Participants joined the No Kings rally in Fargo, North Dakota, on June 14, 2025. (Photo by Erin Hemme Froslie/North Dakota Monitor)

WASHINGTON — More than 2,600 nonviolent demonstrations against President Donald Trump’s administration are slated Saturday as part of No Kings day.

The second No Kings day, following another in June, is in response to what a broad coalition of liberal advocacy and labor organizations say is “the increasing authoritarian excesses and corruption of the Trump administration, which they have doubled down on since June.”  

Organizers expect millions of Americans to join in peaceful events in Washington, D.C., across the country and internationally. Locations are pinpointed on a map on the organization’s website.

“No Kings is back,” said Eunic Epstein-Ortiz, a national spokesperson, at a press conference Thursday. “And over the past few months, thousands of people have organized once again in their communities, on the ground locally, volunteering to bring their neighbors, families and friends together to say, unequivocally, we have no kings. Together, they’re the ones making this Saturday’s mobilization the largest single-day protest in modern history.”

Among the states:

• In Utah, Salt Lake City’s No Kings protest organizers canceled the march portion of the event and are instead holding a longer demonstration at the state Capitol, according to the Utah News Dispatch.
• In Maine, at least 30 No Kings events are set to be held, per the Maine Morning Star.
• In Nevada, demonstrators in downtown Las Vegas will again be confined to sidewalks, the Nevada Current reports, citing high permit costs.
• In Kentucky, nearly 30 No Kings protests are popping up in the Bluegrass State, according to the Kentucky Lantern.
• Ten No Kings protests are planned in North Dakota, according to the North Dakota Monitor.
• In Arkansas, the Arkansas Advocate reports that the protests in more than a dozen cities come as the potential for severe weather ratchets up at the same time the events are scheduled.

Shutdown, Trump crackdown since June protests

The demonstrations build off the No Kings protests in June, which coincided with Trump’s massive military parade on his 79th birthday.

Four months later, the federal government is mired in an ongoing shutdown that began Oct. 1 with no clear end in sight. The administration has also cracked down on U.S. cities, deploying National Guard troops and partaking in sweeping immigration raids. 

Leading voices from labor and advocacy groups that are part of the broad No Kings coalition amplified their message ahead of the planned protests during the Thursday press conference, underscoring a peaceful day of action on Saturday. 

“We’re going to vigorously exercise our democratic rights peacefully and nonviolently, and against this tyrannical threat of Donald Trump and his administration, we are going to protect American democracy,” said Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen.

House speaker criticizes No Kings day 

National leaders from the coalition also pushed back against U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson’s depiction of the demonstrations as the “hate America rally.”

The Louisiana Republican claimed on Fox News Oct. 10 that “it’s all the pro-Hamas wing and the antifa people — they’re all coming out,” adding: “Some of the House Democrats are selling T-shirts for the event, and it’s being told to us that they won’t be able to reopen the government until after that rally because they can’t face their rabid base.”

Leah Greenberg, co-founder of Indivisible, said “there is nothing more American than saying that we don’t have kings and exercising our right to peaceful protest,” adding: “America doesn’t have kings. That’s our entire point.” 

Greenberg said: “I also want to be clear: it is ridiculous, it’s also sinister, because it is part of a broader effort to create a permission structure to crack down on organized opposition and peaceful dissent in this country. 

“They are sending the National Guard into American cities, they are terrorizing our immigrant friends and neighbors with their secret police, they are prosecuting political opponents, and now they are trying to smear millions of Americans who are coming out to protest so that they can justify a crackdown on peaceful dissent.” 

Katie Bethell, executive director of MoveOn, said “let’s be crystal clear about who is peacefully taking the streets on Saturday — it’s teachers, federal workers, nurses, families, our neighbors and our friends. 

“All of our leaders, Republicans and Democrats alike, should listen to what these patriotic Americans have to say,” Bethell said. 

