trump’s policies that ramped up the deployment of federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers with arrests that have swept up immigrants, a number of whom were legally authorized to be in the U.S., were an additional factor in his decision.

“I have a lot of family who are Hispanic,” Stills said. “Some of my family members have married immigrants, and they came here legally, but you know, that’s not entirely guaranteed protection these days.”

He said his upbringing led him to believe “that it doesn’t make sense to complain if I’m not going to get in there and try to do the work.”

Stills said he as a cybersecurity analyst after working for about five months as a state corrections officer and before that in retail sales. He said he was active in Black Lives Matter demonstrations in Racine in 2020 and has volunteered with local environmental organizations and at a community homeless shelter.

The race for Congress is his first time running for a political office. While he acknowledged some voters might be wary, he said that he has “no political ties to anybody. I don’t owe anything to any corporation” — making him a fresh face that voters would appreciate.

“I think for too long we’ve seen politicians that, sure they’ve held political office, but they don’t use that office to help the people,” Stills said.

Steil is a corporate lawyer who previously worked as an aide to former U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, the Janesville Republican who represented the 1st District for 20 years after he was first elected in 1998.

Steil won his first term in 2018, defeating Bryce by a 12-point margin, and won subsequent races with a similar spread.

Stills said he believes he can overcome that gap. “I plan on speaking to the people’s needs,” he said.

While he didn’t attend a listening session that Steil held July 31 at which many constituents directed angry comments to the congressman, Stills said he followed news accounts of the event.

The people who attended “raised valuable concerns that it seemed that he just tried to brush off, or blame on Biden, which doesn’t work anymore,” Stills said.

“We know the votes that he’s casting,” he said of Steil. “We know that they’re not for us. And I think that the people are waking up to that.”

Stills said he wants to aim his message to people all across the political spectrum — left, center and right alike.

“I think that more and more people are going to look for an alternative,” he said. “I think that alternative should be a voice that speaks for them, that comes from the same place as them, a working class perspective.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman (right), accompanied by President Donald Trump, speaks during a news conference at the White House on Jan. 21, 2025. Trump announced an investment in artificial intelligence (AI) infrastructure. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

As a part of President Donald Trump’s AI Action Plan, which rolled out at the end of last month, the U.S. General Services Administration launched a platform Thursday that will allow government employees to experiment with artificial intelligence tools.

USAi.gov allows federal workers to use generative AI tools, like chatbots, code builders and document summarization, for free. The platform is meant to help government employees determine which tools could be helpful to procure for their current work, and how they might customize them to their specific needs, a statement from the administration said.

The tools will come primarily from AI companies Anthropic, OpenAI, Google and Meta, Fedscoop reported. OpenAI initially announced a partnership with the federal government last week, saying any federal agencies would be able to use ChatGPT Enterprise for $1 per agency for the next year.

“USAi means more than access — it’s about delivering a competitive advantage to the American people,” said GSA Deputy Administrator Stephen Ehikian, in the statement.

The GSA called the platform a “centralized environment for experimentation,” and said it will track performance and adoption strategies in a dashboard.

The platform’s creation follows Trump’s recently released plan to “accelerate AI innovation” by removing red tape around “onerous” regulations, and get AI into the hands of more workers, including federal employees.

The plan also calls for AI to be more widely adopted in manufacturing, science and in the Department of Defense, and proposes increased funding and regulatory sandboxes — separate trial spaces, like the USAi platform — for development.

A GSA official told FedScoop that before being added to the platform, AI models will be evaluated for safety, like whether a model outputs hate speech, its performance accuracy, and how it was red-teamed, or tested for durability.

But the GSA didn’t say how the introduction of USAi.gov would affect the federal government’s current tech procurement process, FedRAMP. The program, developed with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), provides a standardized way for government agencies to assess the safety and effectiveness of new tech tools.

“USAi helps the government cut costs, improve efficiency, and deliver better services to the public, while maintaining the trust and security the American people expect,” said GSA Chief Information Officer David Shive in a statement.

People participate in a naturalization ceremony last year at Liberty State Park in Jersey City, N.J. The Trump administration is encouraging states to use an online search tool to verify the citizenship of registered voters, alarming some Democrats and privacy experts. (Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

BILOXI, Miss. — The Trump administration is developing a powerful data tool it claims will let states identify noncitizens registered to vote. But Democratic critics and data experts warn it could allow the federal government to vacuum up vast quantities of information on Americans for unclear purposes.

Some Democratic election officials and opponents of the effort fear President Donald Trump wants to build a federal database of voters to target political opponents or cherry-pick rare examples of noncitizen voters to fuel a sense of crisis. Republican election officials allied with the president counter that he’s helping states to maintain accurate voter rolls.

The Trump administration has rolled out changes to the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, or SAVE, tool at the same time the U.S. Department of Justice is asking states for copies of their voter rolls. The timing, combined with questions about what happens to voter data uploaded to the program, has alarmed critics.

Trump wants Congress to pass a national proof of citizenship voter registration requirement and in March tried to unilaterally impose one for federal elections through executive order. But with the legislation stalled and the order halted by the courts, the citizenship data tool may offer a backdoor way to accomplish the same goal.

SAVE was originally intended to help state and local officials verify the immigration status of individual noncitizens seeking government benefits. But U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security, this spring refashioned it into a platform that can scan states’ voter rolls if election officials upload the data.

Justice Department demand for state voter lists underscores their importance

The changes to SAVE, rolled out over just a few months and with little public debate, are “tinkering with sort of the bones of democracy,” said John Davisson, senior counsel and director of litigation at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a Washington, D.C.-based research and advocacy group that argues privacy is a fundamental right.

“You’re talking about the voting process and who will be eligible to vote,” Davisson said. “And to take a system that is not designed for use in that process and repurpose it, really on the fly, without a formal comment process, without formal rulemaking, without congressional intervention — that’s pretty anomalous and pretty alarming.”

Previously, SAVE could only search one name at a time. Now it can conduct bulk searches, allowing state officials to potentially feed into it information on millions of registered voters. SAVE checks that information against a series of federal databases and reports back whether it can verify someone’s immigration status.

Since May, it also can draw upon Social Security data, transforming the program into a tool that can confirm citizenship because Social Security records for many, but not all, Americans include the information. NPR reported earlier on changes to SAVE.

“It is incredible what has been done, really since March,” Wyoming Secretary of State Chuck Gray, a Republican who supports proof of citizenship requirements and the SAVE tool, told a gathering of state secretaries of state in Biloxi, Mississippi, last week.

Individuals registering to vote in federal elections must already sign a statement affirming they are citizens under penalty of perjury, and those who cast a ballot face criminal penalties and deportation. One study of the 2016 election placed the prevalence of noncitizen voting at 0.0001% of votes cast.

But as Trump has spread falsehoods about elections, Republicans have made purging noncitizens from voter rolls a central focus.

Democratic concerns were on display last week at the National Association of Secretaries of State conference, held at the Beau Rivage casino-resort in Biloxi. In interviews on the sidelines of the conference, Democratic secretaries of state voiced deep reservations — or outright opposition — about plugging their voter data into SAVE.

Maine Democratic Secretary of State Shenna Bellows said Aug. 6 that the federal government appeared to be trying to take over election administration. She formally rejected the Justice Department’s voter roll request two days later.

Bellows said the Department of Homeland Security told her in a recent phone call that it planned to retain SAVE data for 10 years for “audit purposes only.”

“Just like the [Justice Department] is asking us to hand over an electronic file of all the voters in our state, it seems like the Department of Homeland Security is through this backdoor system also asking us to share voter information about every voter in our state,” Bellows said.

At least one state appears to have granted the federal government sweeping authority over any voter data it provides to SAVE.

Indiana Secretary of State Diego Morales announced in July he had reached an agreement with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to access the newly expanded system for voter list maintenance. Indiana’s agreement allows the federal agency to use information the state provides for any purpose permitted by law, including criminal prosecutions.

Morales, a Republican, said in a news release that SAVE represented “another step in safeguarding the rights” of eligible voters. His office didn’t respond to Stateline’s questions.

The Trump administration has ramped up efforts to encourage state election officials to use the expanded program. The White House hosted a bipartisan “fly in” event for state secretaries of state on July 29. Multiple secretaries of state told Stateline that USCIS Director Joseph Edlow, who was confirmed on July 15, spoke at the event.

“The president is very much keyed in on voter list maintenance,” Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, a Republican, said in an interview — echoing other GOP secretaries of state who released statements praising the Trump administration after the meeting.

Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon, a Democrat who attended the meeting, said he questioned how the federal government would handle voter information provided to SAVE. He added that the Justice Department’s request for his state’s voter rolls raised his level of concern about how data would be used.

“When we disclose information, particularly personal identifying information, we need to have a handle on how it’s going to be used, by whom and under what circumstances,” Simon told Stateline.

The White House referred questions about SAVE and the event to the Department of Homeland Security and USCIS.

In response to questions from Stateline, USCIS didn’t directly answer whether the agency would share voter roll data with other parts of the federal government but confirmed it disposes of records after 10 years.

“The SAVE application is a critical tool for state and local governments to access information to safeguard the integrity of elections across the country. It’s no wonder many states have quickly adopted it, and we continue to promote the tool to other states and counties not using SAVE,” USCIS spokesperson Matthew Tragesser said in a statement.

“We look forward to continued optimization efforts and implementing more updates to SAVE.”

GOP pressure

Some Republican election officials and Trump allies have long wanted the federal government to take an expanded role in searching state voter rolls for noncitizens.

Last summer the Trump-aligned litigation group America First Legal, co-founded by Trump adviser Stephen Miller, encouraged states to submit to the Department of Homeland Security the names of individuals for citizenship or immigration status verification.

Some states did just that. Texas, for example, asked USCIS to verify the citizenship of some voters in September, and Indiana asked the agency to verify 585,774 voters in October. The same month, 16 Republican state attorneys general signed a letter criticizing Homeland Security, then under the Biden administration, for failing to work with states on verification.

