Duck on the Menominee River | Laina G. Stebbins

State agencies are warning Wisconsinites to limit the amount of ducks that they eat, or to avoid certain birds entirely, due to PFAS contamination. Waterfowl harvested around Green Bay were shown to have high levels of the man-made “forever chemicals,” which persist in the environment forever and have been linked to several chronic diseases including cancers. 

The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and Department of Health Services (DHS) are advising people not to eat mallards from around lower Green Bay from Longtail Point to Point au Sable, and south of the mouth of the Fox River. Additionally, mallards and wood ducks living around Green Bay from the city of Marinette across to Sturgeon Bay should not be consumed frequently — no more more often than once per month for mallards and only one meal per week for wood ducks. 

Back in 2022 levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), another man-made chemical, in waterfowl led to similar advisories in lower Green Bay. Further assessments found concentrations of PFAS in breast muscle tissue, according to a DNR press release. In 2023 and 2024, more samples were taken from ducks, with all samples taken during July and August when the birds were most likely to represent local breeding populations. Those efforts revealed elevated levels of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), which is a type of PFAS, in the breast muscles of the birds. The inquiry suggested that both adult and juvenile ducks in lower Green Bay have higher concentrations of PFOS than in the northern portion of the bay. 

PFAS chemicals were first developed as part of U.S. government nuclear and atomic weapons research during the Manhattan Project. After the project ended private companies, particularly DuPont, began researching the compounds for commercial use. Over the subsequent decades, PFAS was used in products including  non-stick Teflon pans, fast food wrappers, and firefighting foam. The chemicals do not degrade in the environment, nor within the body, and have been linked to cancers and other chronic diseases. 

The DNR tracks PFAS consumption advisories spanning multiple species including deer, fish and waterfowl. On Sept. 4, deer and fish advisories for PFAS were issued for the Town of Stella and surrounding waterbodies in Oneida County. All fish in the Moen Lake Chain were included in a “do not eat” advisory due to PFAS contamination, and a similar warning was distributed against the consumption of deer liver near the Town of Stella.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

An aerial of the the Pentagon, May 12, 2021. (Photo by Air Force Tech. Sgt. Brittany A. Chase)

President Donald Trump signed an executive order Friday to rename the Department of Defense as the Department of War.

Just before Trump signed the order in the Oval Office late Friday afternoon, he and Pete Hegseth, the secretary in charge of the department, who stood next to Trump during the signing, said the renaming reflected their intention to return to a more aggressive mindset for the military.

“It’s restoring, as you’ve guided us to, Mr. President, restoring the warrior ethos,” Hegseth said. “The War Department is going to fight decisively, not endless conflicts. It’s going to fight to win, not not to lose. We’re going to go on offense, not just on defense. Maximum lethality, not tepid legality. Violent effect, not politically correct. We’re going to raise up warriors, not just defenders.”

The text of the order calls “Secretary of War” a “secondary” title for Hegseth. “The Secretary of Defense is authorized the use of this additional secondary title — the Secretary of War — and may be recognized by that title in official correspondence, public communications, ceremonial contexts, and non-statutory documents within the executive branch,” reads the order.

Defense Department history

The Department of War and the Department of the Navy were Cabinet departments from the nation’s founding until 1947, when Congress combined them, along with the Department of the Air Force, into a new National Military Establishment. Congress changed that name to the Defense Department two years later.

Trump said Friday that renaming 76 years ago revealed a “political correctness” in the military that contributed to poorer results on the battlefield. The U.S. has not won a major war since the reorganization, he said.

“We could have won every war, but we really chose to be very politically correct or wokey, and we just fight forever and then, we wouldn’t lose, really, we just fight to sort of tie,” he said. “We never wanted to win wars that every one of them we would have won easily with just a couple of little changes or a couple of little edicts.”

Congress to be asked to act

Because the department’s name came from an act of Congress, it’s unclear if Trump has the power to rename it with an executive order. 

The president said Friday he didn’t know if it would be necessary for Congress to be involved, but that he would ask lawmakers to approve the change.

“I don’t know, but we’re going to find out,” he said when asked if Congress would codify the renaming. “But I’m not sure they have to … There’s a question as to whether or not they have to, but we’ll put it before Congress.”

Trump added that the cost of replacing signage and other materials associated with the department would be minimal.

The order says: “Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of War shall submit to the President, through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, a recommendation on the actions required to permanently change the name of the Department of Defense to the Department of War. This recommendation shall include the proposed legislative and executive actions necessary to accomplish this renaming.”

Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the chair of the Appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over the department who has often clashed with Trump, including on defense spending, said on social media that the name change was not meaningful without greater financial investment. 

“If we call it the Dept. of War, we’d better equip the military to actually prevent and win wars,” the former Senate Republican leader wrote. “Can’t preserve American primacy if we’re unwilling to spend substantially more on our military than Carter or Biden. ‘Peace through strength’ requires investment, not just rebranding.”

Marchers sang protest songs and led "Trump must go now" chants as they walked down 16th Street NW in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 6, 2025 during the "We Are All DC" demonstration against the deployment of National Guard troops in the nation's capital. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Thousands marched in Washington, D.C., Saturday to protest President Donald Trump’s continued deployment of National Guard troops and the increased federal law enforcement on the streets of the nation’s capital.

The large demonstration, dubbed by organizers as the “We Are All DC” march, trailed down the district’s 16th Street NW toward the White House and came after several days of Trump’s heightened threats to send National Guard troops to Chicago, Boston, Baltimore, New Orleans and other Democratic-led cities.

The district’s Democratic attorney general sued the Trump administration Thursday arguing the ongoing presence of National Guard troops amounts to illegal military occupation.

Guard members from the District of Columbia and seven states had already been deployed in Washington as of this week when Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp announced Friday he would add 300 soldiers and 16 support staff, becoming the eighth state to send troops.

On Friday, Trump added Portland, Oregon, to the list of cities where he wants to deploy the Guard.

Demonstrators carried signs bearing the message “End the Occupation,” “Free DC” and “Get the ICE Out,” in reference to recent U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrests in the district.

Marchers walked down H Street NW in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 6, 2025 during the “We Are All DC” demonstration . (Video by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

Dozens of organizations participated in the march, including labor unions, faith-based organizations, immigration advocates, the League of Women Voters D.C. chapter and the D.C. Democratic Party.

Gail Hansen, 71, of Washington, D.C., said she wants to see a decreased ICE presence.

“I believe in freedom, and I think we’ve all gotta let everybody know that what’s happening on our streets is unacceptable,” Hansen told States Newsroom. “ICE needs to go home. The National Guard needs to go home. FBI needs to get out of our streets. We are doing just fine in D.C.” 

Charlotte Stone, 18, of Virginia Beach, Virginia, held a cardboard sign above her head depicting a caricature of Trump with a Hitler mustache and a message that read “Ignoring it is what the Germans did.”

“I’m disgusted with this country, I’m here with my friends, and we’re freshmen at George Washington University, and we’re disgusted. We need to do something about it,” Stone told States Newsroom.

The Washington Metropolitan Police Department released statistics Tuesday claiming overall crime had decreased by 8% in the district over the previous seven days. 

Protesters carry Banksy-style banner depicting a man throwing a sandwich as a nod to former Justice Department employee Sean Dunn, who threw a Subway hoagie at federal agents on Aug. 10 at 14th & U St NW in Washington, D.C. The marchers were part of the “We Are All DC” demonstration on Saturday, Sept. 6, 2025. (Video by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom) 

Trump’s 30-day emergency to federalize law enforcement in D.C. ends Sept. 10. On Tuesday, district Mayor Muriel Bowser announced an agreement with the administration to continue a collaboration between local police and federal law enforcement.

On Saturday morning, Trump posted an AI-generated image of himself with a burning Chicago skyline behind him and a message referring to the 1979 Vietnam War film “Apocalypse Now.” 

He wrote on his platform Truth Social, “‘I love the smell of deportations in the morning…’ Chicago about to find out why it’s called the Department of WAR,” in reference to his unofficial renaming of the Department of Defense on Friday.

A sign is seen outside the FEMA Disaster Recovery Center at Weaverville Town Hall on March 29, 2025 in Weaverville, North Carolina. (Photo by Allison Joyce/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A broadly bipartisan bill to overhaul and elevate the Federal Emergency Management Agency is heading toward the U.S. House floor after a key committee approved the legislation. 

The Transportation and Infrastructure panel voted 57-3 Sept. 3 to advance the measure, which would make dozens of changes to how the federal government prepares for and responds to natural disasters.

“FEMA is where Americans look for help after what is the worst day in their lives, so it is critical that the agency be postured to respond at all times,” said Arizona Democratic Rep. Greg Stanton, one of the co-sponsors. “This bill gives FEMA independence and tools it needs to respond to disaster.”

Republican Reps. Tim Burchett of Tennessee, Eric Burlison of Missouri and Scott Perry of Pennsylvania voted against reporting the bill to the House floor. Their offices didn’t respond to requests for comment asking why they opposed the legislation. 

The 207-page measure, formally called the Fixing Emergency Management for Americans (FEMA) Act of 2025, would remove FEMA from the Department of Homeland Security and make it a Cabinet-level agency.

The legislation would create one application for federal natural disaster assistance from FEMA, the Department of Agriculture, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Small Business Administration. 

It would also give local and state governments more flexibility in deciding which types of emergency housing best meet the needs of their residents following different natural disasters. 

Republicans and Democrats on the committee praised the various changes the measure would make during a two-hour markup that offered an increasingly rare example of bipartisanship on Capitol Hill. 

Donations from charities and FEMA

North Carolina Republican Rep. David Rouzer and California Democratic Rep. Laura Friedman both spoke in support of a provision reversing a policy that they said penalized people who received assistance from charities following a natural disaster. 

“Too many families who accept a donation from a charity or take an SBA loan to keep the lights on find out later that accepting those essential resources prevents them from receiving other assistance later for which they otherwise would be eligible,” Rouzer said. “This bill makes clear that SBA loans and private charitable donations are not considered duplicative for FEMA individual assistance.”

Friedman said she was shocked to learn that FEMA counted charitable donations against disaster survivors following the Los Angeles wildfires.

That led her to introduce the Don’t Penalize Victims Act with Mississippi Republican Rep. Mike Ezell, which was rolled into the FEMA overhaul bill. 

“I want to thank all the members of this committee, and particularly Chair (Sam) Graves and ranking member (Rick) Larsen, for their understanding of the importance of this measure to victims, who were seeing the charity that their churches, that their friends are raising for them be counted as income and deducted from the amount they were getting from FEMA,” Friedman said. 

Oregon Democratic Rep. Val Hoyle spoke in support of making FEMA a Cabinet-level department, saying that it’s been bogged down in the Department of Homeland Security since just after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. 

“After being folded into the Department of Homeland Security, it became buried in layers of bureaucracy,” Hoyle said. “DHS’s sprawling mission — cybersecurity, counterterrorism, immigration enforcement, transportation security and more — has left FEMA less able to act with the speed and agility disaster-stricken communities need.”

Hoyle said the legislation restoring FEMA’s “independence will help insulate disaster relief from” the types of “political pressures” that exist throughout the Homeland Security Department.

Permitting reform

Despite the broadly bipartisan support for the legislation within the committee, it will likely undergo some changes in the weeks and months ahead. 

House Natural Resources Chairman Bruce Westerman, R-Ark., and ranking member Jared Huffman, D-Calif., who both sit on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, raised concerns with elements in the FEMA overhaul bill during the markup. 

Westerman said he voted for the bill but expected the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee’s leadership to work with him to address concerns over “permitting reform issues” that fall under his panel’s jurisdiction. 