“The millions of people protesting are centered around a fierce love of our country, a country that we believe is worth fighting for,” she said. “This is the reality across cities and towns, large and small, rural and suburban, in red areas, blue areas — millions of us are peacefully coming together on Saturday to send a clear and unmistakable message: The power belongs to the people.”

In other states: 

• The Ohio Capital Journal noted dozens of No Kings protests set to take place in the Buckeye State.
• About 40 No Kings protests are planned in Indiana, according to the Indiana Capital Chronicle.
• Rhode Island is expected to see at least 10 No Kings protests, according to the Rhode Island Current.
• More than 100 communities across Michigan plan to hold No Kings rallies, the Michigan Advance reports.
• In Arizona — where more than 60 No Kings protests are anticipated — high turnout is expected even in the state’s rural Republican strongholds, according to the Arizona Mirror. 

A shopper who receives SNAP benefits slides an EBT card at a checkout counter in a Washington, D.C., grocery store in December 2024. (Photo by U.S. Department of Agriculture)

WASHINGTON — As the federal government shutdown extends to day 17, and with congressional leaders nowhere near negotiating, state officials are beginning to raise concerns of potential cuts to nutrition assistance benefits that feed millions if the government isn’t reopened. 

Minnesota has already halted new enrollments in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. And officials in Kansas, New Hampshire and New Mexico have warned their residents could miss their food assistance payments for November. 

More than 42 million Americans rely on the program, which the U.S. Department of Agriculture administers. The federal government funds nearly all the program benefits, with states administering the program.

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins warned Thursday that SNAP will run out of funds in two weeks if Congress fails to strike a deal and end the government shutdown.

“You’re talking about millions and millions of vulnerable families of hungry families that are not going to have access to these programs because of this shutdown,” she said outside the White House Thursday. 

USDA could not be reached for comment Friday. 

USDA has directed regional SNAP directors to stop working on benefits for November, according to an Oct. 10 letter obtained by Politico, written by the program’s acting associate administrator, Ronald Ward. 

“Considering the operational issues and constraints that exist in automated systems, and in the interest of preserving maximum flexibility, we are forced to direct States to hold their November issuance files and delay transmission to State EBT vendors until further notice,” Ward wrote. “This includes on-going SNAP benefits and daily files.” 

USDA has already shuffled more than $300 million in tariff revenue into the agency’s Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, or WIC, through the rest of the month. 

The shutdown started Oct. 1 after Congress failed to find a bipartisan path forward on a stopgap spending bill. 

Senate Democrats have pushed for negotiations to extend the enhanced tax credits that are set to expire at the end of the year for people who buy their health insurance from the Affordable Care Act marketplace. 

Republicans have insisted on passing the House’s version of the stopgap funding bill that does not address insurance premiums.

Former U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton leaves federal court after pleading not guilty to charges of mishandling classified material on Oct. 17, 2025 in Greenbelt, Maryland. Bolton was indicted by a federal grand jury on Thursday. (Photo by Alex Kent/Getty Images)

Former National Security Advisor John Bolton pleaded not guilty in Maryland federal court Friday to eight counts of unlawful transmission of national defense information and 10 counts of unlawful retention of national defense information.

He was released from custody on personal recognizance bond, meaning he did not have to post bail but did have to surrender his passport and pledge not to leave the country. 

The next hearing was scheduled for Nov. 21.

In a statement shortly after an indictment against him was returned Thursday, Bolton said the prosecution was engineered by President Donald Trump in retaliation for criticism the longtime national security official had leveled against his one-time boss.

Bolton said the material he used for his 2020 book on his time as Trump’s national security advisor had been cleared for publication, and that he made the FBI aware of a 2021 hack of his private email.

During President Joe Biden’s four years in office, reviews of his case did not result in indictment, he continued. But federal law enforcement during Trump’s second presidency has sought to prosecute individuals opposed to the president, he said.

“These charges are not just about his focus on me or my diaries, but his intensive effort to intimidate his opponents, to ensure that he alone determines what is said about his conduct,” the statement said. “Dissent and disagreement are foundational to America’s constitutional system, and vitally important to our freedom. I look forward to the fight to defend my lawful conduct and to expose his abuse of power.”