Trump’s DOJ wants states to turn over voter lists, election info

After Trump took office, GOP state officials kept up the pressure. Twenty-one Republican secretaries of state urged Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem in February to prioritize SAVE improvements.

On April 16, Indiana sued the department in federal court for not responding to its verification request last fall. USCIS announced an overhaul of SAVE less than a week later.

As the agency continues to remake SAVE, the tool will soon allow searches using the last four digits of a Social Security number, multiple state secretaries of state told Stateline. The agency confirmed the feature is under development and will be available soon but didn’t provide an exact date.

The change would mark another significant expansion of the program because most states collect the last four digits when individuals without a driver’s license register to vote.

Idaho Secretary of State Phil McGrane, a Republican, said SAVE represents a better way to verify citizenship than a state law requiring voters to produce documents. “I think there’s a real opportunity for us to do a lot of this through just sharing of information and I think that’s what we’re seeing happen,” McGrane said in an interview.

Unreliable data?

But some voting rights advocates and experts on government data caution against an overreliance on Social Security data.

The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, a progressive policy nonprofit, has noted that Social Security only began tracking the citizenship status of all applicants in 1978 — meaning the database doesn’t include comprehensive citizenship information for older Americans. Additionally, Social Security may not always have up-to-date information on the status of naturalized U.S. citizens.

The nonpartisan Institute for Responsive Government also warned in May that since SAVE hasn’t used Social Security numbers to verify citizenship in the past, its accuracy and effectiveness are unknown. The success of the expanded SAVE program may also partially depend on whether it has adequate staff and resources, it said.

U.S. House passes bill targeting voting by noncitizens, which is already against the law

A 2017 Government Accountability Office report found that between fiscal years 2012 and 2016, about 16% of the nearly 90 million SAVE searches required additional verification, which the institute says often translates into federal workers manually checking files. Now that SAVE allows bulk searches, the need for manual checking could rise dramatically.

Nick Doctor, director of implementation at the Institute for Responsive Government, said in an interview that a tool confirming the eligibility of registered voters in a way that doesn’t burden individuals can be a good thing. But he emphasized that it depends in large measure on SAVE’s implementation.

“The changes that have been made to SAVE happened very quickly and, to my knowledge, we haven’t seen releases on the level of accuracy of that information,” Doctor said.

During interviews, Republican secretaries of state stressed that voters aren’t kicked off the rolls because SAVE can’t verify their citizenship. Instead, an inability to verify would likely trigger a follow-up process with the voter.

“Just because we get something back from the SAVE database, it’s not a cut and dry, especially on those they’re not sure about,” Hoskins, the Missouri secretary of state, said.

Still, Arizona illustrates why some Democrats worry about any large-scale effort to ask voters — especially longtime, older residents — to prove their citizenship. After the state discovered errors in how it tracked voter citizenship dating back years, election officials are contacting some 200,000 voters seeking proof of citizenship documentation.

Some have been casting ballots for decades without incident and many feel targeted, Arizona Democratic Secretary of State Adrian Fontes said during a presentation at the state secretaries of state conference. “They feel insulted when they get that letter,” Fontes said.

Charles Stewart III, a professor of political science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who studies elections, said Arizona may actually point to the potential usefulness of SAVE. If Arizona runs its voter roll through the program, a list of 200,000 voters needing citizenship verification would perhaps drop into the hundreds, he suggested.

“There’s a lot of good-government reasons to believe that something like this, governed properly and governed with fail-safe mechanisms, could have an upside,” Stewart said.

Connecticut Democratic Secretary of State Stephanie Thomas told Stateline that every secretary wants tools to keep voter lists as clean as possible. But the details are important.

When she hears of something new, Thomas said she asks whether it’s the best option available and whether “the i’s are dotted, the t’s crossed.” She said she’s asked USCIS a series of questions about SAVE and is waiting on some responses.

“When it comes to voter lists,” Thomas said, “I don’t want Connecticut voters to be a guinea pig.”

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.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Protesters gather in Milwaukee's Cathedral Square to march and rally as part of the No Kings Day protests nationwide. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

Voting rights activists continue to be divided over gerrymandering. Here in Wisconsin, members of the Fair Maps Coalition, who just recently succeeded in getting representative voting maps for our state, are understandably alarmed by escalating threats to gerrymander the whole country, as Wisconsin Public Radio reports.

“I just hate it at its core,” Wisconsin League of Women Voters Executive Director Debra Cronmiller told WPR of the gerrymandering duel between Texas and California, as each state seeks to carve out more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.

“We can’t save democracy by suppressing voters, and this has to be an opportunity to think about a new process and standards, especially in Wisconsin,” iuscely Flores, Wisconsin Fair Maps organizing director, told WPR.

But the president and CEO of Common Cause, the national organization dedicated to voting rights and fair elections, told members last week that the group “won’t call for unilateral political disarmament in the face of authoritarianism.”

The Common Cause position is tricky. On the one hand the group reaffirms its commitment to nonpartisan redistricting commissions. On the other hand it gives its blessing to California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s plan to suspend exactly the sort of nonpartisan commission the group endorses — and which Wisconsin fair maps advocates have long been fighting for. Supposedly, suspending the commission is a temporary measure while Democrats in the legislature draw up gerrymandered districts in time for the midterms. After they do that, Common Cause, Newsom and various Democrats claim California can undo the gerrymander later and restart the fight for fair maps. Really?

“Independent redistricting commissions are one way — and by far the best way — to draw fair maps and achieve fair representation for every single American,” Virginia Kase Solomón, Common Cause president and CEO wrote in a letter to the group’s members. But, a follow-up email from Common Cause reiterated the group’s non-opposition to Newsom’s plan in California, saying, “As the nation’s leading anti-gerrymandering advocacy group, we understand that Trump and Republican leaders’ attempt to lock in unaccountable power poses a generational threat to our ability to decide our own futures.”

Maggie Daun brought up those same dire threats on her Civic Media radio show when she grilled me about my last column arguing that we can’t gerrymander our way back to democracy. What if this is the existential moment and Trump is about to send troops into cities across the U.S. and destroy democracy, Daun asked. I agree with her that we’re in an existential moment. But just because we want Democrats to do something to stop Trump, as so many people so passionately do, that doesn’t mean that gerrymandering to get a narrow Democratic majority in the House is the right thing to do. For one thing, a new House majority won’t be seated until 2027 and won’t fix the immediate crisis.

Trump is already sending troops into Democratic cities. And his plan to try more federal takeovers will likely unfold before the midterms. What we need right now is a massive popular movement to resist authoritarian overreach, local leaders who stand up to Trump, and courts that continue to hold the line on his administration’s assault on the rule of law.

The courts have played the biggest role in restraining Trump so far, issuing injunctions and blocking his orders Their power has been badly limited by the U.S. Supreme Court, which curtailed judges’ power to issue nationwide injunctions and greenlighted some egregious administrative actions. The current Supreme Court majority has also helped Trump’s larger project of dismantling democracy by gutting the Voting Rights Act and by allowing partisan gerrymandering — which delayed but ultimately did not derail Wisconsin’s efforts to get fair maps.

Common Cause has led the fight against both partisan gerrymandering and the destruction of voting rights. On Saturday, the group declared a National Day of Action, with rallies in communities across the country, including in Wisconsin, to resist Trump’s Texas gerrymandering scheme and his unprecedented deployment of federal troops to run roughshod over local communities. But the group’s message is somewhat muddled, mixing strong language about fairness and voting rights with tolerance for the prospect of blue-state counter-gerrymandering.

One good thing about the gerrymandering brushfire spreading across the nation is that it has provoked a bipartisan backlash. Republicans in New York and California, facing the prospect of being drawn out of their seats, have begun speaking out against the gerrymandering plan for Texas, Politico reports.

Some quick math suggests that Republicans are likely to win a nationwide redistricting war that pulls in Missouri, Indiana, Florida and other red states. But Republicans who are in a minority in California and New York are still worried about losing their seats. “Redistricting is not really an ideological exercise as much as a self-interest exercise,” California-based GOP strategist Rob Stutzman told Politico. Hence blue state Republican House members are calling for their colleagues to stand down in Texas and other red states, lest they lose their seats in the blue state counter-gerrymander. 

Instead of looking to gerrymandering, which is unfair, diminishes democracy and escalates hyper partisanship, opponents of the Trump administration need to keep building a big, pro-democracy movement that unites a majority of the country against Trump’s authoritarian overreach.

Wisconsin could lead the way. 

U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan, who has been holding town halls in Republican districts, reports being deluged with worried questions from both his own and his GOP colleagues’ constituents who don’t like the cuts to Medicaid, food assistance, and Social Security staffing in the unpopular “Big Beautiful Bill Act.” Most Americans don’t want to give away their health care, security and well-being so Elon Musk can get a tax cut.

Unfortunately, right-wing activists have played a long game, stacking the Supreme Court, blocking Democratic nominees, destroying the Voting Rights Act and putting the whole Heritage Foundation Project 2025 plan for authoritarianism in place. That won’t be undone in a single midterm election. But it is possible to leverage a broad-based populist movement of people who recognize it’s in their own interest to fight back. 

An absentee ballot drop box in Madison, where officials lost and failed to count nearly 200 absentee ballots in the 2024 presidential election.

The Wisconsin Elections Commission voted 5-1 on Friday to institute its order against the city of Madison requiring that city officials make a number of changes to absentee ballot processes after the city lost and failed to count nearly 200 ballots during the 2024 presidential election. 

The Madison city clerk’s office told the elections commission in a memo Dec. 20 about the lost ballots from two Madison wards. A bag containing 68 unprocessed absentee ballots from two wards was found Nov. 12 in a tabulator bin, the memo stated. During reconciliation of ballots on Dec. 3, clerk employees found two sealed envelopes containing a total of 125 unprocessed absentee ballots from another ward. The discovery of the missing ballots was announced to the public Dec. 26. 

The missing ballots were not enough to change the result of any local, state or federal elections.