“There is one provision on the Endangered Species Act that we have concerns with actually being executable the way it’s written,” Westerman said. “Again, that’s something that’s fixable, and we look forward to working with you as we move forward on the bill.”

Huffman said he had concerns about how the FEMA overhaul bill addresses “environmental review statutes,” which fall under the Natural Resources Committee’s purview. 

“I, of course, share the goal of cutting red tape. We want disaster-stricken families to be able to rebuild faster. There are ways to do that that also ensure that recovery is durable, resilient and sustainable. That we rebuild once. These are things that (the National Environmental Policy Act) helps to ensure. So I look forward to continuing to work with the committee on this as the bill advances. This is a problem that can be fixed, and I hope it will,” Huffman said. 

Potomac River water 

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee members offered just two amendments to the bill — one adopted by voice vote and one withdrawn. 

Indiana Democratic Rep. André Carson received broad support for his amendment to require FEMA to inform members of Congress about grants within their districts, a practice he said has changed during the Trump administration. 

“We should not need to mandate transparency and accountability, but if FEMA fails to provide this information, my amendment codifies the traditional notifications to Congress,” Carson said. 

Democratic Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, who represents the District of Columbia, offered and then withdrew an amendment that would have required FEMA “to submit to Congress a plan to supply emergency drinking water to the nation’s capital region during any period the Potomac River becomes unusable.”

Offering and then withdrawing an amendment is a common way for members to highlight issues without forcing a vote. 

Norton said the Army Corps of Engineers, which is responsible for the city’s water supply, only has sufficient reserves for one day should something happen. 

“If the Potomac River becomes unusable, which could happen at any moment whether through manmade or natural events, it would pose a significant risk to the residents of the nation’s capital, the operations of the federal government, national security and the region’s economy,” Norton said. 

Congress has partially funded a study to identify a backup drinking water supply and additional water storage facilities. But, Norton said, “any solution is years away.”

A pharmacy advertises COVID-19 testing and vaccinations on Sept. 4 in the Brooklyn borough of New York City. Several states, including New York, are breaking with restrictive eligibility policies the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has imposed on newly approved COVID-19 vaccines for the fall season. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Several states, including Colorado, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York and Pennsylvania, announced this week that they would be breaking with restrictive eligibility policies unveiled last week by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on the newly approved COVID-19 vaccines for the fall season.

In New York, Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul signed an executive order Friday morning to authorize pharmacists to provide the shot to anyone who desires it for the next 30 days, which can be renewed.

“When they said that they are not going to be requiring COVID shots and other vaccinations for our families, I said, ‘No, here in New York we will make parents have the option.’ If you want your child to have a COVID shot, it should be available to you and it should be covered by insurance,” Hochul said during a news conference Friday morning, where she signed the order.

“So what I’m doing now is signing an executive order, because extreme times call for extreme measures. And this is the power I have to use in the interim until we are able to have the legislature get back in January and pass legislation that mandates this.”

Previous FDA policy recommended that COVID-19 vaccine booster shots be made available to anyone 6 months or older regardless of their health status. But in August, the federal agency announced restrictions for the new shot.

The FDA limited access to the vaccines to people who are 65 and older and to younger people with at least one underlying health condition, such as asthma or obesity, that would put them at risk of developing a severe illness without a booster shot. Children are eligible only if a medical provider is consulted. Additionally, the Pfizer vaccine, one of the three that were approved, will no longer be available for any child under 5.

“The American people demanded science, safety, and common sense. This framework delivers all three,” U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wrote on social media platform X on Aug. 27.

Other states are also taking measures to ensure more people can get access to the vaccines.

On Thursday, Massachusetts Democratic Gov. Maura Healey ordered health insurers in the state to continue covering the vaccine. The state also issued an order to allow pharmacies to continue providing shots to residents above the age of 5.

Massachusetts is “leading efforts to create a public health collaboration with states in New England and across the Northeast committed to safeguarding public health as the federal government backs away from its responsibilities,” the governor’s office said in a release.

This week, the State Board of Pharmacy in Pennsylvania held a special meeting to vote to bypass federal vaccine recommendations and allow pharmacists to continue administering COVID-19 vaccines.

“Health care decisions should be up to individuals — not the federal government and certainly not RFK Jr. My Administration will continue to protect health care access for all Pennsylvanians,” Pennsylvania Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro said.

Colorado and New Mexico took similar steps this week, with state officials signing public health orders asking state agencies to take steps necessary to require insurers to cover the vaccines and instructing pharmacists to provide the shots without a doctor’s note.

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

Jimmy Novy, 77, hangs onto a canopy to hold himself up July 29, 2025, in Hillsboro, Wis. Novy is one of 312 permanently and totally disabled individuals in Wisconsin and has been collecting worker’s comp checks from the state since his injury in his late 20s. (Photo by Joe Timmerman/Wisconsin Watch)

Jimmy Novy grew up on a farm with corn, cattle and chickens in Wisconsin’s smallest municipality. Yuba, in the Driftless Area northwest of Madison, covers a third of a square mile. Novy correctly quotes its population in the last census: 53.

In 1967, at age 19, married with a child, Novy got a job at the Rayovac plant in nearby Wonewoc. It made batteries used in walkie-talkies in the Vietnam War.

In his late 20s, Novy learned he had been exposed to manganese, a key component in batteries. He suffered neurological problems that affected his left leg, severely limiting his ability to walk or even maintain his balance.

“The nerves from the brain to my leg, they can’t do nothing about that,” he said.

With four children to raise, Novy turned to Wisconsin’s first-in-the-nation worker’s compensation system. After three years of legal back-and-forth, the state agreed that Novy was permanently and totally disabled (PTD), meaning he was among the worst-off of Wisconsin workers injured on the job. As a result, he qualified for worker’s comp checks for life.

But there was no guarantee of how often those checks would increase.

Now 77, widowed, remarried and using hearing aids and a cane, Novy hasn’t seen an increase in his $1,575 monthly worker’s compensation check — nor have the other more than 300 other PTD recipients — since 2016.

“I can’t make it,” Novy told Wisconsin Watch in mid-July. “I got $8 left in my checkbook right now to last me through the last week of the month.”

“The wife buys food and stuff, otherwise I’d be starving to death,” he added.

Had Novy’s worker’s comp payment kept pace with inflation, which rose 34%, he would have received nearly $21,000 more over the past nine years, according to calculations by University of Wisconsin-Madison economist Menzie Chinn.

Meanwhile, Wisconsin employers have seen their premiums for worker’s compensation insurance decrease 10 years in a row, saving them $206 million in the past year and over $1 billion since 2017, according to the Wisconsin Hospital Association, which is part of the state Worker’s Compensation Advisory Council.

Twenty-three states, including Illinois, Michigan and Minnesota, provide automatic cost-of-living raises for PTD recipients. In Wisconsin, raises have been provided only when they are included in a wide-ranging worker’s compensation “agreed bill,” proposed every two years, and only if the bill becomes law.

That moment might be at hand.

The advisory council has recommended raises for PTD recipients in the next agreed bill, which is being drafted.

The bill still has to be approved by the Republican-controlled Legislature and signed by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers.

Making history, creating PTD raises

In 1911, Wisconsin became the first state to adopt a comprehensive worker’s compensation law that was upheld as constitutional. Before that, the burden was on the worker to prove that a job injury was the employer’s fault. Now it’s a no-fault system. Workers injured on the job can receive regular payments based on their salary, plus coverage of medical bills to treat their injuries.

Wisconsin’s system has received high marks for getting injured workers back on the job quickly and for worker satisfaction in health care for their injuries.

The money for worker’s compensation checks comes from worker’s compensation insurance companies and from employers who are self-insured for worker’s comp. No tax dollars are involved.

About 21,000 people annually receive Wisconsin worker’s comp checks, the vast majority of them for a temporary period. Only about 500 people receive PTD benefits, and only 300 of them, like Novy, are eligible for raises.

That’s because the 2016 agreed bill limits raises, known as supplementary benefits, only to PTD recipients injured before Jan. 1, 2003.

How PTD raises are decided

The process that determines whether PTD raises are granted is not unlike the bargaining that an employer and a union do to reach a contract. Both sides have priorities, and there is horse trading and eventually compromise, at least on some issues.

The Worker’s Compensation Advisory Council is composed mainly of five representatives from management and five from organized labor, though it also includes nonvoting members representing insurance, health care and the Legislature.

Every odd year, the council develops a bill proposing multiple changes to worker’s comp. The process typically takes months of negotiations, said John Dipko, the council’s non-voting chair and administrator of worker’s compensation for the state Department of Workforce Development.

If approved by the Legislature and the governor, the bill becomes law the next year.

That process has produced 11 PTD raises since 1972. The 2016 raise put the maximum PTD payment at $669 per week.

‘The most severely changed’

Circumstances have left PTD recipient Scott Meyer better off financially than Novy, but delays in raises have forced Meyer to dip into savings and, as his health conditions worsen, worry about the future.

Meyer grew up outside of Milwaukee, playing in the woods and farm fields of rural Washington County. He was a member of the hockey team at West Bend West High School.

In 1993, at age 19, Meyer was working on a loading dock when a co-worker backing a semi-trailer pinned Meyer between the trailer and the dock. Meyer closed his eyes and tried to remain calm, thinking his right leg was broken.

“One of the paramedics in the ambulance thought that I was unconscious and said to the other paramedic that this was going to be his first fatality call,” Meyer recalled. “And I immediately then knew that something more major had happened.”

Meyer underwent multiple surgeries, spent more than a year in the hospital and dropped to under 100 pounds. He was left a paraplegic.

Though unable to work, Meyer became an Alpine skier in Colorado, where he now lives, competing in the 2014 Paralympics in Sochi, Russia.

Meyer, 51, said he receives about $2,300 per month from worker’s compensation – nearly $370 per month less than what he was paid on the job in 1993.

Meyer, who owns a condominium with his wife, a mental health therapist, said he has been able to live comfortably only by preserving savings, including from a one-time payout he received from his former employer for his injury. But with no raises in nine years, he has had to dip into savings to get by.

Earlier this year, both Novy in an email and Meyer in a video asked the Worker’s Compensation Advisory Council to recommend raises for PTD recipients.

“These are people whose lives are the most severely changed and are legitimately dependent upon these funds,” Meyer told Wisconsin Watch. “We’re talking about pennies on the dollar to the kind of money that is in the system.”

The process that results in PTD raises involves negotiations on a variety of worker’s compensation issues. That has made the road to another raise rocky in recent years.

Delayed raises and a possible breakthrough

The Worker’s Compensation Advisory Council’s agreed bill for 2018 would have raised the maximum weekly PTD payment to $711 from $669 and made more PTD people eligible for raises. But the bill also proposed a “fee schedule,” generally opposed by health care organizations, to limit how much health care providers can charge for worker’s comp care. The bill did not pass the Legislature.

Since then, the labor side of the advisory council continued to propose PTD raises, while the management side continued to seek a fee schedule. Wisconsin is one of only a handful of states without one. The two sides did not agree to include PTD raises in their 2020, 2022 and 2024 agreed bills.

A key barrier was cleared when a fee schedule for worker’s comp was included in the 2025-27 state budget adopted in July.

Days later, the advisory council proposed raises for current PTD recipients and made more PTD recipients eligible for raises.

Under the 2026 agreed bill, the injury date for PTD recipients to be eligible for raises would change from Jan. 1, 2003, to Jan. 1, 2020 — making an estimated 210 more people eligible for raises.