Bolton was formally charged Friday with the 18-count indictment that accused him of transcribing handwritten notes containing classified information onto a word processor and sharing the material in the form of “diary” entries with two family members who were not cleared to receive classified information.

Bolton’s is the third indictment federal officials have secured in recent weeks against high-profile Trump critics. 

Former FBI Director James Comey was charged with lying to Congress following a major fallout in a Virginia federal prosecutor’s office that was widely reported to be over career staff refusing to proceed in the case against Comey.

New York Attorney General Leticia James was also indicted for charges related to a mortgage application.

Like Bolton, both Comey and James have proclaimed their innocence and said they were being persecuted as Trump critics.

Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development's secretary designee, Amy Pechacek, right, with Gov. Tony Evers at a 2023 DWD event held at the Plumbers Local 75 training center in Madison. Pechacek held a news conference online Thursday where she spoke about the impact of the federal government shutdown on DWD and the state. (Photo courtesy of DWD)

As the federal shutdown drags on, Wisconsin is likely to feel the impact — in employment, in agriculture and in the safety net for workers, according to the state’s labor secretary.

“Right now, we have the ability to continue to operate and our goal is to not disrupt our current workforce programs or state workforce,” said Amy Pechacek, secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, during an online news conference Thursday.

Governments in some other states have started to reduce their workforces, Pechacek said. Wisconsin is holding off on filling vacancies and taking other steps “to try and preserve all of the funding we can so that we don’t have programmatic or employment disruptions,” Pechacek said.

Nevertheless, 75% of the DWD’s $500 million annual budget — three out of every four dollars — comes from the federal government, she said.

The remaining 25% that comes from the state isn’t “just one big pot,” Pechacek added, but funds specific programs. For example, the state workers compensation program, which covers treatment costs and lost income for people injured on the job, is entirely state funded. That includes the cost of administering the program.

But job support services — local job centers, career counseling, unemployment insurance administration, state apprenticeship programs, and the division of vocational rehabilitation for people with disabilities — are “all tied to federally funded programs,” Pechacek said.

“We need the federal government to come together, come up with a funding mechanism and continue to support their obligations to all the states and to all the people to ensure that we can move forward with the economic health and prosperity that we have enjoyed without this chaotic massive interruption,” she said. “The longer this goes, the continued adverse and exponentially worse impacts to our workforce will compound.”

Pechacek’s virtual news conference Thursday took the place of DWD’s monthly report on Wisconsin employment data. The usual reports draw on the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics surveys that poll employers on the number of jobs they have and poll households to calculate the unemployment rate.

The data BLS compiles and analyzes is one of the casualties of the shutdown, Pechacek said, hampering employers, job seekers, nonprofits, economic development agencies and governments.

All of them rely on BLS data “to guide fiscal decision making, determine whether to open or expand their businesses, determine if they’re going to hire or lay off, figure out how to allocate resources, and understand really how best to train their current workforce,” Pechacek said. Without that information, “employers are putting off important decisions, essentially fumbling around in the dark until Congress can get around to turning back the lights on.”

Unemployment claims can serve as one indicator, and Scott Hodek, section chief in the DWD Office of Economic Advisors, said the department is looking at other data sources to fill in some of the missing information. Those sources include various private sector organizations as well as the regional federal reserve banks.

“But really it’s pretty difficult to get an accurate picture of what’s happening,” Hodek said. “It will get more difficult as time goes on.”

Another federal report on inflation is expected to be released soon, even with the shutdown, because the findings are used to calculate annual cost-of-living increases for Social Security recipients, Hodek said.

That report will also figure into the deliberations of the Federal Reserve’s Open Market Committee when it meets at the end of October to decide whether to cut interest rates. The Fed’s dual mission includes keeping inflation as close to 2% as possible while encouraging maximum employment.

“That becomes very difficult to do if you don’t have any of that data to make those decisions,” Hodek said.