WEC launched an investigation into the error. In a report released last month, WEC found that “confluence of errors” and a “complete lack of leadership” in the city clerk’s office led to the ballots going missing. 

The investigation report also proposed a number of requirements for the city to improve its systems for tracking and counting absentee ballots. Those requirements constituted the order the commission approved on Friday. 

Among other things, the order requires the city to develop an internal plan delineating which employee is responsible for statutorily required tasks, print poll books no earlier than the Thursday before elections, change the absentee ballot processing system so bags and envelopes aren’t lost, update instructional materials for poll workers and complete a full inspection of all materials before the scheduled board of canvassers meeting after an election.

Commissioners followed through with enacting the order after interim City Clerk Michael Haas had sent a letter to the commission, requesting that the provisions of the order be made more broad and suggesting that the commission does not have the authority to enforce such changes to local election practices against just one municipality. 

“Individually-tailored orders for jurisdictions across the state also runs the risk of increasing, rather than decreasing, inconsistency of local election practices,” Haas wrote in an Aug. 6 letter to the commission. “If the Commission truly wishes to dictate the staffing, workflow, and procedures of municipal clerks at such a granular level, a regulatory guidance or rule-making that applies to all jurisdictions and that allows for thoughtful input by local election officials makes far more sense and is likely required.” 

In the letter, Haas wrote that the requirements of the WEC order were drafted in a vacuum from the city’s already existing election processes; that they give no end date or flexibility to election law changes made by the courts, Legislature or WEC itself; don’t address the logistic specifics of running an election in the state’s second largest city and don’t provide statutory reasons for the required changes. 

At the meeting Friday, Democratic Commissioner Mark Thomsen was the only member to vote against enacting the order. Thomsen argued that the order seemed “spiteful.” He said the city administered the 2025 spring election with no issues and that it still doesn’t have a permanent city clerk, so whoever is hired will be hamstrung by an order made because of actions they had nothing to do with. 

“I don’t think it’s fair to burden the new clerk with a set of orders that all the other clerks recognize no one else has to follow,” Thomsen said. “It is absolutely tragic that 193 people’s votes weren’t counted. They have separate legal remedies now. We have done what we needed to do. We’ve done an investigation, we’ve laid it out, and I do not think we should do a power grab and create burdens on the new clerk, whether or not we can exercise it.” 

But the supporters of the order said that not imposing it would mean letting the city off without being held accountable. Commission chair Ann Jacobs, a Democrat, noted that even though former Clerk Maribeth Witzel-Behl resigned after the incident, many staff involved in losing the ballots remain in the clerk’s office. 

“I think we need to order it also so that clerks across the state understand the level of seriousness that this commission takes with this,” Jacobs said. “The city needs to straighten out what happened here. And I don’t think there’s been sort of that reckoning yet.” 

Administrative rules 

The commission on Friday also reinstituted the administrative rulemaking process on a number of proposed rules that had been held up by a legislative committee. 

The Legislature’s Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative Rules (JCRAR) had previously suspended emergency rules written by WEC on a number of topics, including instructions for absentee voting and challenges to candidate ballot access. 

Last month, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in Tony Evers v. Howard Marklein that JCRAR’s suspension of administrative rules amounted to an unconstitutional legislative veto. Under previous law, state agencies weren’t allowed to promulgate a permanent rule on a topic in which the committee had previously struck down an emergency rule. After the court’s ruling, WEC can once again start the rulemaking process. 

The commission voted to restart the process of establishing rules for challenging candidate nomination papers, challenging declarations of candidacy and mandating that local clerks use a uniform set of rules for absentee ballots.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

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

WASHINGTON —  A federal judge in Maryland has struck down the U.S. Education Department’s attempts to do away with diversity, equity and inclusion practices in schools.

The Thursday ruling marks a blow to President Donald Trump’s administration as it continues to take significant strides to try to crack down on DEI efforts across the federal government.

U.S. District Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher found both an agency Dear Colleague letter threatening to yank federal funds for schools from K-12 through colleges and universities that use race-conscious practices in aspects of student life and a memo ordering state education leaders to certify compliance to be “unlawful,” vacating the two.

Gallagher’s ruling follows a lawsuit from the American Federation of Teachers union and its affiliate, AFT-Maryland, as well as the American Sociological Association and a public school district in Oregon.

She noted that both the letter and certification requirement are “unconstitutionally vague.”

Gallagher is one of three federal judges who blocked different parts of the agency’s initiatives back in April, which brought enforcement of the letter and the memo on certifying compliance to a halt.

“The administration is entitled to express its viewpoints and to promulgate policies aligned with those viewpoints,” wrote Gallagher, who was appointed by Trump. “But it must do so within the procedural bounds Congress has outlined. And it may not do so at the expense of constitutional rights.”

Feb. 14 letter to states

The department drew swift legal action after sending a Feb. 14 letter to school districts that threatened to rescind federal funds for schools that use race-conscious practices in programming, admissions, scholarships and other aspects of student life.

The letter gave a sweeping interpretation of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2023, which struck down the use of affirmative action in college admissions.

The four-page letter raised a myriad of questions for schools over what exactly fell within the requirements. The department in March issued a Frequently Asked Questions document on the letter in an attempt to provide more guidance.

Adding fuel to the fire, the department in April gave state education leaders just days to certify all K-12 schools in their states were complying with the letter in order to keep receiving federal financial assistance.

Reaction from department, union

“While the Department is disappointed in the judge’s ruling, judicial action enjoining or setting aside this guidance has not stopped our ability to enforce Title VI protections for students at an unprecedented level,” a spokesperson for the department said in a statement shared with States Newsroom on Friday.

“The Department remains committed to its responsibility to uphold students’ anti-discrimination protections under the law,” the spokesperson added.

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, said “the court agreed that this vague and clearly unconstitutional requirement is a grave attack on students, our profession, honest history, and knowledge itself,” in a Thursday statement.

Weingarten added that “it would hamper efforts to extend access to education, and dash the promise of equal opportunity for all, a central tenet of the United States since its founding.”

Federal Bureau of Investigation and Metropolitan Police Department officers conduct a traffic stop near the U.S. Capitol on Aug. 14, 2025 in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice will rewrite an order from Attorney General Pam Bondi that initially placed a Trump administration official in charge of the District of Columbia’s police force, after an emergency hearing late Friday afternoon on a lawsuit filed by the district.

Attorneys on behalf of the Justice Department told District of Columbia Judge Ana C. Reyes they would rewrite Section 1 of Bondi’s order by a deadline the judge set of 6:30 p.m. Eastern Friday.

In that section, Bondi’s late Thursday order named Terry Cole, administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, as head of the Metropolitan Police Department.

District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb called that move a “brazen usurpation of the district’s authority” in his suit filed early Friday against the Trump administration.

Reyes, who was nominated by former President Joe Biden, said if she did not receive the new order by the deadline, she would issue a temporary restraining order against the DOJ. She said she found that section of Bondi’s order “plainly contrary to statute” of the district’s Home Rule Act of 1973.

The exact changes to the order were not immediately available.

District filed suit Friday

Schwalb early Friday sued the Trump administration for taking control of the Metropolitan Police Department’s 3,400 officers.

The suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia argued that President Donald Trump’s Monday executive order to federalize the district’s police force “far exceeded” the president’s authority under the Home Rule Act of 1973 that allows Washingtonians to elect their local leaders, but gives Congress control over local laws and the district’s budget.

Trump has warned he may pursue similar action in other Democratic-led cities that he sees as having “totally out of control” crime, though experts have questioned the legality and mayors already have raised objections.

“This is the gravest threat to Home Rule DC has ever faced, and we are fighting to stop it,” Schwalb, a Democrat elected in 2022, wrote on social media. “The Administration’s actions are brazenly unlawful. They go well beyond the bounds of the President’s limited authority and instead seek a hostile takeover of MPD.”

District Mayor Muriel Bowser pushed back on Bondi’s order, and wrote on social media that “there is no statute that conveys the District’s personnel authority to a federal official.”

“Let us be clear about what the law requires during a Presidential declared emergency: it requires the mayor of Washington, DC to provide the services of the Metropolitan Police Department for federal purposes at the request of the President,” she said. “We have followed the law.”

The suit asks for a judge to vacate Bondi’s order and an order to prevent the Trump administration “from issuing any future orders or directives or taking any other action that attempts to place MPD under the control of anyone other than the Mayor and the Chief of Police, otherwise assert operational control over MPD, or otherwise attempt to direct local law enforcement activities.”

The suit does not challenge Trump’s decision to deploy 800 National Guard members to the district. Because the district, home to more than 700,000 residents, is not a state, the president has the sole authority over the National Guard members.

Carjacking preceded Trump order

Trump earlier this week declared a “crime emergency” after a former U.S. Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, official was injured on Aug. 3 in an attempted carjacking incident around 3 a.m. Eastern near the Logan Circle neighborhood. Two Maryland teenagers were arrested on charges of unarmed carjacking in connection with the incident.

Violent crime in the district is at a historic 30-year low.

The suit notes Trump’s previous comments about his plans for the district, from his time as a 2024 presidential candidate to his most recent remarks about taking over control of the district while at a February press conference.

“I think that we should govern the District of Columbia … I think that we should run it strong, run it with law and order, make it absolutely flawless … And I think we should take over Washington, D.C. … We should govern D.C. The federal government should take over the governance of D.C.,” Trump said in the court document.

Advocates and local leaders have criticized the president’s decision, arguing that the move is nothing more than an extension of the administration’s immigration crackdown. Checkpoints have popped up all over the city in communities with a high immigrant population. 

Additionally, the district’s police chief Thursday issued a new order to allow local police to aid federal officials in immigration enforcement for immigrants not in police custody.

Trump praised Thursday’s order, calling it “a very positive thing,” especially at checkpoints in the district.

“When they stop people, they find they’re illegal, they report them, they give them to us,” he said.

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

Wisconsin’s jobs and employment numbers showed a slightly softening economy in July, following national trends, the state labor department reported Thursday.