The bill would also raise the maximum weekly benefit for PTD recipients to $1,051 from $669 effective Jan. 1, 2026.

And it would add raises each Jan. 1, though those amounts would not be set until shortly before they become effective.

For individuals, the raise amounts would vary based on when they were injured.

For example, a PTD recipient injured in 1985 and receiving $535 a week would get a 57% increase to $840. The increase would amount to nearly $16,000 per year.

Once it’s drafted, the new agreed bill would need a final vote from the advisory council, which is expected in September. Then the bill would be submitted to the labor committees of the state Senate and Assembly.

Council management representatives didn’t reply to calls and emails requesting comment. Wisconsin AFL-CIO President Stephanie Bloomingdale, the lead labor representative, said she understands the frustration over delayed raises. But she said the advisory council system, with management and labor hashing out worker’s compensation issues, provides stability.

Without it, “it would be up to the Legislature, and the whims of the political winds would determine the policy,” she said.

Dipko, the DWD administrator, said the department is sympathetic.

“We agreed that an increase is overdue,” he said.

After waiting this long, Novy isn’t sure what to think. He’s happy he and wife share a $125,000 brick house they own “with the bank,” as he puts it, and for his monthly $1,635 Social Security check, which increases each year. But he has filed for bankruptcy three times, most recently in 2020. He feels that at this stage of his life, he should be more secure, and a raise in worker’s comp would help.

“The Legislature should be — forget Republican, Democrat — just vote for what’s good,” he said.

“I can’t see how come they can’t give us a little raise every year,” he added.

This article first appeared on Wisconsin Watch and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.  To republish, go to the original and consult the Wisconsin Watch republishing guidelines.

Union workers in Rhode Island protest a Trump administration stop-work order at an offshore wind farm under construction in August. Friday's jobs report shows the fewest gains in August since 2010. (Photo by Laura Paton/Rhode Island Current)

The United States added only 22,000 jobs in August, and previously reported gains in June were revised down to a loss of 13,000 jobs in a Bureau of Labor Statistics report issued Friday morning.

The August jobs increase was the lowest for that month since 2010 in the aftermath of the Great Recession. June’s decrease was the first jobs loss since a December 2020 COVID-19 surge shuttered restaurants and hotels.

A recent Stateline analysis showed that Virginia and New Jersey may be among the states most affected by recent hiring slowdowns, based on surveys and layoff reports, while California and Texas appeared to continue job gains.

Job openings fell to a 10-month low in July, according to a separate government report issued Sept. 3, and there were more unemployed people than jobs available for the first time since 2021.

Last month’s revisions to the jobs report enraged President Donald Trump when they first appeared Aug. 1. The revisions showed the nation had 258,000 fewer jobs than initially reported in May and June.

In response, Trump declared the numbers were wrong, fired the Bureau of Labor Statistics chief, Erika McEntarfer. He offered as a replacement E.J. Antoni, a loyalist who has proposed suspending the jobs report entirely. Trump falsely said in a Truth Social post at the time that the revised jobs numbers were “RIGGED in order to make the Republicans, and ME, look bad.”

Friday’s report showed August job losses in business and professional services (-17,000), government (-16,000), manufacturing (-12,000), wholesale trade (-11,700) and construction (-7,000), but gains in health care and social assistance (+46,800) and hospitality (+28,000).

The unemployment rate in August ticked up to 4.3%, from 4.2% in July and 4.1% in June. It increased the most for people with less than a high school diploma, up from 5.5% in July to 5.7% in August.

Unemployment ticked up for Black workers (to 7.5% from 7.2%) and Hispanic workers (to 5.3% from 5.0% in July). The rate went down for Asian workers (to 3.6% from 3.9%) and remained the same for white workers at 3.7%.

Editor’s note: This story was updated to add details about changes in industry job numbers and the unemployment rate.

Stateline reporter Tim Henderson can be reached at thenderson@stateline.org.

A 3-year-old girl gets an MMR vaccine at a clinic in Texas in March. Texas was among the states with the most public funding grants canceled by the Trump administration earlier this year. (Photo by Jan Sonnenmair/Getty Images)

After the Trump administration slashed billions in state and local public health funding from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention earlier this year, the eventual impact on states split sharply along political lines.

Democratic-led states that sued to block the cuts kept much of their funding, while Republican-led states lost the bulk of theirs, according to a new analysis from health research organization KFF.

The uneven fallout underscores how politics continues shaping health care in the United States. The nearly 700 CDC grants were worth about $11 billion and had been allocated by Congress during the COVID-19 pandemic. Since then, state and local health departments had spent or planned to spend the money not just on COVID-related efforts, but also on prevention of other infectious diseases, support for mental health and substance use, shoring up aging public health infrastructure, and other needs.

The CDC grant terminations initially affected red and blue states about evenly, according to KFF. California, the District of Columbia, Illinois and Massachusetts — all led by Democrats — had among the largest numbers of terminated grants.

But then nearly two dozen blue states and the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration in April, asking the court to block the grant terminations. They argued the federal government lacked the authority to rescind funding it had already allocated.

“The Trump administration’s illegal and irresponsible decision to claw back life-saving health funding is an attack on the well-being of millions of Americans,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James in an April statement announcing the lawsuit.

“Slashing this funding now will reverse our progress on the opioid crisis, throw our mental health systems into chaos, and leave hospitals struggling to care for patients.”

A federal judge sided with the blue states and blocked the cancellations  — but she limited her injunction to the jurisdictions that filed in the lawsuit.

Nearly 80% of the grant cuts have now been restored in blue states, according to the KFF analysis, compared with less than 5% in red states.

Now four of the five states with the most canceled grants are led by Republicans: Georgia, Ohio, Oklahoma and Texas. California, which is dominated by Democrats, kept all of its grants that had been initially terminated.

In the West and Midwest, Democratic-led Colorado — which joined the lawsuit — had 10 of its 11 grant terminations reversed. Its Republican-led neighbors that did not sue, including Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming, lost all of their grants, according to the KFF analysis.

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to correct the photo caption. Stateline reporter Anna Claire Vollers can be reached at avollers@stateline.org

A man waits for health care at a temporary health clinic in Terre Haute, Ind. President Donald Trump’s new tax and spending law will likely force more than half the states to reduce payments to doctors and hospitals that treat Medicaid patients, a change critics warn could reduce health care options for people in rural areas. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

President Donald Trump’s new tax and spending law will likely force more than half the states to reduce payments to doctors and hospitals that treat Medicaid patients, a change critics warn will be particularly harmful to rural hospitals struggling to stay afloat.

Medicaid, the joint state-federal health insurance program for low-income people, reimburses doctors, hospitals and nursing facilities for treating enrollees. But in many cases, the program doesn’t fully cover the cost of care, straining providers that serve a large share of Medicaid patients.

To help providers cover losses and continue to serve poorer populations, the federal government allows the 41 states, plus the District of Columbia, that have contracted with Medicaid managed care organizations (MCOs) to run their Medicaid programs to direct them to pay providers more — in some cases, as much as commercial plans.

Ultimately, taxpayers cover the costs of these so-called state directed payments — and those costs are growing. As of August 2024, the higher payments were projected to add $110.2 billion per year to Medicaid spending, nearly 60% more than the previous year’s projection.

That higher spending attracted the attention of conservatives on Capitol Hill.

Beginning in 2028, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act will cap the payments, forcing state Medicaid programs to reduce reimbursement rates by 10 percentage points each year until they reach either 100% or 110% of what Medicare pays. States that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act would be capped at the lower rate.

The new law will reduce Medicaid spending by $149 billion over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and reduce Medicaid provider payments in as many as 31 states, according to KFF, a health policy research group. A separate analysis by The Commonwealth Fund, another research group, found that Medicaid payments to hospitals would drop by at least 20% in 19 of the 25 states that had publicly available data.

Critics say the change could be disastrous for hospitals, many of them in rural areas, that see a large share of Medicaid patients.

“This is all on top of an already pretty strained financial situation for rural hospitals,” Alexa McKinley Abel, director of government affairs and policy at the National Rural Health Association, a group representing rural health care providers, said in an interview. “We are worried about seeing service line closures at hospitals in an environment where OB-GYN and chemotherapy service lines are already being cut.”

Covering the cost of care

Supporters of the change say the extra payments inflate federal spending on the Medicaid program, giving hospitals “windfall profits.”

“Not only do these programs sidestep the truly needy on Medicaid and favor special interests instead, but all this is financed by growing the federal debt, leading to inflation and higher interest rates for all Americans,” the Paragon Health Institute, a conservative think tank that helped draft the bill, stated in a policy brief.

Hospital leaders dispute that. Earlier this year, the American Hospital Association asserted that without the extra payments, Medicaid managed care organizations in 2023 only covered about two-thirds of the actual cost of care.

Cindy Samuelson, senior vice president of the Kansas Hospital Association, said the additional payments are especially critical in a rural state such as Kansas, where some researchers have found that 87% of rural hospitals are in the red. Kansas is one of 10 states that did not expand Medicaid, and like other nonexpansion states, it will have to begin reducing direct payments to 110% of what Medicare pays starting in 2028.

“Over time, commercial payers are paying less and less,” Samuelson said. “Many hospitals in our state are at risk of closure.”

Samuelson said that in rural areas, health care providers see fewer patients, which makes it hard to spread out the cost of care and make up for losses that come from serving underinsured, Medicaid and Medicare patients. One result is that rural hospitals are trimming services. A report published this year by Chartis, a health care consulting firm, found that between 2011 and 2023, nearly 300 rural hospitals across the country stopped offering obstetrics care, and 424 rural hospitals ceased chemotherapy services.

In Hutchinson, Kansas, Benjamin Anderson, CEO of the rural and community-owned Hutchinson Regional Health System, said his hospital barely broke even this year, and lower Medicaid payments will take a toll. The 190-bed hospital serves more than 65,000 people in the central Kansas region, and sees a lot of patients who are struggling with mental health issues and substance use disorders.

“We are closely managing our workforce expenses. We’re going to be relying more heavily on philanthropy,” Anderson said, adding that the hospital wouldn’t lay off staff but would reduce the number of workers by not filling open positions.

He said his hospital has some cash reserves that should enable it to keep going, but that many other rural hospitals lack such a cushion.

“When we think about the cuts to Medicaid, it isn’t simply about cutting services to the poor. It’s threatening services to everyone, because in a rural community, we all get care in the same place,” he said. “If we cut out the safety net that’s sustaining these hospitals, everyone’s health care is threatened.”

Searching for answers

Three hours northeast of Hutchinson is the rural town of Holton, where about 3,400 people live. Holton Community Hospital is a 14-bed critical access hospital, meaning that it provides emergency care around the clock for a rural community. For the past two years, it has been struggling, according to Carrie Lutz, the hospital’s CEO.

Lutz said the hospital is not part of a broader health care group, and it relies on philanthropy and local taxes. Due to financial strains, it’s in the process of selling off its home and hospice services to another health care facility. The cap on extra payments will be an additional barrier, she said.

Samuelson said Kansas is applying for money under the five-year, $50 billion Rural Health Transformation Program, which Congress added to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act amid concerns about its impact on rural hospitals. She expects Kansas to get at least $500 million between 2026 and 2030.

Rural hospitals in Mississippi also hope to tap into those funds. The Mississippi Hospital Association, which is advising state leaders on their application, said it expects Mississippi to get at least $500 million over the next five years.

Like Kansas, Mississippi did not expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care, a decision that deprived it of additional Medicaid patients and thus extra revenue.