Looking at the coming months, Pechacek said, the process of applying for H-2A agriculture visas is on hold. The visas enable about 3,000 migrant workers to come in annually to work in specific seasonal agricultural operations, including planting, harvesting and food processing, she said.

DWD is required to verify that there is a worker shortage in the occupations to be covered, and the U.S. Department of Labor must certify the state’s verification report before the federal government issues the visas, she said, but the federal certification of the state’s report is on hold because of the shutdown.

December and January are the months when the most requests come in for H-2A visas, Pechacek said, so if the shutdown continues for too long, the agricultural employers depending on those workers would be unable to get the needed certification.

Pechacek said the department is also watching to see how many federal employees file for unemployment insurance.

There are about 18,000 federal employees in Wisconsin, and DWD has estimated that 8,000 might be affected by the shutdown. By comparison, she said, one of the largest layoffs in Wisconsin took place in 2018 when a larger retailer shut down, laying off 2,200 employees.

So far, however, there have been just 30 initial claims from federal workers, Pechacek said.

If federal workers who file unemployment claims get back pay when they return to work, however, they’ll have to repay the unemployment insurance fund.

Pechacek noted that President Donald Trump has threatened to permanently fire federal workers in the shutdown as well as to withhold back pay for furloughed federal workers who return to work. Between uncertainty about those threats and court rulings that have blocked some mass federal layoffs, however, “it is really an ongoing situation,” she added.

Pechacek several times criticized Trump and the Republican leaders in Congress for the shutdown.

“The president and congressional Republicans have shut down our nation’s government trying to force massive health care cuts and cost increases to the nation’s working and middle class families and we are in a stalemate,” she said.

“We really need our federal government to return to work so they can restore some predictability and reliability to our economy and continue to be the partner that we need to ensure the economic health and prosperity of Wisconsin workers.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse in Washington, D.C., home of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, on July 14, 2025. (Photo by Jacob Fischler/States Newsroom)

This report has been updated.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court and the rest of the federal judiciary are set to run out of funding in the next few days, a new development in the ongoing government shutdown that will likely reverberate throughout much of the country. 

The Supreme Court, which is in the middle of its fall term and slated to hear oral arguments for the next several months, will run out of funding Saturday, according to a statement from public information officer Patricia McCabe.

“At that point, if new appropriated funds do not become available, the Court will make changes in its operations to comply with the Anti Deficiency Act,” McCabe wrote. “The Supreme Court will continue to conduct essential work such as hearing oral arguments, issuing orders and opinions, processing case filings, and providing police and building support needed for those operations.”

The building, she added, will be closed to the public but remain open for official business.

A spokesperson for the Supreme Court told States Newsroom in late September that it planned to “rely on permanent funds not subject to annual approval, as it has in the past, to maintain operations through the duration of short-term lapses of annual appropriations.”

U.S. federal courts will run out of funding “to sustain full, paid operations” Monday due to the ongoing government shutdown, though they “will maintain limited operations necessary to perform the Judiciary’s constitutional functions,” according to an announcement released Friday.

“Federal judges will continue to serve, in accordance with the Constitution, but court staff may only perform certain excepted activities permitted under the Anti-Deficiency Act,” the U.S. Courts statement said.

The shutdown began on Oct. 1 after Congress was unable to find a bipartisan path forward on a stopgap spending bill. The U.S. Courts said at the time they would be able to use “court fee balances and other funds not dependent on a new appropriation” to keep up and running through Friday.

The new announcement from the courts said that several activities are excepted and can legally continue during the funding lapse. Those include anything necessary “for the safety of human life and protection of property, and activities otherwise authorized by federal law. 

“Excepted work will be performed without pay during the funding lapse. Staff members not performing excepted work will be placed on furlough.”

The statement said that each individual court throughout the federal system will make its own decision about how active cases will proceed during the shutdown. 

“Anyone with Judiciary business should direct questions to the appropriate clerk of court’s office, probation and pretrial supervision office, or federal defender organization, or consult their websites,” the announcement read. 