“The Wisconsin labor market has cooled a bit along with the national economy. Unemployment remains historically low,” said Scott Hodek, section chief in the office of economic advisors for the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development (DWD), in a briefing on the July numbers.

Private-sector jobs dropped slightly in July from June, DWD reported. Employment and labor force participation edged down slightly, too, as did the state’s unemployment rate.

“What we’re seeing is that Wisconsin seems to be following the national trend,” Hodek told the Wisconsin Examiner. While the economy is cooling down, “we’re actually still seeing historically low unemployment rates,” Hodek said. “So you’ve got kind of a mix of up and down indicators.”

He pointed to national economic uncertainty as well as the longstanding challenge of Wisconsinites aging out of the workforce faster than younger residents are entering it as likely contributors to the economic cooling. 

DWD pegged the number of Wisconsinites working in July at 3.05 million, a drop of 4,500 from June and down 32,500 from July 2024.

The number of people who were unemployed in July was projected at 98,600 — down 2,200 from June, but up 5,400 from July 2024. The unemployment rate for July was 3.1%.

The labor force shrank in July to just under 3.15 million, a decline of 6,700 from June and a decline of 27,000 from July 2024. The labor force is defined as people 16 or older who are working or seeking work, excluding people in the military or who are in institutions such as nursing homes or prisons.

Wisconsin’s labor force participation rate was 65% of the state’s population 16 or older in July — down 0.1% from June and down just under 1% from July a year ago. Labor force participation remains ahead of the U.S. as a whole, while unemployment is lower, DWD reported.

Employment and labor force participation numbers are projected from a monthly survey of households. A separate survey, polling employers, produces data on the number of jobs in the state.

Wisconsin counted just under 3.06 million nonfarm jobs — an increase of 1,800 over June and 20,200 over July a year ago. Private sector jobs in July totaled more than 2.6 million, a decrease of 3,800 from June but still 15,100 ahead of July 2024.

Construction jobs fell by 500 from June, Hodek said, but remained 3,100 ahead of July 2024. Manufacturing jobs fell by 500, and are down 1,800 from a year ago.

Rosier picture in Wisconsin than broader U.S.

Wisconsin’s jobs report Thursday lacked the drama of the national jobs numbers reported two weeks ago that prompted President Donald Trump to fire the nation’s chief statistician.

On Friday, Aug. 1, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported the U.S. gained 73,000 jobs in July, below analysts’ estimates. The BLS also updated national job numbers for May and June, dramatically reducing both: in June, a gain of 14,000 jobs instead of previously reported 147,000, and in May, an increase of 19,000 instead of the previously reported 125,000.

The national unemployment rate of 4.2% was in line with economic forecasts, CNBC reported. Other indicators nationally added up to “a slow but persistent cooling trend,” the North America regional president at Manpower Group, Ger Doyle, told CNBC.

Trump took to his social media platform, Truth Social, to declare without evidence that the numbers were “RIGGED.” He summarily fired the director of the BLS, replacing her this week with an economist from the far-right Heritage Foundation who has called for a broad overhaul of the agency.

Hodek told the Wisconsin Examiner Thursday that DWD has not received any communications about changes in procedure from the BLS.

“We’ve certainly seen the news and we’re monitoring the situation, of course,” Hodek said. “But we do have confidence in our data and we can’t really speculate on what could possibly happen. We’ll just need to wait and see what the Bureau of Labor Statistics actually does down the road.”

Hodek said that revisions of previous months’ reports are “a normal part of the data process.” The first round of data isn’t inaccurate, but “as you take more time, the data become more accurate,” he said.

“Ideally you want a combination of both —  something that kind of gives you the current edge of where you’re headed, and then as more and better data come in, you get a better sense of what has been happening,” Hodek said.

For example, a quarterly collection of information from the unemployment insurance system “actually covers most employers and it’s very solid data,” he said. “But it lags by half a year.”

Information from that report can be used to further refine the calculations and assumptions that go into the state’s monthly reports.

The monthly numbers for the nation as a whole and for each state go through different calculations and formulas, Hodek said, so it’s not possible to draw direct connections between the state jobs numbers and the national jobs numbers.

It’s also too soon to explain the seemingly dramatic differences between the national jobs picture and Wisconsin’s, he added: “We’ve only got a couple of data points where we saw those large revisions, so that doesn’t really make a trend necessarily yet.”

Hodek doesn’t think Wisconsin is somehow “diverging from the national economy,” however, he said. “In fact, it’s fairly unlikely in general, just because what happens to the national economy and the global economy is going to impact us as well. We tend to follow the national and global trends.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Gov. Tony Evers implementing pay raises for state employees that were approved in the state budget without additional approval from the Legislature’s Joint Committee for Employment Relations. Evers signed the budget, now 2025 Wisconsin Act 15, at 1:32 a.m. in his office Thursday, less than an hour after the Assembly passed it. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Gov. Tony Evers is implementing pay raises for state employees without additional approval from the Legislature’s Joint Committee for Employment Relations, citing a recent state Supreme Court ruling.

The state budget, which was passed by the Republican-led Legislature and signed by Evers last month, included about $385 million to provide state and University of Wisconsin employees with a 3% pay increase in the first year of the budget and a 2% increase in the second year.

“I fought hard in our bipartisan budget negotiations to secure much deserved pay increases for our talented state workers,” Evers wrote in a letter to state employees on Monday, adding that he was proud to sign the budget last month and it was important to him that state workers receive the wage adjustment as soon as possible.

Eligible employees will receive the 3% base pay adjustment to their current pay rate with their Sept. 4 paychecks, including a lump sum back pay from June 29. The second year of raises is supposed to be implemented June 28, 2026.

“The work that we do together every day on behalf of the people of Wisconsin is so important — perhaps never more so than it is today,” Evers wrote. “With Washington creating continued uncertainty through devastating cuts to investments and programs that so many across our state rely on, Wisconsinites will continue looking to us to lead, support them and build upon the work we’ve done together over the last six years. There is, as always, much hard work ahead of us. Having committed and exceptional partners like you in this good work will make all the difference.” 

The Joint Committee on Employment Relations has been tasked by state law with holding hearings on changes to state employee compensation and approving those changes. Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) and Senate President Mary Felzkowski (R-Tomahawk) and Co-chairs of the Joint Committee of Employment Relations have not responded to requests for comment on Evers’ announcement. 

In a bulletin about the raises, the Department of Administration cited the recent Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling in the case Tony Evers v. Howard Marklein, which addressed the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program and the ability of the Joint Finance Committee to hold up already appropriated funds. The Evers administration asserted that the decision clarified its authority to implement the raises without the additional approval of the committee.

The Court ruled 6-1 in July 2024 that the ability for the committee to withhold funds was unconstitutional and a violation of the separation of powers. 

Justice Rebecca Bradley wrote for the majority that a statute that authorizes lawmakers to “exercise core powers of the executive branch violates the constitutional separation of powers and cannot be enforced under any circumstances.” 

“While the constitution gives the legislature the power to appropriate funds, the power to spend the funds the legislature has appropriated for a specific project belongs to the executive branch,” Bradley wrote. “While the legislature has the power to create an agency, define its powers, and appropriate funds to fulfill the purpose for which the legislature established it, the power to spend appropriated funds in accordance with the law enacted by the legislature lies solely within the core power of the executive to ensure the laws are faithfully executed. We conclude these statutes interfere with the executive branch’s core function to carry out the law by permitting a legislative committee, rather than an executive branch agency, to make spending decisions for which the legislature has already appropriated funds and defined the parameters by which those funds may be spent.”

The original lawsuit filed by Evers in October 2023 included the Knowles-Nelson program and two other issues: JOCER’s ability to withhold raises approved in the budget and the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules’s block on administrative rules related to conversion therapy. At the time, JOCER was withholding pay raises approved in the budget for University of Wisconsin employees, so the raises could be used as a bargaining chip in Republican lawmakers’ efforts to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in the system. The pay raises, approved in the budget in July, were released by JOCER in December 2023. 

The majority decided in February 2024 that it would only take up the Knowles-Nelson issue and leave the other two “held in abeyance pending further order of the court.” Conservative justices were critical of the majority allowing original action in the case and separating the issues from each other at the time.

Justice Annette Zeigler wrote in her dissenting opinion in the case that taking all of the issues at once could have produced consistency. 

“Selecting an issue that only impacts the Republican-controlled legislature and the longstanding Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program should raise eyebrows,” Zeigler wrote. “Determining all issues at the same time could serve to hold my colleagues to application of the same principles in the same way, even when it comes to a Democratic-controlled branch of government. Unfortunately, we will wait to see if that consistency will be forthcoming, as the majority handpicked and now limits only the legislative branch’s longstanding, statutorily authorized practice.”

The Court dismissed the compensation and Joint Committee on Employment Relations issue in October 2024 when it decided to take up the conversion therapy and Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules issue. The Court issued a ruling in July limiting the committee’s ability to block administrative rules.

The University of Wisconsin system will also be implementing the general wage raises. 

“We are grateful to Governor Tony Evers and the Wisconsin State Legislature for their continued support of our workforce and recognition of the vital role our faculty and staff play in education, research, and public service,” UW President Jay Rothman wrote in a memo to employees on Monday. 

The implementation of the raises is not the first time the administration has moved ahead with releasing funds following the ruling. The administration announced funding for 12 Department of Natural Resources projects under the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program in October of 2024.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Darryl Chavis, 62, served in the U.S. Army for two years as a watercraft operator. He stands outside the Borden Avenue Veterans Residence, a short-term housing facility in the Long Island City neighborhood of Queens, N.Y., where he lives. Chavis relies on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and is worried about new work requirements for the program, commonly known as food stamps. (Photo by Shalina Chatlani/Stateline)

NEW YORK — After a year in the U.S. Navy, Loceny Kamara said he was discharged in 2023, because while on base he had developed mental health issues, including severe anxiety and nightmares, and had fallen into alcoholism.