“A few years ago, we had several rural hospitals that were facing some imminent closure challenges, and so our enhanced supplemental payment based on the average commercial rate has been a lifeline,” said Richard Roberson, president and CEO of the Mississippi Hospital Association.

“What we’re concerned about is that when those payments start to decrease, then we’re going to be right back to where we were in 2022, with concerns about rural hospitals again.”

Roberson said Medicaid, with the additional payments, had become “one of the best payers, if not the best payer, for our hospitals over the last two years,” and helped a lot of hospitals stay out of the red.

He said the new rural health care fund is promising, but noted that Mississippi will decide where to spend any money it gets, and some rural hospitals might miss out.

“We want to make sure we’re working with the state to provide sustainable solutions, not one-time fixes,” Roberson said. “The big wild card is the Rural Health Transformation fund and what the state chooses to do with that money.”

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

LeVar Wilson, a Milwaukee glazer, describes how a project labor agreement that included requirements for local hiring made it possible for him to learn his trade and build a career. A bill to repeal a state ban on project labor agreements is part of a "Build a Stronger Wisconsin" package that Democratic lawmakers proposed Thursday. (Photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner)

Democrats in the state Legislature began circulating draft legislation Thursday that they said would strengthen the state’s economy by supporting workers and undoing policies that undercut union-represented employees.

The package includes four bills: restoring Wisconsin’s prevailing wage law, repealing a ban on project labor agreements, repealing the state’s “right to work” law, and strengthening laws against wrongly classifying employees as independent contractors.

“We know that these are popular policies that the people of Wisconsin need to be able to thrive in our state,” said Assembly Minority Leader Greta Neubauer (D-Racine) at a press conference in the Assembly chamber Thursday morning. “We  have all 60 members of the Assembly Democrats and the Senate Democrats signed onto these bills.”

A crowd of union members and supporters occupied the Assembly, packed in rows where the body’s leaders usually sit as well as bunched throughout the seats that lawmakers typically use during floor sessions.

One draft bill would undo Wisconsin’s “right-to-work” law enacted during former Gov. Scott Walker’s second term. The law bars employers and unions from requiring in their labor contracts that all union-represented employees pay union dues or fees to cover the union’s operational expenses.

Sen. Mark Spreitzer (D-Beloit) said the law “allows private sector workers to benefit from union protections without paying their share of union dues.” Spreitzer recalled he was in his first Assembly term when the measure was enacted in 2015 and spoke twice against it during an all-night floor session.

“Under federal law, unions are required to represent all employees in a workplace, but right-to-work laws like Wisconsin’s allow non-dues paying employees to receive the benefits of belonging to a union — such as bargain contracts for higher wages and union representation in employment disputes —without having to pay union dues,” Spreitzer said.

“That is not fair. It is well past time to return to the requirement that every union represented worker pays their dues for that privilege in Wisconsin,” he added.

Nurse Colin Gillis, a member of SEIU Wisconsin, called the law’s name “a misnomer.” Union members deride such laws as “right-to-work for less” because they tend to weaken wage gains, he said.

Right-to-work laws were first enacted in the segregated South after World War II. “Right-to-work laws were designed to divide and conquer and prevent us from joining together and increase living standards for working families from all races and backgrounds,” Gillis said. “Repealing ‘right to work for less’ will give me and my union siblings back the freedom to organize.”

A second bill would repeal another Walker-era law, enacted in 2017, that bars state and local governments from requiring contractors on public works projects to sign a project labor agreement with relevant unions. It also forbids government bids that require the bidder to have a union contract.

“Repealing the ban on project labor agreements, or PLAs, gives power to local and state governments to utilize a tool that would streamline the building process for public construction projects,” said Rep. Joan Fitzgerald (D-Fort Atkinson).

LeVar Wilson, a journeyman glazer represented by the Painters Union in Milwaukee, said he got his start as an apprentice 25 years ago when the Milwaukee baseball stadium, then known as Miller Park, was being built. The stadium project labor agreement guaranteed a percentage of jobs would go to Milwaukee County residents.

“I was one of those workers hired under this provision,” Wilson said. “It led me to a sustainable career that’s allowed me to raise a family of four without the struggle of poverty that I went through when I was a child.”

A third bill would increase enforcement and penalties for businesses that misclassify workers as independent contractors.

State Rep. Christine Sinicki (D-Milwaukee) said that when employers misclassify workers, they dodge state and federal payroll taxes, evade minimum wage laws and overtime payment requirements, and don’t pay into the worker’s compensation and unemployment insurance programs.

“By avoiding these costs, dishonest employers often successfully undercut their competitors with very low bids,” Sinicki said. “In this way, misclassification harms the law-abiding employers and their employees and also the taxpayers who have to pick up the slack.”

The draft bill would increase the penalties for lawbreakers and expand outreach both to contractors and the public about misclassification.

The legislation would “level the playing field for business owners like us, who play by the rules,” said Larry Statz, a second-generation union painting contractor with 30 employees who said that he’s seen more contractors misclassify employees in recent years.

“We refuse to break the law or shortchange our workers. But it’s getting harder to compete with dishonest companies who cut corners,” Statz said. “State laws on misclassification do not have enough teeth in them, and these cheating companies too often avoid being caught.”

The fourth bill would reinstate Wisconsin’s prevailing wage law, which set a standard for what workers on state and local government projects are paid. The prevailing wage law was repealed in the state budget Walker signed in 2017.

State Sen. Bob Wirch (D-Somers) said Republican lawmakers who voted to repeal the law “promised it would save the taxpayers money. Well, the opposite has happened.”

A study published in 2020 by the Midwest Economic Policy Institute found that  in the years that followed the repeal, construction workers’ wages fell by about $2,600 a year and highway construction costs increased.

At the time the report was published, a co-author, economist Kevin Duncan, said that the findings “underscore the longstanding academic consensus” that doing away with prevailing wage requirements leads to a lower-skilled, lower-wage workforce and doesn’t save money.

“Instead, it creates new inefficiencies in the form of workforce turnover, quality, cost overruns and safety problems,” Duncan said in a news release announcing the report. 

Senate Minority Leader Dianne Hesselbein (D-Middleton) said she has sought to persuade GOP Senate Majority Leader Devin Le Mahieu (R-Oostburg) to pursue bipartisan lawmaking.

“I do not know if the Senate Republicans have caucused on any of these measures, but I’d encourage them to do so,” Hesselbein said.

Neubauer said the Assembly Democrats would continue advocating for the measures, but also tacitly acknowledged that they might not advance until after the 2026 election — when Democratic leaders are hoping to flip one or both chambers.

“We will continue pushing for them as long as it takes,” Neubauer said of the bills. “And if that’s next session, so be it.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Children in an elementary school classroom. (Getty Images photo)

Gov. Tony Evers is on a back-to-school tour, visiting classrooms around the state and touting the budget deal he recently struck with Republicans after declaring 2025 the “Year of the Kid.” Evers “proudly signed a pro-kid, bipartisan state budget into law earlier this summer that invests nearly $1.4 billion in spendable revenue for K-12 schools,” according to a press release from his office celebrating Back to School Week.

You would never know from that announcement that the amount of new general aid schools receive from the state in the current, two-year budget cycle is exactly zero. Or that, as a result, about 70% of school districts across the state are starting the year with less money in the budget than they got in the last, austerity-level biennial budget deal. 

True, the budget includes a total of about $500 million in special education funding, with the state increasing the share of special ed costs it covers from less than 30% to 42% in the first year and 45% of costs in the second year. As Evers’ office puts it, that’s “the largest increase to the special education reimbursement rate in state history.” But it follows decades of decline and amounts to significantly less than the 60% rate reached under former Gov. Tommy Thompson, and which Evers originally proposed. And the zeroed-out general aid from the state seriously undermines the impact of those long-awaited special education funds. 

The lion’s share of the $1.4 billion in “spendable revenue” Evers is celebrating comes in the form of increased taxing authority the state gave to local school districts — meaning the amount by which they are allowed to raise local property taxes to cover their costs. But local property taxpayers are getting weary of the constantly increasing demand on them to pay more for schools, and local school officials are dismayed that the state did so little to take on some of that cost.

Since special education is a federally mandated expense, the state’s shrinking reimbursement rate has taken a heavy toll on all school programs. For years, schools across Wisconsin have had to cut art, music, sports and other programs to pay a larger and larger share of special ed expenses. That’s why, at budget hearings throughout the state, so many people showed up to say a top priority for the new budget was an increase in the state’s share of special ed. 

“But never did anyone in those budget hearings come to the mic and say, ‘you should either give us general aid or special ed funding,” says Heather DuBois Bourenane, director of the Wisconsin Public Education Network, a statewide group that lobbies for public schools.

DuBois Bourenane says she’s already been getting calls asking her to help local communities put together springtime referendum campaigns asking local property taxpayers for more money on top of what the budget allows them to raise — something that’s never before happened this early in the year. She predicts another record-breaking year of school referendum efforts. Meanwhile, “we’re hearing in some districts they’re afraid to use the authority because local taxes are so high,” she says. “They’re talking about cuts.”

“It’s scary,” she adds. “The belt-tightening is going to be really bad.”

Advocates and school leaders had high hopes that Evers, a former science teacher and state superintendent, would fight to adequately fund public schools. Determined to get a deal, and negotiating with Republicans who seemed all too willing to let schools starve, Evers got what he felt was the best deal he could. And now he’s selling that deal as a good one. But the victory lap is misleading. Public school leaders across the state say the budget leaves teachers, students and local taxpayers in a bad situation. 

“Allowing an increase is one thing — paying for it is another,” LaCrosse News8000.com TV reporter Allyson Fergot explained in a story on how the state budget leaves schools strapped. “This summer lawmakers opted not to fund [a per pupil school funding] increase with state money, so if districts want it, they’ll have to raise district property taxes.”

“The state of Wisconsin currently has a $4.2 billion surplus, but no new general state aid has been provided to help schools meet rising costs,” Madison Metropolitan School District Superintendent Joe Gothard told Wisconsin Public Radio.

How did this happen?

During the budget debate, it was clear that Republicans were outraged by Evers’ line-item veto of the 2023-25 state budget, which extended a provision that increased the amount by which school districts could raise property taxes for the next 400 years.

In retaliation, Republicans promised that there would be no new state aid for schools in the current budget. And they stuck to their word. Wisconsin kids, not Evers, will pay the price of that maneuver. Clearly, it didn’t pay off. 

“It did real harm,” DuBois Bourenane says of Evers’ 400-year-veto. “This was a spite budget. It was petty.” And it wasn’t worth it: The amount of the increase Evers locked in for the next four centuries, at $325 per kid, didn’t even cover inflation. Overall, spending on schools in Wisconsin hasn’t kept pace with inflation for nearly two decades.

“We’re about a little over $3,000 short per kid just because of inflation over the past years,” Cochrane-Fountain City Superintendent Troy White told News8000.com

Could Evers have held out for a better deal? DuBois Bourenane thinks so. She was impressed by the massive public outpouring of support for schools at budget hearings, and the way public pressure helped shape bipartisan consensus on the need to support schools, take the burden off property taxpayers and increase state funding for special ed.

“And schools still came out with nothing,” she says.

When you add in the massive increases in funding for private schools through the state’s voucher programs, the outlook at the start of this school year is grim.

As the state mulls whether to accept a federal voucher program that has the potential to turbocharge the already rapidly expanding system of taxpayer-supported private schools, the Wisconsin Public Education Network is launching a voucher transparency project this month, to help taxpayers get a clear picture of how much they are spending on school vouchers on their property tax bills.

Meanwhile, “everyone should call their legislators and give them the numbers on how much less their districts are coming back to school with,” says DuBois Bourenane. “We need more leaders to do what they can with the leverage they can to fix this.”