People summoned for federal jury duty will still need to report as instructed, since that program “is funded by money not affected by the appropriations lapse and will continue to operate.”

The online case management and electronic filing system, known as PACER, will keep operating despite the shutdown’s impact on the courts. 

An empty high school classroom. (Dan Forer | Getty Images)

The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI) released its 2025-26 general school aid data this week, showing that 71% of public school districts will receive less general school aid this year, while over $350 million in general aid will be diverted to voucher schools.

Each year DPI is required by state law to release the certified aid figures by Oct. 15. The data for the 2025-26 school year shows that of 421 districts, 111 — or 26% — will receive more aid, while 301 districts — or 71% — will receive less. The numbers replace those from the estimate released in July, which had shown a projected 65% of schools would receive less aid. 

DPI noted in a release that the state’s total general aid remained flat this year at $5.58 billion. The Republican-led Legislature decided during the recent state budget process not to provide additional general aid to public school districts.

The distribution of general aid funds is determined by a formula that considers property valuation, student enrollment and shared costs. When school districts lose state aid, they do not lose school revenue authority, meaning many school districts will be left to decide whether to increase local property taxes to make up the difference or make more budget cuts. 

Democratic lawmakers, who have repeatedly called for increasing general school aid, blamed their Republican colleagues for the numbers during a virtual press conference Thursday morning.

Sen. Jeff Smith (D-Brunswick) said that data “provided a harsh reality check for school districts that their state Legislature, specifically the Republican-controlled state Legislature, which they have controlled for 30 out of the last 32 years, does not view them as a priority.” 

“When Democrats win a majority in the state Senate, our schools will not have to fear this Oct.15 date,” Smith said, adding that Democrats are “committed to investing in the future of Wisconsin children and re-establishing our state as one of the leaders in K-12 education as it once was.”

“This system that our state has been forced to adopt is not sustainable,” Sen. Jodi Habush Sinykin (D- Whitefish Bay) said. In lieu of state funding, school districts in Wisconsin have turned to raising property taxes through referendum, which must be approved by voters, in order to meet their financial obligations, including paying staff salaries, purchasing educational materials and building costs.

After the state budget was signed, some school leaders warned that the trend of relying on property taxes would continue without a state general aid increase. 

“Due to the Legislature’s failure to fund our schools, Wisconsin already has one of the highest property tax rates in the country, and if our communities continue to be forced to referendum, those tax rates will continue to rise, making our state even more expensive than it already is. Wisconsin residents are depending on their elected officials to rein in the skyrocketing costs of living in our state,” Habush-Sinykin said. “Yet, the Republican-controlled Legislature has no problem forcing their constituents to suffer under continuously rising property taxes.”

Viroqua School Board President Angie Lawrence said during the press conference that the system is bolstering inequity in Wisconsin schools. 

“The school districts and areas of high poverty are generally failing when trying to pass a referendum and the wealthy districts generally are passing their referendum when going to their communities… Is this who we really want to be?” Lawrence asked. “Don’t you think that our tax dollars should be supporting every student equally so that each student has a path to academic excellence, and we shouldn’t have to go to referendum in order to provide a high quality education for our students?”

School voucher programs grow

Alongside funding for public schools, the DPI also released data on the costs of the state’s school voucher programs, which use taxpayer dollars to cover the cost of tuition for students who attend private and charter schools.

The estimated annual cost for the state’s voucher programs in the 2025-26 school year overall is about $700.7 million.

According to the DPI data, $357.5 million will be reduced from general school aid to go towards private voucher schools in 2025-26. This includes $260.9 million for the Wisconsin Parental Choice Program, $44.4 million for the Racine Parental Choice Program and $52.2 million for the Special Needs Scholarship Program. 

The rest of the $700.7 million going toward voucher schools will come from the state’s general purpose revenue to fund students in the Milwaukee voucher program as well as for students in the Racine voucher program who enrolled before the 2015-16 school year. The Milwaukee program is estimated to cost $336 million.