Kamara, 23, went to rehab and managed to get sober for some time while living with family in the Bronx, he said. But after he lost his job as a security guard in December, Kamara was kicked out of his home. Now he lives at a veterans homeless shelter in Long Island City, a neighborhood in Queens, New York, and he relies on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — commonly known as food stamps — and odd jobs to make ends meet.

Each month, nearly 42 million people receive SNAP benefits to help supplement their grocery budgets. Able-bodied SNAP recipients who are between 18 and 54 and don’t have children have always been required to work. Veterans, however, have been exempt from those rules — but that’s about to change.

The giant domestic policy measure that President Donald Trump signed on July 4 eliminates that exemption. Beginning in 2026, veterans will have to prove they are working, volunteering, participating in job training, or looking for work for at least 80 hours a month to keep their food stamps beyond three months, unless they qualify for another exemption, such as having certain disabilities.

Republicans in Congress and conservatives who helped formulate the law say these eligibility changes are necessary to stop people who could be working from abusing the system. But critics say the change fails to take into account the barriers many veterans face, and that the new work rules will cause thousands of veterans to go hungry.

“I’m pissed. I mean, I cannot get a job. Nowhere to live,” said Kamara. As he spoke, Kamara pointed to his collared shirt, noting that he had just dressed up to interview for a job as a security guard. He learned that morning he hadn’t gotten the job.

“I’ve been out of work for eight months,” Kamara told Stateline. “It’s hard to get a job right now for everybody.”

Veterans depend on SNAP

Nationally, around 1.2 million veterans with lower incomes, or about 8% of the total veteran population of 16.2 million, rely on food stamps for themselves and their families, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning research group.

An analysis by the group found veterans tend to have lower rates of employment because they are more likely to have health conditions, such as traumatic brain injuries, that make it difficult for them to work. They also tend to have less formal education, though many have specialized skills from their time in the military.

There has been a work requirement for most SNAP recipients since 1996. But Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, said the rules have “never really been enforced.” Rector argued that able-bodied people who have been exempt from the work requirement, such as veterans and homeless people, create an unnecessary burden on the system if they are capable of working but don’t.

“Most of the people that are in this category live in households with other people that have incomes, and so there really isn’t a chronic food shortage here,” Rector said in an interview. “We have tens of thousands of free food banks that people can go to. So it’s just a requirement to nudge these people in the proper direction, and it should no longer go unenforced.”

Darryl Chavis, 62, said that view ignores the difficulties that many veterans face. When Chavis left the U.S. Army at 21 after two years of service, he said, he was “severely depressed.”

“Nobody even came to help me,” said Chavis, who served as a watercraft operator, responsible for operating and maintaining tugboats, barges and other landing craft.

Chavis said he was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, which has made it difficult for him to keep a job. He just moved back to New York from Virginia after leaving a relationship. He’s been at the housing shelter in Long Island City since January.

“What I’m trying to do is get settled in to, you know, stabilize into an apartment. I have the credentials to get a job. So it’s not like I’m not gonna look for a job. I have to work. I’m in transition, and the obstacles don’t make it easy,” Chavis said.

The new SNAP work rules apply to all able-bodied adults between 55 and 64 who don’t have dependents, and parents with children above the age of 14. Some groups, such as asylum-seekers and refugees, are no longer eligible for the program.

Barbara Guinn, commissioner of the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, estimates that around 300,000 New Yorkers could lose SNAP benefits due to work requirements. Of those, around 22,000 are veterans, homeless or aging out of foster care, she said. Almost 3 million New Yorkers relied on SNAP as of March 2025.

Veterans in other states are in a similar situation. In California, an estimated 115,000 veterans receive SNAP benefits, according to a study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The number is nearly 100,000 in Florida and Texas, and 49,000 in Georgia.

Between 2015 and 2019 about 11% of veterans between the ages of 18 and 64 lived in food insecure households, meaning they had limited or uncertain access to food, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees SNAP.

“We know that SNAP is the best way to help address hunger. It gets benefits directly to individuals,” Guinn said. “There are other ways that people can get assistance if they need it, through food banks or other charitable organizations, but we do not think that those organizations will have the capacity to pick up the needs.”

A greater burden on states

In addition to the work rule changes, the new law reduces federal funding for SNAP by about $186 billion through 2034 — a cut of roughly 20%, according to the Congressional Budget Office, an independent research arm of Congress. The federal government expects the new work requirements to reduce SNAP spending by $69 billion as people who don’t comply are dropped from the rolls.

SNAP has historically been funded by the federal government, with states picking up part of the cost of administering the program. Under the new law, states will have to cover between 5% and 15% of SNAP costs starting in fiscal year 2028, depending on how accurately they distribute benefits to people who are eligible for the program.

“This has been a strategic agenda to dismantle SNAP and to blame states for doing so, because they knew they are making it so incredibly burdensome to run and operate and unaffordable,” said Gina Plata-Nino, SNAP deputy director at the Food Research & Action Center, a poverty and hunger advocacy group.

“States are going to have to cut something, because there’s no surplus. There are no unlimited resources that states may have in order to be able to offset the harm.”

Guinn said New York expects to see a new cost burden of at least $1.4 billion each year. In California, new state costs could total as much as $3.7 billion annually, according to the California Department of Social Services.

Kaitlynne Yancy, director of membership programs at Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, said many veterans with disabilities will not be able to fulfill the work requirements or find resources elsewhere. And it’s unclear whether states will be able to provide their own relief to people who are no longer exempted from work requirements or will be excluded from the program.

“It is a frustrating thing to see, especially for those that have been willing to put everything on the line and sacrifice everything for this country if their country called them to do so,” she said.

Yancy, 35, served in the U.S. Navy from 2010 to 2014. She began to use food stamps and the Medicaid program, the public health insurance program for people with lower incomes, as she navigated life’s challenges. They included going back to school to pursue her bachelor’s degree, becoming a single mother, and a leukemia diagnosis for one of her children. Frequent trips to the hospital made it hard for her to work steadily or attend school for 20 hours each week, she said.

Guinn said the new rules will create significant administrative challenges, too; even SNAP recipients who are working will struggle to prove it.

“Maybe they’re working one month, they have a job, and then their employer cuts their hours the next month,” Guinn told Stateline. “There are mechanisms for people to upload documentation as needed to demonstrate compliance with the program, but from an administrative standpoint, right now, we don’t have any super-high-tech automated way of doing this.”

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

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

Ryan Strnad would be the second Democratic candidate to officially enter the Democratic gubernatorial primary, which will likely be a crowded field. (Photo courtesy of candidate)

Ryan Strnad, who has worked for over 35 years as a beer vendor at the Milwaukee Brewers’ home stadium American Family Field, announced Thursday that he will officially enter the Democratic primary for governor next week.

Strnad’s campaign has been years in the making. He told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel in 2023 (less than eight months after Evers started his second term) that he would be considering entering if Evers opted not to run for a third term. Last month Evers announced he won’t be running so he can spend more time with his family.

Strnad, who lives in Mukwonago, is the founder of Drinks In The Seats, a political action committee and lobbying group formed in 2016 to lobby on behalf of in-seat beer vendors. 

Strnad said in 2023 that his top priority if he ran for governor would be advocating for Wisconsin’s unions and working class. His campaign website now lists “improving the working class” as the first item on his plan for Wisconsin along with working on the environment with “common sense”, supporting the police and allowing “any pregnant mother/mother-to-be (or, whatever YOU are comfortable with saying) who wants an abortion [to] have an abortion.”

“I’m running for governor of Wisconsin because I feel obligated to lead our state!” Strnad said on his website. “Moving here to Muskego in 1975, I established roots that I am proud of. I may’ve even served YOU at the stadium where I’ve gotten politically involved and worked there since 1988. I also have jobs elsewhere. I am one of us! I ask for your vote.”

Strnad would be the second Democratic candidate to officially enter the primary, which will likely be a crowded field.

Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez announced her campaign less than 24 hours after Evers announced his retirement. Other potential candidates include Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, state Sen. Kelda Roys and Attorney General Josh Kaul.

The primary is still about a year away on August 11, 2026.

Two Republican candidates, Washington County Executive Josh Schoemann and Whitefish Bay manufacturer Bill Berrien, have entered the race so far. U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany has said he would make a decision before the end of September.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Police officers set up a roadside checkpoint on 14th Street Northwest on Aug. 13, 2025 in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Local leaders and advocates Thursday said that President Donald Trump’s decision to seize the District of Columbia’s 3,400-member police force and deploy 800 National Guard members is a continuation of his administration’s immigration crackdown.

Since the president’s decision Monday to invoke the district’s Home Rule Act, checkpoints are being set up in busy neighborhoods, bulldozers are clearing out tents of people experiencing homelessness and Republican governors are volunteering their own National Guard members to bolster the president’s federalization of the district’s 68 square miles.

Videos of masked law enforcement officers making Washingtonians step out of their cars and conducting arrests have been posted on social media by journalists, drawing concern over civil liberties.

While Trump’s control of the district’s police force ends in 28 days, he’s signaled he wants Congress to extend his authority to deter the “crime emergency.”

Advocates questioned the situation. “There does appear to be evidence that non (Metropolitan Police Department) federal authorities may have exceeded the lawful bounds at some of those traffic stops … and there will be accountability if the law is violated,” said Norm Eisen, the executive chair of Democracy Defenders Fund, a litigation organization that has challenged many of the Trump administration’s actions, in a call with reporters.

Trump predicts enforcement ‘all over the country’

The checkpoints have drawn backlash from district residents and local elected leaders.

In a statement, district Councilmember Brianne Nadeau criticized the immigration enforcement at checkpoints.

“Last night what would have been a routine MPD traffic safety operation was co-opted by federal law enforcement agents,” she said. “Agents who are not trained in D.C. law. Agents who do not know our community. Agents who were not seeking to address traffic safety but rather were interrogating drivers on their immigration status.”

Trump Thursday said that law enforcement using the checkpoints as immigration enforcement was “a great step.”

“I think that’s going to happen all over the country,” the president told reporters at the White House after signing a proclamation celebrating Social Security‘s 90th birthday. “We want to stop crime.”