Correction: An earlier version of this column misstated the special education reimbursement rate under former Republican Gov. Tommy Thompson.

Members of the National Guard stationed outside Union Station in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 18, 2025. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)

The District of Columbia’s attorney general sued the Trump administration Thursday over the ongoing presence of National Guard troops in the nation’s capital, arguing the deployment amounts to a military occupation that violates the district’s right to self-rule.

President Donald Trump’s deployment of D.C. National Guard troops and units from states outside the district violates laws against using the military for domestic law enforcement and a 1973 federal law allowing the district to govern itself, D.C. Attorney General Brian L. Schwalb wrote in a complaint in federal court in the district.

“No American jurisdiction should be involuntarily subjected to military occupation,” the complaint says, adding that Trump’s “command and control of out-of-state National Guard units when they are in state militia status violates the Constitution and federal law.”

The administration’s actions, which Trump has characterized as an attempt to control crime in the city, “flout the Posse Comitatus Act,” a 19th-century law, and other sections of federal law that “enshrine the nation’s foundational prohibition on the participation of military forces in domestic law enforcement absent the most extreme exigencies, such as an invasion or rebellion,” the complaint said.

“Defendants have established a massive, seemingly indefinite law enforcement operation in the District subject to direct military command. The danger that such an operation poses to individual liberty and democratic rule is self-evident,” the complaint said.

Despite a Tuesday morning ruling from a federal judge in California that called Trump’s use of military personnel for law enforcement in Los Angeles illegal, the president has continued to explore further use of Guard units for what he said is crime prevention in other U.S. cities. 

The suit asks U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb to block the administration from any further use of National Guard troops for law enforcement and to block states’ National Guard troops from operating in the district. 

White House spokespeople did not return a message seeking comment Thursday.

Out-of-state Guard deployments questioned

States with a military presence in the district cited in the suit are Louisiana, South Dakota, Ohio, West Virginia, Tennessee, Mississippi and South Carolina.

Those states’ Republican governors all responded to requests from Trump to send Guard troops, according to the complaint.

But Trump did not federalize any of the state National Guard units patrolling the district, meaning they remain legally under the command of their governors and cannot enter another state or the district without a request from the governor or the mayor of Washington, D.C., according to the suit.

Late last month, Schwalb’s office sent letters to the leaders of states that had deployed troops to the district, asking for information “regarding the factual and legal basis for” their decision to send troops.

Only Tennessee responded, and offered only limited information, the complaint said.

While legally still under their governors’ control, the suit says the out-of-state troops are in practice under the control of Trump and the U.S. Department of Defense.

Police-military separation tested by Trump

As president, Trump does control the D.C. National Guard. But he cannot use its members for domestic law enforcement under the Posse Comitatus Act, the complaint said.

D.C. and out-of-state National Guard troops have been doing just that, the complaint said. 

U.S. Marshals, a federal law enforcement agency, has deputized at least some troops in the district. The troops, who are armed with service weapons, have patrolled district streets, including in residential areas, the complaint said.

“These are law enforcement activities,” the suit said.

While the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this year that Trump has broad authority to federalize state National Guard troops — even over a governor’s objection — U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer ruled this week that those troops still may not engage in law enforcement activity.

Trump, who has mused about sending troops to other cities including Chicago, Baltimore and New Orleans, is testing the legal limits of the Guard’s ability to assist police forces, University of Houston Law Center Professor Christopher Mirasola said in an interview this week before the District of Columbia suit was filed. 

While a bedrock principle of U.S. democracy, the separation of military from law enforcement is governed more by norms than laws, Mirasola said, giving the administration leeway to at least try to stretch what has been considered acceptable.

“The administration is pushing the bounds of every existing legal theory that’s out there for domestic military deployment,” he said. “It’s absolutely corrosive of our democracy, because I think there’s a potential for a real shift in how we think about the military’s role in our domestic affairs.”

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem arrives for a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill on May 8, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem Wednesday ended temporary protections for more than 250,000 Venezuelans, opening them up to deportation. 

Temporary Protected Status for a group of Venezuelans dating from 2021 was set to expire Sept. 10. However, DHS said the designation will end in 60 days after the notice is published in the Federal Register. 

Initially, Venezuelans with TPS were granted protections until October 2026 under the Biden administration, but Noem revoked that extension.

DHS is currently being sued over Noem’s decision to revoke the extension granted under the Biden administration for TPS for two groups of Venezuelans, people who arrived in 2021 and those who arrived in 2023. 

DHS has already terminated TPS for 350,000 Venezuelans who arrived in 2023, which is still being challenged in courts. 

“Given Venezuela’s substantial role in driving irregular migration and the clear magnet effect created by Temporary Protected Status, maintaining or expanding TPS for Venezuelan nationals directly undermines the Trump Administration’s efforts to secure our southern border and manage migration effectively,” a DHS spokesperson said in a statement. 

During the last day of President Donald Trump’s first term, he granted deportation protections for that group of Venezuelans who arrived in the U.S. before Jan. 20, 2021, citing unstable conditions with the country’s government. 

“The deteriorative condition within Venezuela, which presents an ongoing national security threat to the safety and well-being of the American people, warrants the deferral of the removal of Venezuelan nationals who are present in the United States,” according to Trump’s 2021 proclamation. 

After that designation, under the Biden administration in March 2021, then-Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas created a TPS designation for Venezuelans who entered the U.S. before March 9, 2021.

Mayorkas created a second TPS designation, for another group of Venezuelans who arrived in 2023, about 350,000. 

TPS is designated when a country is deemed too dangerous for return, due to violence or a major disaster. A national from a country under the TPS designation has to go through vetting and is granted work permits and deportation protections for up to 18 months before having their TPS renewed. 

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. appears before the Senate Finance Committee at the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Sept. 4, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.  vehemently defended his actions on vaccines and other public health issues under questioning by both Republican and Democratic senators during a contentious hearing Thursday.

Kennedy, confirmed on a mostly party-line vote earlier this year, repeatedly justified firing everyone on an influential vaccine advisory panel, as well as the president’s decision to remove a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director who’d served for less than a month after confirmation by the Senate.

“In your confirmation hearings, you promised to uphold the highest standards for vaccines. Since then, I’ve grown deeply concerned,” said Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso, R-Wyo. “The public has seen measles outbreaks. Leadership of the National Institutes of Health questioning the use of mRNA vaccines. The recently confirmed director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention fired. Americans don’t know who to rely on.”

Video courtesy of C-SPAN.

Barrasso, an orthopedic surgeon, sought to reinforce support for vaccines to Kennedy during the Senate Finance Committee hearing, saying they “are estimated to have saved 154 million lives worldwide.”

Louisiana Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy, a physician who received several concessions from Kennedy in exchange for voting to confirm him as HHS secretary, raised numerous questions about Kennedy’s behavior. Cassidy is the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

Cassidy appeared to box in Kennedy on the COVID-19 vaccine by saying President Donald Trump should receive the Nobel Prize for Operation Warp Speed, which led to the development of the shot during his first term. 

Kennedy agreed Trump should “absolutely” get the prize, leading Cassidy to question why he’d taken actions as HHS secretary to erode trust and eliminate funding for vaccine development activities. 

“It surprises me that you think so highly of Operation Warp Speed when, as an attorney, you attempted to restrict access,” Cassidy said. “It also surprises me because you’ve canceled, or HHS did, but apparently under your direction, $500 million in contracts using the mRNA vaccine platform that was critical to Operation Warp Speed.”

Cassidy said the cancellation represents not only “an incredible waste of money but it also seems like a commentary upon what the president did in Operation Warp Speed, which is to create a platform by which to create vaccines.”

Cassidy also questioned Kennedy’s actions eliminating everyone on the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and replacing them with his own choices. 

“If we put people who are paid witnesses for people suing vaccines, that actually seems like a conflict of interest,” Cassidy said. 

Kennedy disagreed, testifying that “it may be a bias. And that bias, if disclosed, is okay.”

Tillis asks RFK Jr. to respond in writing

North Carolina Republican Sen. Thom Tillis asked Kennedy a series of questions but said he wanted the secretary to submit his answers in writing in order to clarify several of his positions. 

“Some of your statements seem to contradict what you said in the prior hearing,” Tillis said. “You said you’re going to empower the scientists at HHS to do their job. I’d just like to see evidence where you’ve done that, and I’m sure that you will have some.”

Tillis said he wanted Kennedy to respond to reports that he’s gone back on his commitments to senators to not do anything “that makes it difficult or discourages people from taking vaccines” and that Kennedy would not “impose my belief over any of yours.”

“That, again, seems to be contradictory to the firing of the CDC director, the canceling of mRNA research contracts, firing advisory board members, attempting to stall NIH funding, eliminating funding for I think a half a billion dollars for further mRNA research,” he said, referring to the National Institutes of Health. 

Tillis said he was having difficulty understanding why former CDC Director Susan Monarez, whom Trump nominated in March and the Senate voted to confirm in late July, had been fired so quickly. 

“I don’t see how you go … from a public health expert with unimpeachable scientific credentials, a long-time champion of MAHA values, caring and compassionate and brilliant microbiologist — and four weeks later, fire her,” Tillis said. 

CDC shooting, Monarez firing probed

Georgia Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock questioned Kennedy at length over the firing of Monarez as well as a shooting at the Atlanta-based agency this summer. 

Kennedy testified that he doesn’t believe he criticized Monarez during a meeting in late August over her comments following the CDC shooting that “misinformation can be dangerous.”

During that meeting, Kennedy said he did demand that Monarez fire career CDC scientists but testified he didn’t tell her to accept the recommendations of the vaccine advisory panel without further review.

“What I asked her about is, she had made a statement that she was going to not sign on and I wanted clarification about that,” Kennedy said. “I told her I didn’t want her to have a role if she’s not going to sign onto it.”

Monarez wrote in an op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal just hours before the hearing began that during the meeting with Kennedy she “was told to preapprove the recommendations of a vaccine advisory panel newly filled with people who have publicly expressed antivaccine rhetoric.”

“That panel’s next meeting is scheduled for Sept. 18-19,” Monarez wrote. “It is imperative that the panel’s recommendations aren’t rubber-stamped but instead are rigorously and scientifically reviewed before being accepted or rejected.”

Warnock asked Kennedy if he said that the CDC was the “most corrupt federal agency in the history of the world.” 

Kennedy testified he didn’t say that exactly but did say “it’s the most corrupt agency at HHS and maybe the government.” 

Warnock concluded his five minutes of questions telling Kennedy that “it’s clear you’re carrying out your extremist beliefs” and that he represents “a threat to the public health of the American people.”

“For the first time, we’re seeing deaths from children from measles,” Warnock said. “We haven’t seen that in two decades. We’re seeing that under your watch. You are a hazard to the health of the American people.”

Lankford, Daines ask about medication abortion

Several senators, including Oklahoma Republican James Lankford and Montana Republican Steve Daines, asked Kennedy about the ongoing review of mifepristone, one of two prescription pharmaceuticals used in medication abortion. 

Kennedy said he spoke with FDA Commissioner Marty Makary about the topic just yesterday and committed to keeping senators informed, but didn’t appear to know much more than that. 

“I don’t know if they’re going to do an insurance claim study. That’s one way to do it. I don’t know exactly whether they’re doing epidemiological studies or observational studies. I don’t know exactly what they’re doing,” Kennedy said. “But I know I talked to Marty Makary about it yesterday, and he said those studies are progressing and that they’re ongoing. So I will keep your office informed at every stage.”