Enrollment in all four of the state’s school choice programs rose by 2,349 students in the 2025-26 school year, reaching a high of 60,972 students. 

The Milwaukee program grew by 235 students, the Racine program shrank by 14 students, the statewide program grew by 1,814 students and the special needs program grew by 419 students. 

Organizations that support school voucher programs had mixed reactions — celebrating the growth, but also cautioning that it was modest compared to previous years.

“Lawmakers in Madison should continue to prioritize protecting these private-school options for all students,” said Carol Shires, vice president of operations for School Choice Wisconsin. “This milestone validates the strong support from Wisconsin’s political leaders for strengthening the financial foundation of parental choice programs.”

School Choice Wisconsin, the largest school choice lobbying group in the state, also noted in its press release that the growth comes as an enrollment cap on the statewide Wisconsin Parental Choice Program is set to expire in the 2026-27 school year. 

“[The caps coming off] will allow more families – including those now on waiting lists – to benefit from the nation’s longest-standing program committed to educational freedom,” School Choice Wisconsin said.

Caps on school voucher program participation, which limits the percentage of students in a district who can participate, have been increasing by 1% per year since 2017 and reached 10% of a school district’s enrollment in the 2025-26 school year. When the nation’s first school voucher program launched in Milwaukee in 1990, enrollment was limited to no more than 1% of the Milwaukee Public Schools student population. When the statewide program launched in 2013, enrollment was limited to just 500 students and no more than 1% of a district’s enrollment. 

According to the Institute for Reforming Government, a conservative think tank, this year’s numbers represent stable growth for the Milwaukee, special needs and independent charter school programs, but the Wisconsin Parental Choice Program had its lowest growth since 2017-2018.

Quinton Klabon, the organization’s senior research director, urged supporters of school choice to not be complacent. 

“Informing parents, expanding high-quality schools, and protecting schools from hostile red tape are high priorities. Otherwise, the baby bust will close choice schools,” Klabon said in a statement.

The total number of schools participating in the statewide program has risen from 403 schools in 2024-25 to 415 schools in 2025-26.

Republicans have introduced some legislation this year to support enrollment in voucher programs. AB 460 from Rep. Cindi Duchow (R-Delafield) would change state law to ensure that siblings of a student who participated in a voucher program would be eligible for enrollment. AB 415, coauthored by Rep. Shae Sortwell (R-Two Rivers) would prohibit DPI from requiring documents to verify a student’s residence unless their residence has changed from a previous verification. 

Democratic lawmakers and public education stakeholders expressed concerns about what the school voucher enrollment numbers will mean for the state’s public schools.

Lawrence of Viroqua called attention to the amount of money going to the Academy of Excellence, a Milwaukee virtual private school that has been criticized for misusing public funds and for blurring the line between homeschooling and voucher schools. Students who are homeschooled in Wisconsin aren’t supposed to receive public funding under state law.

“The Academy of Excellence is not excellent,” Lawrence said. “It is not meeting the requirements of high standards of public education, and yet it received over $40 million in tax dollars from the state of Wisconsin [in the 2024-25 school year]… They are funding families that choose to homeschool without the cost of bricks and mortar, or the transparency of how they’re spending the tax dollars they receive. If our state wants to make improvements in education for our students, let’s put our money where our mouth is and spend our tax dollars to improve public education so we can provide the highest academic outcomes for each child.” 

The Academy of Excellence is estimated to receive over $50 million in 2025-26 from the state with over 4,000 students enrolled. Those enrollment numbers include students in various voucher programs throughout the state — 808 students from the Milwaukee program, 200 from the Racine program, 3,340 from the statewide program and 63 who are enrolled in the special needs program.

Democratic lawmakers in recent months have introduced an array of bills aimed at limiting voucher school programs and increasing transparency surrounding the costs. 

This week Sen. Chris Larson (D-Milwaukee) is circulating draft legislation that would bar virtual schools from being able to participate in the voucher program. 