Violent crime in the district is at a historic 30-year low, according to the Department of Justice.

Eisen called the checkpoints unlawful.

“They’re using it as an immigration control checkpoint,” he said. “That is illegal.” 

Bulldozing camps for homeless people

Homeless camps across the district are also being cleared as part of the president’s directive.

Trump Wednesday signaled that he plans to send a request to Congress for “a relatively small amount of money” to make improvements to the district.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Tuesday that if those people experiencing homelessness don’t agree to go to a shelter, they could face fines or jail.

“The homeless problem has ravaged the city,” Leavitt said. “Homeless individuals will be given the option to leave their encampment, to be taken to a homeless shelter, to be offered addiction or mental health services, and if they refuse, they will be susceptible to fines or to jail time.”

The district has faced a backlog in getting vouchers to those experiencing homelessness, according to Street Sense Media, a news outlet that focuses on reporting on homelessness in the district.

Local police to aid feds on immigration actions

The district’s police chief Thursday issued a new executive order allowing local police to aid federal officials in immigration enforcement for immigrants not in police custody.

The new order does not change the district’s law that prohibits local police from sharing information with federal immigration officials about people in police custody. It’s a policy for which Trump has criticized the city, calling it a “sanctuary city,” but the policy does not bar immigration enforcement.

Trump called Thursday’s executive order “a very positive thing,” especially at checkpoints in the district.

“When they stop people, they find they’re illegal, they report them, they give them to us,” he said.

Since taking office for a second term, the president has intertwined military involvement in immigration enforcement, such as sending thousands of troops to the southern border and deploying thousands of National Guard members to Los Angeles after protests sparked by the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.

More National Guard movements possible

Additionally, the Trump administration is evaluating plans to establish a “Domestic Civil Disturbance Quick Reaction Force” composed of 600 National Guard members to remain on stand-by in order to be quickly deployed to any U.S. city undergoing a protest or other civil unrest within an hour, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post.

On Wednesday, in another new twist, Republican Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee said he’s prepared to send his National Guard members to the district. Lee added that U.S. Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll told him that the military might request states  send troops to the district for law enforcement.

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 generally bars the use of the military for domestic law enforcement purposes.

While the president has stated he also wants to send in National Guard members to other cities – Baltimore, Chicago, New York City and Oakland – all heavily Democratic cities led by Black mayors, like he has done with the district, it can’t be replicated, said Abbe Lowell, a high-profile defense attorney.

“One thing that people need to remember about his assault on the District of Columbia, it is a very unique legal framework because of the Home Rule Act that gives him some ability to do something which he does not have in other states and cities where the governors still have some or the primary control over things like the National Guard,” said Lowell, who was with Eisen on the call with reporters.

A trial is underway this week challenging Trump’s move to federalize California National Guard members, in a suit filed by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, after an appeals court temporarily upheld Trump’s move.

‘Racial undertones’ cited by Baltimore mayor

Baltimore Mayor Brandon M. Scott said Trump’s singling out of those cities, including the district, can’t be ignored.

“Every city that he called out had a Black mayor, and we’re talking about Black-led cities,” he said on the call with Eisen and Lowell. “We cannot overstate the racial undertones here.”

Scott also criticized the Trump administration for pulling federal law enforcement officers – Drug Enforcement Agency, Homeland Security Investigations, FBI, Customs and Border Patrol – from their duties. Instead they are “patrolling neighbors of Washington DC, stopping residents and checking cars instead of doing their actual jobs,” Scott said.

“If the president really wants to help these cities continue to lower violence and crime, he could go back to sending agents to their actual agencies and having them help us work on gun trafficking, work on violent drug organizations, and not taking these agents off to work on this immigration brigade that he’s had them on,” Scott said.

He added that he’s working closely with Maryland Democratic Gov. Wes Moore and “we’ll be prepared to take any legal and any other action that we need to take.”

Moore, who served in the U.S. Army, has criticized the president for calling in the National Guard to the district and raised concerns that service members do not have the same training as police officers.

Trump brushed those concerns off on Thursday.

“They’re trained in common sense,” the president said of National Guard members.

Emergencies

Eisen said Trump’s actions in the district are part of the president’s pattern of invoking “non-emergencies.”

On Inauguration Day, Trump declared a national emergency at the border, despite low levels of immigration.

In March, he invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a wartime law only used three times previously.

Trump’s decision to declare a “crime emergency” in the district earlier this week came after a former U.S. Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, official was injured in an attempted carjacking incident around 3 a.m. Eastern near the Logan Circle neighborhood. Two Maryland teenagers were arrested on charges of unarmed carjacking in connection with the incident.

“Well, what he’s doing in the District of Columbia, including illegal traffic stops, what he’s doing is of a piece with that dictatorial approach,” Eisen said of the president. 

President Franklin D. Roosevelt signs the Social Security Act on Aug. 14, 1935. (Photo by FPG/Archive Photos/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump signed a proclamation celebrating the 90th anniversary of Social Security on Thursday, though he offered no plans for avoiding insolvency and a steep drop-off in benefits within the next decade.

Trump, who campaigned on “saving” the income stabilization program for America’s seniors, said during an appearance in the Oval Office that Republicans would keep the program going.

But neither Trump, nor Republican leaders in Congress, have advanced legislation that would avoid a decrease in Social Security benefits in 2033, or begun to seriously address the issue.

“In the campaign I made a sacred pledge to our seniors that I would always protect Social Security and under this administration we’re keeping that promise and strengthening Social Security for generations to come,” Trump said. “You keep hearing stories that in six years, seven years, Social Security will be gone. And it will be if the Democrats ever get involved because they don’t know what they’re doing.

“But it’s going to be around a long time with us. Very much, you’ll be surprised to hear some of the numbers.”

‘One big, beautiful’ law speeds up fund depletion

The latest Social Security trustees report, released earlier this year, shows that without changes the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance trust fund will no longer be able to pay full benefits starting in 2033. 

“At that time, the fund’s reserves will become depleted and continuing program income will be sufficient to pay 77 percent of total scheduled benefits,” the report states.

Republicans’ “big, beautiful” law will, however, speed up that timeline.

Karen Glenn, chief actuary for the Social Security Administration, wrote in a letter released earlier this month that the lower tax rates in the GOP law will reduce the amount of revenue flowing into the trust fund.

When combined with “increased program cost” associated with the new law, Glenn wrote “the reserve depletion date for the OASI Trust Fund is accelerated from the first quarter of 2033 to the fourth quarter of 2032.”

Bipartisanship needed

Republicans cannot restructure Social Security on their own and will need to negotiate with Democrats in the years to come if lawmakers want to avoid insolvency.

The budget reconciliation process, which GOP lawmakers used to pass their “big, beautiful bill,” cannot be used to address Social Security, making bipartisanship the only path to avoiding a decline in benefits for America’s retirees.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget wrote in a post published Thursday that “solutions are needed soon to prevent insolvency and the statutorily required benefit cut.”

Without a new law to address the financial struggles facing the program, CRFB wrote, a “typical couple retiring just after insolvency will face an $18,400 cut in annual benefits.”

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the law enacting Social Security on Aug. 14, 1935.

Gov. Tony Evers delivers his 2025 state budget address in February. The bipartisan budget Evers signed in July spends down much of Wisconsin's budget surplus. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Wisconsin could be facing a more difficult budget than it has seen in recent years with recently approved spending and tax cuts consuming most of the state’s historic surplus, according to the nonpartisan Wisconsin Policy Forum.

The research organization described the state’s most recent budget as an “all of the above” plan in its recent report. Mark Sommerhauser, communications director and policy researcher at the Wisconsin Policy Forum, said the previous budgets showed more restraint from policymakers when it came to spending and tax cuts. 

“There were some tax cuts, there were some spending increases, but certainly not of the magnitude that could have occurred,” Sommerhauser told the Wisconsin Examiner in an interview. “In this budget, we saw a lot more of both.”

Sommerhauser said it was “clearly a budget that was much more focused on the here and now than on where the state’s finances would be in two or four years.”

“There’s an argument that ‘hey, this money should be returned, either back to taxpayers or spent on programs that benefit our state’s residents, rather than just sitting in the general fund,” Sommerhauser added. “That’s what policymakers opted to do with this budget.”

The $111 billion state budget passed by the state Legislature and signed into law by Gov. Tony Evers in early July increased spending by 7.7% — an increase of $3.3 billion — allocating $46 billion to fund a number of priorities.

The budget also included more than $1 billion in tax cuts over the next two years. 

One major cut comes from a change to Wisconsin’s income tax brackets. The new budget expands the state’s second tax bracket, with a 4.4% tax rate, and shrinks the third bracket, which has a 5.3% rate. Wisconsin residents on average will see a $188 cut per filer — affecting more than 1.5 million tax returns. Sommerhauser described the change as a “modest but still notable income tax cut for almost everybody that has some degree of income tax liability, except those folks that have very, very little.” The change will cost the state about $320 million in each year of the budget.

The second major cut created an exemption from income taxes for the first $24,000 for single filers over 67 and $48,000 in retirement income for married filers over 67.

The new state spending in the budget covers an array of priorities including over $500 million for special education, over $80 million in state general purpose revenue for the University of Wisconsin system, over $380 million for wage increases for state employees and additional funding for child care.

Most Republican lawmakers voted for the budget apart from four Senate Republicans and one GOP Assembly member, celebrating the tax cuts as well as some of the investments in the budget and hailing it as a compromise. Most Democrats voted against the final proposal, saying it inadequately invested in education, child care and other priorities, though five Senate and seven Assembly Democrats joined Republicans in support.

With this budget, the state has now used most of the surplus that has formed the backdrop for the last few budgets. The surplus, Sommerhauser said, was mostly the result of federal pandemic aid and was also created in part by an increase in tax revenue, especially through the sales tax, as a result of inflation. At one point the surplus had grown to over $6 billion. 