Kennedy testified that he didn’t know when exactly the studies would be completed. 

The FDA first approved mifepristone in 2000 before updating the prescribing guidelines in 2016 and during the coronavirus pandemic. 

It’s currently approved for up to 10 weeks gestation and can be prescribed via telehealth and shipped to patients. Mifepristone is the first pharmaceutical of medication abortion and is typically followed by misoprostol. 

Medication abortion accounted for about 64% of all abortions in 2023, according to research from the Guttmacher Institute. 

The Supreme Court rejected an effort to limit access to medication abortion last year in a case originally filed by four anti-abortion medical organizations and four anti-abortion doctors that were represented by Alliance Defending Freedom.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the opinion that “federal conscience laws have protected pro-life doctors ever since FDA approved mifepristone in 2000.”

Numerous medical organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Medical Association, wrote briefs to the Supreme Court in that case attesting to the safety and efficacy of mifepristone. 

“The scientific evidence is overwhelming: major adverse events occur in less than 0.32% of patients,” the medical organizations wrote. “The risk of death is almost non-existent.”

At a press conference outside the state Capitol Wednesday, Sens. Jamie Wall, Jeff Smith and Senate Minority Leader Dianne Hesselbein urged Republicans to schedule a hearing for their bill expeditiously. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Less than a month before the planned closure of two Wisconsin veterans’ housing sites, a handful of Democratic and Republican lawmakers are seeking a way to save the sites. But bipartisan work on a solution appears out of reach as lawmakers bicker over who is to blame for the lack of funding and over whether to take up Democratic- or Republican-authored bills.

Gov. Tony Evers’ administration announced, shortly after the state budget was completed in July, that two Veterans Housing and Recovery Program (VHRP) sites, one in Chippewa Falls and one in Green Bay, would be closing on Sept. 30 due to a lack of funding in the state budget. One facility in Union Grove will remain open. 

The program, which is run under the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs, serves veterans who are on the verge of or are already experiencing homelessness, including those who have been incarcerated, unemployed or have physical and mental health problems. Participants get access to transitional housing, referrals to service providers, financial assistance, assistance with seeking vocational opportunities and access to a room at a reduced rent for working veterans.

Participants can stay for a maximum of 24 months, but the average length is six to 10 months.

The program has been funded with a combination of an appropriation from the Veterans Trust Fund, payments made by program participants and per diem payments, which are made to the agency by the federal government at a current rate of about $71 per resident per day. However, growing staffing and maintenance costs at the facilities led to the need for additional state support. Evers had included a funding proposal in his budget but that was removed by Republican lawmakers.

Following the news of the closures, Sens. Jeff Smith (D-Brunswick) and Jaime Wall (D-Green Bay) introduced a bill that would dedicate $1.9 million to the sites.

At a press conference outside the state Capitol Wednesday, the bill authors and Senate Minority Leader Dianne Hesselbein (D-Middleton) urged Republicans to schedule a hearing for their bill expeditiously.

Citing the upcoming closure date, Hesselbein said the Senate and Assembly must meet. She said committees could meet this week or next to hear the legislation and pass it out of committee this month and have the bill on the floor in October.

“It’s a cool day out here today. The weather is going to get worse. We need to take care of our veterans,” Hesselbein said.

According to the Associated Press, the state Senate is not planning to meet for a floor session this month. 

“It’s way past time to take action to keep these facilities open so they can continue to provide vital services to our veterans,” Hesselbein said, adding that “when Democrats have the power of majority which we believe is coming in just a few years, we will always have your backs.” Democrats are seeking to flip control of the state Senate in the 2026 election cycle. 

Smith called Republicans’ lack of action on the issue “callous,” noting that Democrats tried months ago to include the funding in the budget. When Democrats proposed an amendment to  fund the veterans’ housing sites in the state budget, every Republican voted against it except for Sen. André Jacque (R-New Franken). 

It is unlikely that the Republican-led Legislature will allow Democrats’ bill to advance. 

“[Republicans] have ignored our pleas. As far as we know, we’re not going to see these bills on the floor this month, and this is the final chapter. This is when it ends. No hope for the veterans that they like to pretend that they care about,” Smith said. 

Jacque, meanwhile, began circulating his own bill last month to provide the needed funding for the facilities. 

The Republican bill, coauthored by Jacque and Rep. Benjamin Franklin (R-De Pere), includes $1.9 million for the VHRP program as well as two other policy changes related to veterans. 

One would require the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin system to provide funding to the UW Missing-in-Action Recovery and Identification Project to support missions to recover and identify Wisconsin veterans who are missing. The other would lower the eligibility threshold for veterans and surviving spouses to claim the veterans and surviving spouses property tax credit.

Jacque said the two policies were also left out of the budget and are critical to helping veterans.

“Every budget has missed opportunities, and I am hopeful that the rest of the session will provide openings to address those challenges in a number of areas, particularly providing for our veterans who have done so much in service to our country and communities,” Jacque told the Wisconsin Examiner in an email.

Jacque said he has “found a lot of support” from his Republican colleagues and is “hopeful that the bill will be referred to the Senate Committee on Natural Resources, Veterans and Military Affairs,” which he chairs.

In response to a question about Jacque’s bill and whether Democrats are working with any Republicans to advance funding for the facilities, Hesselbein brushed off the GOP bill saying it simply pulled from Democrats’ ideas. 

“What Sen. Jacque did is he took three Democratic bills and pushed them all into one omnibus. We’ll be interested if he gets a hearing. I’m not sure…,” Hesselbein said. “I like to have clean legislation when we try to have committee hearings so you can hear exactly what’s going on with those bills, so we are supporting the bill that Sen. Wall and Sen. Smith put forth.”

Smith said Democrats separated the VHRP funding from other policies purposefully. Wall added that their bill is a “smaller, cleaner ask” than a bill with multiple items. 

Jacque told the Wisconsin Examiner in an email that he is “extremely disappointed by Sen. Hesselbein’s comments and her unwillingness to put partisanship aside for the sake of working to support veterans — as I did when I voted for the omnibus veterans motion her caucus introduced during the budget. I am rather surprised at her comments due to her longstanding penchant for putting forward omnibus bills and amendments.” 

Jacque noted that he has supported and authored legislation to expand the property tax credit for veterans and surviving spouses in previous years “going all the way back to my service in the State Assembly,” and has also supported previous UW MIA legislation. 

“I supported VHRP within the budget and it was not introduced as standalone legislation by any legislator previously to that, at least to my knowledge,” Jacque added. “I didn’t think Sen. Hesselbein was that unaware of the history of these initiatives.”

Not every Republican lawmaker has appeared open to providing additional funding that would be used to keep the two VHRP programs open. Following the initial news of the planned closures, Sen. Howard Marklein (R-Spring Green) and Rep. Mark Born (R-Beaver Dam) co-chairs of the Joint Finance Committee, blamed Evers for not negotiating for the money in the budget.

According to the Green Bay Press Gazette, Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Oconto) claimed last week that Evers had a “slush fund” — referring to federal pandemic aid — and should be able to find the money to keep the facilities afloat. He pointed to the Wisconsin DVA’s Veterans Trust Fund, a state fund that supports most grant and benefit programs for Wisconsin veterans, and said the agency has regularly returned around $1 million in unspent funds each year and in 2025, the agency sent back about $600,000.

WDVA Assistant Deputy Secretary Joey Hoey has disputed the comments, saying that the agency is “only allowed to spend the money they tell us to spend.” He has also said the trust fund cannot be used for the staffing costs and that there isn’t enough in it.

Wall objected to Wimberger’s “slush fund” comments as well on Wednesday, saying that federal American Rescue Plan Act money has been spent. ARPA funds were used to help support costs for the program in 2023-24. States had to expend the one-time ARPA funds by the end of 2024.

“[Evers] took some ARPA interest funds and used it to help prop up the program. Those funds don’t exist anymore. The ARPA funds all had to be allocated by the end of last year,” Wall said. “The ARPA interest money was all spent in the last budget, so that get out of jail free card doesn’t exist.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Members of the public attend a hearing over Enbridge Line 5. (Photo courtesy of Devon Young Cupery)

An administrative law judge in Madison heard arguments Wednesday in a case contesting Wisconsin’s approval of Enbridge’s proposed Line 5 pipeline reroute. Members of the  public testified, followed by an expert witness in geology and hydrology, who questioned aspects of the reroute plan. 

The lawsuit, brought by Clean Wisconsin and Midwest Environmental Advocates (on behalf of the Sierra Club of Wisconsin, the League of Woman Voters of Wisconsin and 350 Wisconsin), challenges permits allowing the Canadian oil company to move forward with rerouting the Line 5 pipeline around the Bad River reservation in northern Wisconsin. Wednesday’s hearing followed the opening day of testimony in Ashland and was one of a series of hearings  scheduled through early October. The Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa is challenging Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources permits for a Line 5 reroute, which was designed to fix a legal problem with the existing pipeline after a federal court found that it trespasses on tribal land. Attorneys for the Band, environmental groups and Enbridge testified at the hearing. 

Enbridge’s Line 5 pipeline has been a polarizing issue, with one side arguing that it’s crucial for energy independence and jobs in Wisconsin, while the other points to a history of leaky and ruptured Enbridge pipelines causing ecological damage, a national need to transition away from fossil fuels, and the company’s years-long trespass on the Bad River Band’s sovereign land. 

Public testimony Wednesday drew  people from both sides of the debate. “The loss of Line 5 would have devastating impacts on the propane industry,” said Connor Kaeb, an associate manager with GROWMARK, which Kaeb said is Wisconsin’s fifth largest provider of propane. Kaeb stressed that farmers and northern Wisconsin communities depend on affordable and easily accessible propane. Shutting down Line 5 could cause “immense strain on the entire propane system in the region,” he said. 

Tabitha Faber, who spoke against the pipeline, said that the reroute would cross more than 100 waterways, and that even though it avoids the Bad River Band’s reservation, that the pipeline remains in the Bad River watershed, continuing to endanger the Band’s natural resources. Faber recalled visiting sites along the reroute path and seeing bald eagles and wood turtle  habitats. Faber also said that the pipeline’s construction and operation could wash invasive species into new and sensitive habitats, including within the Bad River reservation. Steve Boas, a Madison resident, also spoke against the project, calling the more than 70-year-old pipeline “an accident waiting to happen.” 

The American Petroleum Institute called the relocation project “essential to maintaining Wisconsin’s energy reliability.” The Institute claimed that rerouting Line 5 will create more than 700 jobs, adding that the pipeline has heated homes and businesses, aided agriculture and enabled transportation for decades “without any issue.” In contrast, Third Act Wisconsin — a group of older Americans concerned about climate and democracy — echoed concerns that Line 5 would threaten high-quality wetlands, the Bad River watershed as a whole and even Lake Superior.

Access to clean water is a crucial asset for Wisconsin, environmental groups testified. Tourism generates $378 million in Bayfield, Ashland, Douglas, and Iron counties, while also supporting 2,846 jobs, all in the area near Line 5, according to Clean Wisconsin. 

“For decades, the Bad River Band has been sounding the alarm about the unprecedented risks posed by Enbridge’s Line 5 pipeline,” Ellen Ferwerda, who leads Third Act Wisconsin’s work on Line 5, said in a statement. Despite “a myriad of scientists, economists, environmental groups, and citizens” who’ve spoken out against the pipeline, “the DNR summarily dismissed these concerns and issued a permit allowing Enbridge to begin construction of a reroute around the Bad River Reservation.” 