Rep. Christian Phelps (D-Eau Claire) has introduced AB 307, which would eliminate the sunset on the voucher program caps, leaving them at 10% into the future, and AB 496, which would require an annual verification of the income of voucher students’ families. (Currently, there is an income cap to enroll in the programs of 220% for the Wisconsin Parental Choice Program and 300% for the Milwaukee and Racine programs. If a student is continuing in a program or was on a waiting list, they are not required to meet income limits.) Lawmakers have also proposed legislation to disclose voucher costs on property tax bills across the state.

Habush-Sinykin said on the call that the voucher program caps coming off is a “crisis” facing the state’s education system. However, she said advancing bills that would change the state’s trajectory will likely take new leadership in the Senate and Assembly. 

“It’s really up to all of us to explain how important it is to have a change in the legislative leadership so that we can have bills… like keeping caps on vouchers, etc., be heard and voted on,” Habush Sinykin said.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

South Central Federation of Labor President Kevin Gundlach addresses a rally in support of Group Health workers seeking union representation on Monday, Oct. 13. (Photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner)

A stalemate between Group Health Cooperative of South Central Wisconsin and employees who have been seeking union representation for the last 10 months shows little sign of breaking soon.

At a mass meeting Monday at the Alliant Center in Madison, members of Group Health, sometimes called GHC for short, passed a motion directing the co-op to voluntarily recognize the union as the employees originally petitioned in December — covering three departments and a series of health care professionals.

The motion set a deadline of Friday, Oct. 17. Marty Anderson, Group Health’s chief strategy and business development officer, said Thursday that action on all the motions would likely be deferred, probably until November.

“We communicated clearly ahead of the meeting that all motions are advisory in nature,” Anderson said. “Any deadlines that would be in any of the motions would also be advisory in nature.”

Monday’s mass meeting was the first of its kind for Group Health members to ask questions of the co-op administration and express their opinions about the union drive. About 172 people attended, according to a Group Health spokesperson. Group Health has more than 50,000 Class A and Founding members — the two groups that were considered eligible to attend, according to the co-op.

In the spring, a volunteer committee met with the board to argue in favor of recognizing the union. 

People attending the Monday meeting described the crowd as strongly supportive of the union, and the voice votes in favor of recognizing the union and other motions favored by union supporters were unanimous, according to Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Wisconsin. 

Growing dissatisfaction 

At a rally outside the Alliant Center before the meeting, South Central Labor Federation President Kevin Gundlach, a Group Health member, charged that the co-op “has lost its way” in its response to the union organizing drive.

“We want GHC to listen to the workers,” Gundlach said. “And these workers know, and it says on my shirt here” — he pointed to his chest — “it’s better in a union.”

Group Health has rejected charges that it’s trying to thwart the union drive, contending that it simply wants health care employees in all departments to take part in the union representation vote — not just those from departments and job classifications that were included in the original union petition.

Union supporters say that claim is disingenuous and a ploy to “dilute the vote,” in the words of several workers interviewed — racking up votes against the union from employees in departments that don’t have the same concerns.

Anderson denied the charge. “We don’t know” what the votes will be, he said.

According to workers involved in the union drive, the Group Health union campaign grew out of increasing dissatisfaction in specific co-op departments with working conditions and what they contend was a lack of input into the co-op’s practices.

“I feel like we can improve the patient care that we provide through unionization and through increased involvement in decision-making,” Dr. Nisha Rajagopalan, a family physician who has worked at Group Health for 22 years, said Thursday.

Pay practices, employee turnover and a voice at the table are all reasons employees have cited for supporting the union.

“GHC leadership stopped collaborating with us and despite our many patient care concerns and our many meeting requests,” said Julie Vander Werff, a physician assistant, the lead speaker at the Monday rally.

Who should be in the union?

Complicating the organizing campaign is the conflict over exactly who among Group Health’s workers should be included in the union.