“[A large surplus is] not business as usual in Wisconsin,” Sommerhauser said. “More often you see the opposite. You see shortfalls that lawmakers are having to scramble to figure out a way to bridge.”

Sommerhauser said that with the smaller reserves, the next budget is likely “going to be kind of coming back to Earth.”

By July 1 2027, Wisconsin’s general fund balance is projected to be $770.5 million — a drop of about $3.6 billion and the lowest balance since 2018. The state will also have $2.1 billion in its rainy day fund.

This leaves Wisconsin with a projected $2.8 billion in its reserves — about 11% of Wisconsin’s net general fund appropriations in fiscal year 2027, Sommerhauser said.

“That’s certainly not disastrous. It’s not cataclysmic at all. It is more than the state has had in reserve for many years prior to the pandemic,” Sommerhauser said. “Of course, it’s a lot less than the last couple of budgets here.”

Wisconsin isn’t the only state to be on this trajectory. At its annual summit in early August, the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) gave an overview of state budgets and asked whether it is time for states to “tighten the belt.”

Erica MacKellar, program principal of NCSL’s Fiscal Affairs Program, said during the presentation that, overall, states ended fiscal year 2025 in a “fairly strong position.” Looking back to the pandemic, she said state revenues didn’t take as big a hit as they were initially expecting. 

“As states recovered, they unexpectedly saw these big revenue surpluses, and that was due to a number of factors, including the large amount of aid that the federal government sent to states,” MacKeller said. “Revenue growth jumped to around 15%, but states always knew that that level of growth was really unsustainable, and have been really planning for a return to normal of state revenue growth and a revenue slowdown that I think we’re seeing now.” 

MacKeller said that prior to the pandemic, state year-end balances as a percentage of state spending were about 10% on average — an increase from the low of about 4% during the Great Recession.

“In fiscal year 2023, after we saw those record surpluses, that percentage soared to over 30%, and now that number has started to come back down,” MacKeller said. “The preliminary average from our survey shows about 16[%] for fiscal year 2025, so that’s putting most states on pretty firm footing at this point.” 

Sommerhauser said the bigger issue now is that Wisconsin is spending more than it brings in through taxes — creating a projected structural deficit. He said it’s something policymakers will have to grapple with in the coming years.

Under the new budget, the state’s general fund will spend about $24.4 billion and bring in $23.1 billion in tax revenues in 2027. The projected gap “would be one of the largest of the past generation,” according to the Wisconsin Policy Forum.

The state could use the reserves for the additional spending, but it wouldn’t be a long-term solution, Sommerhauser said. 

“The state can do that on a one-time basis if it’s got a bunch of money in the bank, which it does right now,” Sommerhauser said. “The issue with that is that you can only spend that money in the bank one time.”

If spending and revenue remain the same, Wisconsin would have an imbalance of -$727 million and an imbalance of -$1.4 billion by the end of 2028-29, according to the Legislative Fiscal Bureau. 

Sommerhauser noted that unlike the federal government, Wisconsin can’t run a huge deficit year after year. The state constitution requires lawmakers pass and the governor sign a balanced budget.

“The state can do these things, whether it’s drawing money out of reserves or sometimes there are other little tricks that the state can kind of pull out of its hat on a one-time basis,” Sommerhauser said. But, he added, “if your ongoing revenues are significantly out of alignment with your ongoing tax revenues, you’re gonna have a headache to deal with every two years, and you’re setting yourself up to have some really challenging budgets that could eventually make you have to do something really, really painful — whether it’s a big tax increase or some sort of big spending cut.”

Sommerhauser said the Great Recession was the point in recent memory when the state dealt with the greatest budget shortfalls.

“There were some significant tax increases that were put into place in 2009, when we had Democratic controlled state government,” Sommerhauser said. During the 2009-2010 budget (the last time there was a Democratic trifecta), former Gov. Jim Doyle and the Legislature created a new tax bracket of 7.75% on married couples filing jointly with taxable income above $300,000 to help close the budget gap the state was facing. The state’s highest bracket is currently 7.65%.

“You had the big election in 2010 where everything flipped, and then you have Gov. [Scott] Walker and Act 10, and everything happening in 2011 which brought about some really large spending cuts in the state,” Sommerhauser said. At the time, Walker’s administration was projecting the state would have a $3.6 billion deficit and the Republican trifecta took the route of drastically cutting public employee benefits to address it.

“We obviously are hopeful that we’re not going to see a recession again anytime soon… but this is our best sort of attempt to give a sense of what the Legislature might be needing to grapple with in two years,” Sommerhauser said.

The partisan composition of Wisconsin’s state government could also look quite different by the next budget. 

Evers announced that he won’t be running for reelection just a few weeks after wrapping up the 2025-27 state budget, making the 2026 election the first open race since 2010.

The Republican and Democratic fields of candidates are still shaping up. Some of the announced candidates have made comments signaling what they would like to see from a budget. 

Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez, the first Democratic candidate in the race, has said she would invest additional state funding in Wisconsin’s schools. Republican Washington Co. Executive Josh Schoemann has said the recent budget spends too much and is taxing people too much. Republican U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, who is still considering a run, noted the potential deficit on social media when he said that Wisconsin “must change course before we end up like MN and IL.” 

The state Senate and Assembly will also be up for grabs in 2026.

Sommerhauser said it’s likely the next governor and state Legislature could be dealing with a challenging state budget, though it’s still unclear how challenging.  

“If economic growth is really strong for the next two years, we could be in a position where we have a projected shortfall, but it’s quite manageable… That’s kind of the best case scenario,” Sommerhauser said. “Worst case scenario is if we would see a recession in the next couple of years, that could be setting us up for a very challenging budget.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Milwaukee Mayor Cavalier Johnson joins city health department officials on Wednesday, Aug. 13, 2025, to give updates about the flood recovery efforts. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

Milwaukee County continues to process the aftermath of a historic flooding that swept through the area  last weekend. Although much of the flood water, which exceeded 10 inches in some areas, has receded, emergency shelters are still  providing services to people displaced by the extreme weather, and community clean-up efforts continue. 

At a press conference Wednesday, Mayor Cavalier Johnson said residents should call 211 to report property damage, which he called an important  step towards achieving an official disaster declaration, which in turn could provide additional resources. Johnson said local officials continue to work with state and federal partners to access resources from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and noted a recent visit to the city by Gov. Tony Evers. 

“We’re asking for the federal government to do their part and issue some relief to the folks here in Milwaukee with some assistance from FEMA,” Johnson said. The city continues to wait for President Donald Trump’s administration to respond to Milwaukee’s calls for support. Johnson encouraged residents to report downed trees, abandoned vehicles, standing water and to check on neighbors or loved ones. 

The mayor praised Milwaukeeans for “stepping up,” helping senior citizens to clear out basements and  clearing out storm drains. “We really appreciate the efforts of people all across our city who are stepping up to make this a safer place for everybody as we work to get through the aftermath of the storm,”  he said. “We’re a resilient city, we always have been, we always will be, and we will get through this together.”

Johnson was joined by Mike Totoraitis, commissioner of the Milwaukee Health Department. Totoraitis said that calling 211 “is your best connection to resources at this point,” noting that “there are some large wait times on 211 during those peak hours.” Like the mayor, Totoraitis said that calling 211 is also one of the best ways to essentially convince the federal government to send assistance. “We know that many people have lost water heaters, furnaces, furniture, personal effects, there is a lot of damage that has happened,” he said. “Drive through neighborhoods across the city and see just debris and items out on someone’s driveway. So this is a critical moment to get those damage reports in, and then we’re also using that to help prioritize where we’re going to bring additional resources.”

Working with the Red Cross and other partners, Totoraitis said that the city is deploying hundreds of cleaning kits and other supplies. Meanwhile, the health department is monitoring signs of disease. Totoraitis said residents should assume any standing water in the streets or in homes is contaminated with sewage and avoid it. 

The Red Cross has established two shelters, one on the near North Side and another on the South Side, to help people displaced by the flood. Dozens of people sought assistance from the shelters, a Red Cross worker told Wisconsin Examiner. The two locations have recently been consolidated into one shelter now operating out of Marshall High School, according to a Red Cross worker.

On Monday, Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley thanked first responders, Evers, and the National Guard for assisting. “I know this is an incredibly challenging and devastating time for many of our residents, but I’m inspired seeing neighbors helping neighbors, businesses stepping up to support those in need, and the tireless dedication of our first responders and emergency management personnel,” said Crowley. “Milwaukee County is a strong and resilient community, and I know that by coming together, we will persevere.” On Tuesday, Crowley walked through storm-damaged neighborhoods near Brown Deer with officials from the county’s Office of Emergency Management.

On Wednesday, Wisconsin Policy Forum released a report warning that severe flooding could become more frequent. “Over the past 45 years Wisconsin has seen a dramatic increase in damage caused by flooding, as the climate has warmed, extreme rains have become more common, and urban development has continued,” the report states. “Increased flooding in turn has resulted in larger payouts on flood insurance claims, as well as increased federal and state payments for disaster recovery. With projections suggesting that continued climate change will further increase the likelihood of extreme rains, federal, state, and local governments will need to deal with the consequences.” 

The report shows that during the 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s, flood insurance damage claims for property in Wisconsin exceeded $40 million. Severe floods that struck Milwaukee in 2008 caused nearly $50 million in flood insurance damage claims. “Current projections show that the frequency of heavy rain events and the potential for devastating floods will continue to grow over the coming decades,” the report states. “Property owners, along with state and local governments, will be on the hook for the costs of cleaning up and rebuilding after these floods occur. As costs grow, they may begin to stress state and local budgets, especially if state leaders decide to cover a growing share of the rebuilding costs. In addition, there are some questions about the federal government’s long-term commitment to covering these costs, which may push additional costs onto the state.” 

Taking care of each other

Many people are continuing to wrap their minds around the scale of the flood damage. When Evers visited Milwaukee County, he was joined by Rep. Robyn Vining (D-Wauwatosa) on a tour of  the area Vining represents. Wauwatosa produced some of the most dramatic images of flood damage, with most of Hart Park seemingly underwater and overflowing wetlands in the County Grounds natural area. 