“It feels like the Bad River Band is being punished for standing up for their legal right to protect the watershed their culture and livelihood has relied on for centuries,” she added. Julia Issacs, co-facilitator of Third Act Wisconsin, said in a statement that “we should be decommissioning old and dangerous pipelines, not investing in new fossil fuel infrastructure.” 

Most of Wednesday’s hearing was dedicated to grilling William Joseph Bonin, a licensed senior geologist with Midwest Geological Consultants. He produced a report in May 2025 that pushed back on assessments made by experts from the DNR and Enbridge. 

Bonin raised a multitude of concerns, particularly around how construction of the pipeline could affect springs, aquifers and groundwater. He pointed to the presence of glacial sediments, which make it difficult to predict how water flow could be affected. Bonin recalled one 2018 project in Minnesota, where a gas pipeline was installed along a roadway near adjacent springs. The springs disappeared, and then other springs showed up in a parking lot on a private property, he said. Springs and aquifers that help feed nearby wetlands and other adjacent habitats could be affected by pipeline construction, he testified, and cutting trenches to construct the pipeline could also lead to increased erosion.

Bonin said the risk of aquifer breaches is higher than what had been assessed, and questioned how the presence of already fractured rock layers could be altered by the use of blasting in constructing the reroute. He also pointed to the possibility of “thermal impacts” to waterways, including high-quality trout streams which are sensitive to temperature changes. “Blasting is going to have a larger impact than the expert reports discussed and the reason for that is the already fractured bedrock was not taken into consideration in the reports,” Bonin said. “The effects of blasts, especially on fracture networks, may be permanent,” he added.  “The basted rock is never going to be restored.” This, in turn, could have a ripple effect on how water moves and behaves in the ground around the pipeline reroute, he testified. 

Attorneys representing the DNR and Enbridge took turns cross-examining Bonin. They discussed knowledge gaps Bonin had regarding the wetland aspects of the permits, and argued that methods like blasting and trenching are very common construction practices for all sorts of projects from pipelines to roads.  Enbridge’s attorney pointed out that, while  Bonin has reviewed and analyzed the effects of blasting, Bonin himself has not worked in the field. 

Another hearing in Madison is scheduled for Friday, Sept. 12, at the Hill Farms State Office Building. On Sept. 15 and 19, there will be  hearings in Ashland at the Northwood Technical College Conference Center, followed by more hearings in Madison on Sept. 22, Sept. 26, Sept. 29 and Oct. 3. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A health care worker fills a syringe with the MMR vaccine at a vaccine clinic in Texas in March. Florida announced plans to end all state vaccine mandates, while three Western states — California, Oregon and Washington — are forming an alliance to issue their own vaccine guidelines amid federal upheaval. (Photo by Jan Sonnenmair/Getty Images)

The Democratic governors of California, Oregon and Washington said Wednesday they are forming an alliance to coordinate vaccine recommendations for their states.

Meanwhile, Florida announced plans to become the first state to phase out all vaccine mandates, including ending requirements that kids be vaccinated against dangerous diseases before enrolling in schools.

Public health experts have relied on vaccines, including school mandates, for decades to limit the spread of communicable diseases and keep kids and adults safe.

The contrasting moves come amid turmoil at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where several top leaders resigned last week to protest efforts by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a vaccine skeptic, to dismiss CDC Director Susan Monarez for pushing back against Kennedy’s vaccine policies.

Accompanied by Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, state Surgeon General Dr. Joseph A. Ladapo said at a news conference Wednesday that vaccine mandates are “wrong” and “immoral,” the Florida Phoenix reported.

“Your body is a gift from God. What you put into your body is because of your relationship with your body and your God,” Ladapo said.

“They do not have the right to tell you what you put in your body. They don’t have the right to tell you what your kids have to put in [their] body. They do not have the right. Do not give it to them. Take it away from them. And we’re going to be starting that here in Florida.”

The Florida Department of Health can eliminate some vaccine mandates on its own, Ladapo said, but the Florida legislature would have to scrap other ones. He did not mention specific vaccines, but repeated that his goal was to end “all of them. Every last one of them.”

“Every last one of them is wrong and drips with disdain and slavery,” Ladapo said.

The goal of the new West Coast Health Alliance, governors said, is to disseminate evidence-based recommendations about who should get immunized, as well as to provide vaccine education throughout the three states. In the coming weeks, the states will coordinate and finalize immunization guidelines that are in line with leading medical organizations.

In their announcements, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek and Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson criticized recent Trump administration actions, including the firing of scientists and the upheaval at the CDC.

“When federal agencies abandon evidence-based recommendations in favor of ideology, we cannot continue down that same path,” Washington Secretary of Health Dennis Worsham said in a statement.

Worsham added that “public health at its core is about prevention — preventing illness, preventing the spread of disease, and preventing early, avoidable deaths.”

Last week, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration restricted access to updated COVID-19 shots. In June, Kennedy ousted all 17 members of the vaccine advisory committee at the CDC, replacing them with some members who are vaccine skeptics. Many states rely on the committee to form vaccination guidelines.

And in May, Kennedy rescinded recommendations for children and pregnant women to get vaccinated against COVID-19 — sidestepping the usual process for issuing official recommendations.

The three Western states said the “dismantling” of the CDC has created “a vacuum of clear, evidence-based vaccine guidance,” hampering health care providers, disrupting manufacturers’ production plans and creating uncertainty for families.

In 2020, at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the three states, along with Nevada, created a similar workgroup that emphasized the scientific rigor behind the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine in an effort to boost confidence in the shot.

“President Donald Trump’s mass firing of CDC doctors and scientists — and his blatant politicization of the agency — is a direct assault on the health and safety of the American people,” the joint statement from the three governors’ offices said.

“The CDC has become a political tool that increasingly peddles ideology instead of science, ideology that will lead to severe health consequences. California, Oregon, and Washington will not allow the people of our states to be put at risk.”

Stateline reporter Nada Hassanein can be reached at nhassanein@stateline.org.

Women who say they were abused by disgraced financier and sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein raise their hands as attorney Bradley Edwards speaks at a news conference outside the U.S. Capitol on Sept. 3, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — As survivors of abuse inflicted by the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein pleaded on Capitol Hill Wednesday for the release of investigative files, Kentucky Republican Rep. Thomas Massie accused House GOP leaders of using “the oldest trick in the swamp” to avoid the issue.

An unusually large crowd gathered outside the U.S. House to hear from the women, who described emotional manipulation and physical coercion, beginning as early as age 14 in some cases, at the hands of Epstein and convicted co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell. 

The speakers included family of the late Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who pursued charges against Maxwell and died earlier this year by suicide.

In speech after speech, the victims urged Congress and President Donald Trump to make public what federal authorities uncovered about the reach of Epstein’s abuse, and specifically voiced support for Massie’s bipartisan effort that would bypass House leadership and force the release of volumes of records.

“Congress must choose — will you continue to protect predators, or will you finally protect survivors?” said Lisa Phillips, who was victimized by Epstein on his private Caribbean island and now hosts a podcast about healing after abuse. 

The government’s investigation into Epstein’s widespread sexual abuse has dogged and splintered House Republicans since July, when Trump’s administration declared it would not share any further information on the powerful and well-connected financier. Epstein died in 2019 in a Manhattan jail cell while awaiting trial on federal charges of sex trafficking minors. 

Epstein surrounded himself with celebrities and politicians, including Trump and former President Bill Clinton. 

Trump campaigned on releasing what he and many describe as the “Epstein files,” and for years many of his supporters, including some now in his administration, fixated on conspiracy theories about the scandal.

Discharge petition roils House

“There are real victims to this criminal enterprise, and the perpetrators are being protected because they’re rich and powerful and political donors to the establishment here in Washington, D.C. So today, we’re standing with these survivors,” Massie said at the outdoors press conference.

Massie and House Democrat Ro Khanna of California need just two more Republican signatures on a discharge petition that would trigger the release of the Epstein case file, leapfrogging House leadership.

House Speaker Mike Johnson instead urged his party Wednesday to support a symbolic measure approving an already ongoing GOP-led committee probe.

Khanna, and GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, welcomed the victims to Capitol Hill alongside Massie.

“This is the most important fight we can wage here in Congress, fighting for innocent people that never received justice, and the women behind me have never received justice. And do you want to know why? It’s because Jeffrey Epstein somehow was able to walk among the most rich, powerful people,” Greene said.

Republican Reps. Lauren Boebert of Colorado and Nancy Mace of South Carolina joined Massie and Greene in signing the petition. All Democrats in the House, which has a 219-212 split, are expected to sign.

Lured by Epstein 

With the U.S. Capitol as their backdrop, numerous women shared stories of being lured, some at just 14 years old, by money and opportunities Epstein offered to them.

Annie Farmer said she was 16 when she and her sister were flown to New Mexico to spend a weekend with Epstein and Maxwell, where she said they were assaulted and photographed. Her sister reported their sexual abuse to authorities later that year.

“I am now 46 years old. Thirty years later, we still do not know why that report wasn’t properly investigated, or why Epstein and his associates were allowed to harm hundreds, if not thousands, of other girls and young women. 

“We have never been told whether those images were found when they discovered a large amount of child sexual abuse material on his property,” said Farmer, who testified publicly in both cases against Epstein and Maxwell.

Farmer said for many years it felt like Epstein’s abusive behavior was “an open secret” and that his network of powerful friends “chose to look the other way because it benefited them.” 

Farmer called for a thorough public review of the government’s findings in the Epstein case.

“At a time with record-high levels of distrust in our institutions and a perception that there are two Americas — one for those with power and privilege and one for everyone else — passing this Epstein transparency bill is one important step that can be taken to prove to Americans that the government does not side with sexual perpetrators,” she said.

Jena-Lisa Jones told the large crowd that Epstein began abusing her when she was 14.

“I know that I was just a little kid, but sometimes I still feel like it is my fault that this happened,” she said.

“If you’re a member of Congress and you’re listening to all of us speak here today, please really listen to us. Please vote for this bill to be passed. Please recognize how important it is for transparency relating to Jeffrey Epstein. Whether you are a Democrat or Republican, this does not matter.”

Jones then directly appealed to Trump: “Please, President Trump, pass this bill and help us. Make us feel like our voices are finally being heard.” 

Trump rebuffs reports on Epstein relationship

Trump’s past relationship with Epstein has been under a microscope since July. The president sued the Wall Street Journal for reporting on a 50th birthday card Trump gave to Epstein. The card allegedly featured a cryptic message and a doodle of a naked woman with Trump’s signature mimicking pubic hair. 

The Journal also reported that Attorney General Pam Bondi briefed the president in May that his name appeared in the Epstein case files. The context in which his name appeared is unclear. 

Trump has denied the reports.

Trump dismissed questions about releasing the Epstein case files when asked by reporters in the Oval Office Wednesday afternoon.

“This is a Democrat hoax that never ends,” Trump said while sitting alongside Poland’s President Karol Nawrocki during their previously planned meeting.

“What they’re trying to do with the Epstein hoax is getting people to talk about that instead of speaking about the tremendous success like ending seven wars. I ended seven wars, nobody’s going to talk about (that) because they’re going to talk about the Epstein whatever,” Trump continued. Trump did not detail specifically which wars.

“I understand that we were subpoenaed to give files, and I understand we’ve given thousands of pages of files, and I know that no matter what you do, it’s going to keep going.”

The GOP-led House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform released roughly 33,000 pages Tuesday night related to the government’s Epstein investigation. But the collection was quickly dismissed by many observers as duplicates and items that were already public.