Vining said in a statement that “the damage is serious, and the pain across the community is real. Let’s be good neighbors and take care of each other during this difficult time.” 

Anne Tuchelski, a 29-year-old lifelong resident of Milwaukee in the Bay View neighborhood, saw people stepping up to help one another as a summer’s-worth of rain fell in the middle of the night last weekend across Milwaukee. Tuchelski realized something was wrong after her neighborhood’s main intersection was completely flooded. “I’ve never seen it like this,” she told Wisconsin Examiner. “My gutters were just pouring out and just slamming on the pavement…I’ve never seen this before.” 

Tuchelski’s 85-year-old grandmother, who has also lived in Milwaukee for her whole life, had never seen such a storm before either. Tuchelski drove to her grandmother’s house in the middle of the night to check on her. The water was rising dramatically. 

“That was really the kicker, was that it was happening in the middle of the night,” she said. Driving down the darkened, flooded roadways, Tuchelski saw people stranded in their cars. From 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. she used her SUV to offer people rides and to push stalled vehicles out of the water, “helping wherever I could.”

Tuchelski recalled one woman whose car was stranded in floodwater near the freeway. She’d left home to pick up her son, and needed her car to go to work in the morning. Tuchelski tried to get her to understand that her vehicle was flooded, and that the tow truck she’d decided to wait for likely wouldn’t come because of the scale of the disaster. 

“It was just really heartbreaking to see her try to come to terms with the fact that the next day is going to change greatly,” Tuchelski said. She offered her a ride, but the woman refused. “It’s like she wasn’t grasping that nobody can come right now. Everybody’s overwhelmed, everybody’s doing their best, and the car’s gone. And you’re standing in the middle of the intersection at 3 o’clock in the morning. She just couldn’t grasp it, and I ran into multiple people like that who just could not grasp it.”

Another person Tuchelski encountered was in a U-Haul truck attempting to move their things, and seemingly unable to accept that it was all already gone or ruined. “I kept saying to her, ‘You have to leave it,’ and she’s like, ‘My stuff, my stuff,’ and I was like, ‘We can’t. It’s underwater.’ So it was just a repeated thing with people, where they just could not come to terms with leaving their belongings behind for their own survival, and their own well-being.” 

Tuchelski herself lost many family tapes, pictures and dresses in the flood. Tuchelski’s family has lived in Milwaukee for over a century. Her grandmother’s basement is still flooded, and so is Tuchelski’s aunt’s basement. “My grandmother’s home has raised five generations of family,” said Tuckelski. “And just to see things float by and be damaged, it was really heartbreaking … Things that make our family, and have recorded these moments, and have become important to us, just floating by.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

People attend the WorldPride International Rally and March on Washington for Freedom at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., in June. Conservative judges might allow lawmakers to reinstate the practice of conversion therapy, which aims to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of LGBTQ+ people. (Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)

Week after week, a teenage Brandon Long sat through counseling sessions that he said framed his identity as a failure.

Now an ordained minister in northern Kentucky, Long told Kentucky state lawmakers about the years he spent undergoing therapy designed to rid him of his “same-sex attraction.”

“Just imagine yourself being told, session after session, that if you remained as you were, you would be rejected,” he said.

Long testified in February before a Kentucky House committee against a Republican-sponsored bill that would cancel Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear’s 2024 executive order that banned a controversial practice known as “conversion therapy” for minors.

Conversion therapy is a catchall term for controversial efforts to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of LGBTQ+ people. Sometimes called “reparative therapy,” it can range from talk therapy and religious counseling to electrical shocks, pain-inducing aversion therapy and physical isolation.

The bill, Long told lawmakers, “creates a legal shield for conversion therapy, allowing parents to force their children into a practice condemned by every major medical and mental health organization worldwide.”

Kentucky’s Republican-controlled legislature passed the bill, then overrode the governor’s veto in March.

Conversion therapy has been denounced by major medical organizations including the American Medical Association, American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. They say it’s ineffective and harmful and puts LGBTQ+ people at risk for depression, substance use, suicide and other mental health issues.

More than half of states have banned or restricted the practice for underage patients since California became the first to do so in 2012, according to the Movement Advancement Project, a nonprofit research organization that tracks LGBTQ+-related laws and policies.

But political currents are shifting. Conservative majorities in the courts, in state legislatures and at the federal level have reshaped the legal landscape, opening the door for Republican lawmakers and conservative Christian groups to reinstate a practice that has been roundly discredited by the medical community.

In March, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a case challenging Colorado’s 2019 conversion therapy ban on freedom of speech grounds. The decision marks a change from 2017, when the court refused to hear a challenge to California’s ban, and 2023, when it declined to hear a challenge to Washington’s ban.

The high court’s decision, which isn’t expected until next year, could reverse — or solidify — conversion therapy bans across the country.

Last month, a Virginia court partially struck down the state’s 2020 law banning conversion therapy for minors, a win for conservative Christian organizations. GOP lawmakers in Michigan have introduced a bill to repeal the state’s ban. And Missouri‘s Republican attorney general has filed suit to overturn local conversion therapy bans.

On the flip side, in Wisconsin, the state Supreme Court cleared the way earlier this year for the state to permanently ban the practice.

‘The world has changed’

While organized attempts to “cure” homosexuality have been around for centuries, “ex-gay” groups that promised to change a person’s sexual orientation began gaining ground in the 1990s as policy debates arose over same-sex marriage and gay people serving in the military, said Dr. Jack Drescher, a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst in private practice in New York City. He is also a clinical professor of psychiatry at Columbia University whose research has focused on gender and sexuality.

But after Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage in 2004 and more states followed, the influence of conversion therapy proponents waned.

As of this year, 23 states and Washington, D.C., prevent licensed health care providers from subjecting minors to conversion therapy, according to an analysis of state laws by the Movement Advancement Project. Four more states restrict the practice, such as by not allowing public funding to go toward conversion therapy services.

State laws typically levy fines or discipline the professional licenses of practitioners who try to engage minors in conversion therapy. They don’t necessarily prevent clergy or unlicensed counselors from attempting such counseling.

The bans are more of a public statement of acceptance of LGBTQ+ people, rather than a commonly used preventive measure, said Drescher.

“The bans are reinforcements of the belief that if homosexuality is not a mental disorder or disease, there’s no reason to pretend you can treat it, and anybody who tries is acting outside the mainstream of science,” Drescher told Stateline.

The American Medical Association has written model legislation for state lawmakers who want to ban conversion therapy, a reflection of the broad consensus in the medical community that homosexuality and gender nonconformity are not mental illnesses, said R.J. Mills, a representative from the American Medical Association, in a statement to Stateline.

In the past, some leading psychiatric and psychological associations were hesitant to support state restrictions because they saw the laws as intrusions into the doctor-patient or therapist-patient relationship, Drescher said.

Now, spurred by Trump administration policies that place new restrictions on LGBTQ+ people and the most conservative U.S. Supreme Court in generations, medical organizations are growing more vocal in their opposition to conversion therapy.

“The world has changed,” Drescher said. “Everybody understands what’s at stake now.”

Free speech argument

Conservative legal firms have filed lawsuits in states such as Colorado, Michigan and Virginia on behalf of Christian counselors who say the laws prevent them from practicing according to their faith-based values. They say the bans should be repealed so practitioners won’t face losing their careers over providing services informed by their faith.

A Virginia court last month oversaw a consent decree in which Virginia agreed to not fully enforce its 2020 conversion therapy ban and to allow counselors to engage in talk conversion therapy with minors. The plaintiffs in the case were John and Janet Raymond, state-licensed professional counselors in Virginia who were represented by the Founding Freedoms Law Center, an organization that takes on conservative legal causes.

The kind of talk therapy now allowed can involve conversation, prayer and sharing of written materials such as religious scriptures, said Josh Hetzler, the Raymonds’ attorney, during a public news conference following the court decision.

“With this court order, every counselor in Virginia will now be able to speak freely, truthfully and candidly with clients who are seeking to have those critical conversations about their identity, and to hear faith-based insights from trusted professionals,” he said.

Conservative legislators also are citing their Christian faith in their attempts to roll back state bans.

Michigan state Rep. Josh Schriver, a Republican, filed a package of bills last month aimed at repealing a handful of what he calls “anti-Christ laws,” including Michigan’s 2023 ban on conversion therapy for youth.

A legislative aide said Schriver wasn’t available for an interview, and instead referred Stateline to the recent Substack post he emailed to his constituents.

“As legislators, we’re duty-bound to remove statutes that overstep the authority given by our state and federal Constitutions,” Schriver said in the post.

Long, the Kentucky minister, said the bans are needed because “no one enters conversion therapy willingly.”

“The only reason a child would go through it is because a trusted authority in their life — a parent, a pastor or a therapist — has told them that they are broken and need to be fixed.”

At least five states have a law or policy prohibiting or deterring local-level ordinances that aim to protect youth from conversion therapy.

Some states without such laws are going after municipalities that have banned conversion therapy.

Missouri Republican Attorney General Andrew Bailey in February sued Jackson County, Missouri, home to Kansas City, challenging the county’s 2023 ordinance and Kansas City’s 2019 ordinance, both of which ban licensed counselors from engaging in conversion therapy with minors.

“Our children have a right to therapy that allows for honest, unrestricted conversations, free from transgender indoctrination,” Bailey said in a statement in February. He called the ordinances “a dangerous overreach” that violate free speech and religious liberty rights.

A Republican loss

In at least one state, conservatives have hit a legal roadblock.

In Wisconsin, Democratic Gov. Tony Evers’ administration has been trying since 2020 to enact a statewide conversion therapy ban proposed by the state agency that oversees provider licensing.

But the ban has been blocked twice by a Republican-controlled legislative committee.

Evers’ administration sued.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court sided with Evers last month, ruling that the state legislative committee was overreaching and couldn’t block the rule.

Stateline reporter Anna Claire Vollers can be reached at avollers@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.