“I appreciate the efforts of my colleague, James Comer, who’s leading the Oversight Committee,” Massie said of his fellow Kentucky lawmaker. “They may find some information, but they’re allowing the (Department of Justice) to curate all of the information that the DOJ is giving them. If you’ve looked at the pages they’ve released so far, they’re heavily redacted. Some pages are entirely redacted, and 97% of this is already in the public domain.” 

Subpoenas issued

Comer’s committee has also subpoenaed testimony from Clinton, as well as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and numerous former Department of Justice officials, from both Democratic and Republican administrations.

Massie told reporters Wednesday that Speaker Johnson urged colleagues not to support the Kentucky Republican’s discharge petition and instead vote for a procedural rule to support the Oversight Committee’s investigation. A committee investigation, however, does not require a floor vote to proceed.

“My message to my colleagues was, ‘Don’t set yourself up.’ Yes, the speaker’s resolution will give you temporary political cover, but there are millions of people watching this,” Massie said.

Members of the House Oversight Committee met with several Epstein victims Tuesday.

Johnson, of Louisiana, said Massie and Khanna’s petition is “moot and unnecessary.”

“The Oversight Committee’s investigation is already ongoing. They’re already producing and putting out there the documents that are covered, the White House is in full compliance. The administration is willfully complying with the subpoenas because they want maximum transparency as well. I talked to the president himself last night, so this is going to be an ongoing effort.”

Jennifer Shutt and Shauneen Miranda contributed to this report.

Federal agents patrol the halls of immigration court at the Jacob K. Javitz Federal Building in July in New York City. Despite a show of force on immigration raids in cities, arrests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement dropped in August and remain well below the Trump administration’s daily target of 3,000. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Despite the assistance of armed troops in U.S. cities, federal immigration officials recorded fewer daily arrests in August than in July and remain well short of a Trump administration plan for 3,000 arrests a day, according to a new report.

As of Aug. 29, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrests averaged 1,055 a day for the month, down 14% from 1,124 a day in July, according to data obtained by Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University. The organization tracks federal immigration data.

“President Trump’s orders recently assigning substantial personnel from the national guard and the U.S. military to target Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. may have been counter-productive in failing to increase total arrests countrywide,” said Susan B. Long, co-founder of TRAC and a professor in the Whitman School of Management, in an e-mail statement.

In a Tuesday decision a federal judge ruled that the Trump administration’s deployment of Marines and National Guard units to Southern California, where they assisted with immigration and other arrests, was illegal.

In May, Stephen Miller, a White House deputy chief of staff, told Fox News that the administration was “looking to set a goal of a minimum of 3,000 arrests for ICE every day and President Trump is going to keep pushing to get that number up higher.”

ICE did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced it would give more financial incentives to state and local police to cooperate with ICE, including reimbursement for salary and benefits for officers trained in the 287(g) program to assist ICE in making arrests, and “performance awards” for “successful location of illegal aliens.”

“By joining forces with ICE, you’re not just gaining access to these unprecedented reimbursement opportunities — you’re becoming part of a national effort to ensure the safety of every American family,” ICE Deputy Director Madison Sheahan said in a statement.

Stateline reporter Tim Henderson can be reached at thenderson@stateline.org.

Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo and his boss, Gov. Ron DeSantis, want to eliminate all vaccine mandates from Florida law as well as rules and regulations. (Stock photo by Getty Images)

School children, college students, and even nursing home residents would no longer have to be vaccinated against infectious diseases and viruses if Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo and his boss, Gov. Ron DeSantis, have their way.

The DeSantis administration rolled out the proposed change on Wednesday and, if they’re successful, the state would be the first in the nation to completely eliminate vaccine requirements that many health experts credit with nearly eliminating some diseases.

“Your body is a gift from God. What you put into your body is because of your relationship with your body and your God,” said Ladapo, attacking the government mandates.

“It’s wrong, it’s immoral. They do not have the right to tell you what you put in your body. They don’t have the right to tell you what your kids have to put in [their] body. They do not have the right. Do not give it to them. Take it away from them. And we’re going to be starting that here in Florida.”

’Choose a side’

Neither Ladapo nor DeSantis discussed with legislative leadership their intent in the 2026 legislative session to push to eliminate vaccine mandates from the books before making the announcement.

The surgeon general praised the Legislature and went so far as saying he “loves our lawmakers.” But Ladapo issued an ultimatum.

“They’re going to have to make decisions, right? That’s the way that this becomes possible. So, people are going to have to make a decision. People are going to have to, have to choose a side. And I am telling you right now that you know the moral side is, it’s so simple.”

Patients would remain free to take shots if they like.

Democratic officials quickly blasted the announcement, deeming it a “reckless” decision that could lead to a drop in those immunized in the state. Florida has already seen its immunization rate for school-aged children tick down in recent years, although more than three-quarters of school children have received shots.

“This is ridiculous. Florida already has broad medical and religious exemptions for childhood vaccines, so any family that has a sincere opposition to vaccination can opt-out. Removing the mandate wholesale is dangerous, anti-science, and anti-child. Nobody wants to go back to the days of iron lungs,” Senate Democratic leader Sen. Lori Berman, from Boynton Beach, said in a statement.

“Republicans have gone from entertaining anti-science conspiracy theories to fully endorsing an anti-science health policy. As a member of the Senate Health Policy Committee, I’ll be doing everything in my power to protect our kids from these reckless attempts to harm them.”

Sen. Shevrin Jones, a Democrat from Miami Gardens, also criticized the announcement.

“Ending vaccine mandates poses a grave public health risk and will likely lead to a resurgence of preventable diseases. This reckless move jeopardizes the health and lives of countless Floridians — from children to seniors — especially those too young to be vaccinated or those with compromised immune systems. The DeSantis administration is actively undermining public health, making communities more vulnerable to outbreaks and increasing the burden on healthcare systems.”

Public Citizen’s Health Research Group Director Robert Steinbrook said ending all vaccine mandates is a “recipe for disaster” and goes in the wrong direction. He urged the Legislature to stand against the DeSantis administration.

“High immunization rates against dangerous infectious diseases such as measles and polio protect individuals as well as their communities. If this plan moves forward, Florida will terminate one of the most effective means of limiting the spread of infectious diseases and embolden U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to wreak even more havoc on vaccinations nationally. The Florida Legislature and state residents must vociferously reject these plans,” Steinbrook said in a prepared statement.

Current requirements

Florida law contains a number of immunization requirements for the young and the old.

Immunization for poliomyelitis, diphtheria, rubeola, rubella, pertussis, mumps, and tetanus are required for entry and attendance in Florida schools, childcare facilities, and family daycare homes. The state allows exemptions for valid medical reasons but also for religious and certain belief systems and, in some cases, allows personal exemptions for philosophical beliefs.

Florida law also requires school districts to develop and disseminate parent guides that include information about the importance of student health and available immunizations and vaccinations, including, but not limited to, recommended immunization schedules in accordance with federal recommendations.

The school guide must include detailed information regarding the causes, symptoms, and transmission of meningococcal disease and the availability, effectiveness, known contraindications, and appropriate age for the administration of any required or recommended vaccine against that infection.

The Florida Education Association issued a statement warning that changing the rules would endanger students and faculty.

“When leaders talk about pulling back vaccines, they’re talking about disrupting student learning and making schools less safe. State leaders say they care about reducing chronic absenteeism and keeping kids in school — but reducing vaccinations does the opposite, putting our children’s health and education at risk,” the union said.

“We’re reviewing the potential impacts on public schools and our communities. But, make no mistake, FEA will continue to stand up for our students, our educators, and our public schools.”

College students who reside in on-campus housing must provide documentation of vaccinations against meningococcal meningitis and hepatitis B. Again, the law contains exemptions and students who refuse the vaccines are required to sign waivers.

Nursing homes are required to assess residents within five business days post admission of eligibility for pneumococcal vaccinations or revaccinations. If indicated, the resident must be be vaccinated or revaccinated within 60 days after admission, in accordance with the recommendations of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, subject to exemptions for medical contraindications and religious or personal beliefs.

Immunization may not be provided to a resident who provides documentation that he or she has been immunized. A resident may elect to receive the immunization from his or her personal physician and, if so, the resident needs to provide proof of the immunization to the facility. The agency may adopt and enforce any rules necessary to comply.

2025 efforts fall short

The 2026 legislative session begins in January, which is when the DeSantis administration will work with the Legislature in hopes of accomplishing its goal. But the Department of Health will also revise rules for a handful of vaccines that are mandated in rule but not in statue.

A substantially scaled-back effort to address vaccine mandates fell short during the 2025 session.

The DOH this spring championed a broad bill (HB 1299) continuing a law initially passed in 2021 that banned businesses, government entities, and education institutions from denying people entry or service based on vaccination status or requiring people to wear masks. HB 1299 extended the ban permanently.

The bill expanded the Patient’s Bill of Rights and Responsibilities statutes to prohibit providers and facilities from denying admission, care, or services to a patient based solely on vaccination status.

Although the House agreed to the language, passing HB 1299 by a near-unanimous vote, state Sen. Gayle Harrell, a Republican from Stuart whose late husband was a physician, warned that the requirement would open doctors to increased liability. Sen. Jason Pizzo, a Hollywood lawmaker with no party affiliation, said the mandate to treat patients would have contradicted a law DeSantis championed that guarantees Florida physicians legal protections to not treat patients on the basis of their conscience.

The Senate deleted the language before passing the proposal and the House ultimately agreed to the Senate’s version.

Ladapo the lightning rod

Ladapo is a well known vaccine skeptic. He emphasized parents’ rights to send their kids to school unvaccinated in spring after a measles case in a Miami-Dade County high school. He altered a DOH COVID-19 vaccine study to exaggerate the risks of cardiac death for young men

His positions on vaccinations aren’t the only reason he’s become a public health lightning rod.

The DOH last month announced 21 cases of Campylobacter and E. coli infections tied to raw milk consumption in the central and northeast portions of the state, and said that seven people had been hospitalized. Six of the cases were reported in children under age 10. Nevertheless, Ladapo didn’t warn against consuming raw milk.

Two days later, Florida Agriculture Commissioner Wilton Simpson issued a statement encouraging residents to stick to pasteurized milk.

And in 2021, Ladapo made national headlines when he refused to don a mask during a meeting with state Sen. Tina Polsky, who was being treated for cancer and requested that he wear one. At the time, Ladapo was up for Senate confirmation.

Polsky, a Democrat from Boca Raton, lambasted Ladapo’s announcement Wednesday.

“Vaccines are crucial for our children because they protect them from deadly diseases and keep entire communities safe through herd immunity,” she said in a written statement.

Diseases, including polio, that once destroyed our children’s health and futures, will have the chance to return under this dangerous policy change. I voted against Dr. Ladapo’s confirmation in 2023 because he has a habit of misrepresenting science and making decisions that affect the health of Floridians. He remains determined to prioritize political dogma over smart health decisions.”

Florida Make America Healthy Again Commission

Ladapo’s announcement dovetails with DeSantis’ news that he has created a Florida Make America Healthy Again Commission that will recommend the integration of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Make America Healthy Again effort. The Florida Commission will be co-chaired by  first lady Casey DeSantis and Lt. Gov. Jay Collins.

Meanwhile, at the end of August, the Food and Drug Administration approved updated vaccines for COVID-19. While previous versions of the vaccine were recommended to individuals 6 months of age and older, access to the FDA’s newly approved vaccines is limited to individuals 65 and older and individuals between the age of 5 and 64 with an underlying condition placing them at high risk for severe COVID-19.

Florida Phoenix reporter Jay Waagmeester contributed to this report.

This story has been updated with reaction from lawmakers, the Florida Education Association, and the Public Citizen’s Health Research Group.