Union supporters involved in the organizing drive originally proposed that the union represent a bargaining unit of about 220 people. They were doctors, physician assistants, nurse practitioners and nursing staff in three departments: primary care, urgent care and dermatology. Their petition also included physical therapists, occupational therapists and health educators.

The petition was filed Dec. 12, 2024. Group Health filed a brief asserting that the unit the employees sought “was an inappropriate unit,” said Anderson, the Group Health executive.

To resolve the differences, a National Labor Relations Board staffer held a meeting on Dec. 30 in Madison, where he moved between separate rooms, one housing Group Health executives and the co-op’s lawyer, the other housing SEIU Wisconsin staff and Group Health employees leading the union drive.

The NLRB staffer suggested to the union group that they narrow their petition to a single clinic, Group Health employees wrote in a letter to the Group Health board of directors Feb. 10, 2025. Hoping to get an agreement, they took the suggestion.

Group Health opposed the single-clinic unit, however. In subsequent hearings the co-op management’s lawyer argued the vote should include all direct care employees, including in departments that weren’t part of the union’s original petition.

After reviewing briefs from both sides, the NLRB regional director in Minneapolis who heard the case ruled that the single clinic unit that the union had proposed would not be an appropriate bargaining unit. The decision issued by Regional Director Jennifer Hadsall stated that the unit proposed by the employer, Group Health, was appropriate and set an election among all the co-op’s health care employees.

SEIU Wisconsin, however, moved to block the election. A raft of pending unfair labor practice charges against the employer could scare employees from voting for the union, SEIU charged. Hadsall agreed to block the vote until the charges are resolved.  

As a result, the vote is on hold. The NLRB investigation of the charges is on hold as well, because of the federal government shutdown.

Shared concerns, conflicting concerns

In her order, Hadsall also included a footnote that states she did not address the unit that the employees had originally asked for because it had not been formally litigated.

“We had always argued that we are a clinically integrated organization,” Anderson said. “Our staff floats between various parts of the organization and different clinics. And the bargaining unit was established [consisting of] all of our clinical sites and all of our direct care employees.”

But pro-union employees say there are concrete differences between employees who are in the groups that they had originally included in the union petition and the rest of the Group Health staff — including direct care providers.

“Initially our bargaining unit included employees who were in primary care and urgent care,” said Rajagopalan, the family doctor. “We practice similarly and we share the same concerns. There are other departments within GHC that don’t share the same concerns [and] practice very differently than we do. That’s why our initial bargaining unit is an appropriate unit.”

Pat Raes, president of SEIU Wisconsin and a nurse at UnityPoint-Meriter hospital in Madison, said that throughout her health care career she’s seen many workplaces where only some groups of workers are unionized.

“At the bedside or at the side of the patient, it doesn’t make a difference because the priority is patient care,” Raes said. “It’s not whether you’re unionized or not.”

Addressing the rally before Monday night’s meeting, Steve Rankin said it was “entirely normal” for workers in a single workplace to be represented by different unions or no union depending on their department or position.

“There is no reason that everyone at Group Health has to be in the same union,” said Rankin, who joined Group Health when it was founded in 1976 and has been active in marshalling Group Health patients to support the union effort. “We call on GHC to recognize the bargaining unit chosen by the workers themselves and to commit to bargaining in good faith toward the contract.”

While the board has yet to consider the motion that was passed at Monday night’s meeting, Anderson said Thursday that voluntary recognition was unlikely. 

“We want an NLRB sanctioned and overseen vote,” he said. “That’s always going to be our criteria.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Democrats and pro-democracy organizations held a rally Thursday to call for the creation of an independent redistricting commission. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)

A group of pro-democracy organizations held a rally, attended by Democratic legislators, Thursday afternoon outside the state Capitol to push for the creation of an independent commission tasked with drawing the state’s legislative maps. 

The renewed push for permanently taking the construction of Wisconsin’s political maps out of the hands of politicians comes amid a national debate about gerrymandering and as the state’s Democrats are outlining what state government will look like if they hold power in all three branches after next year’s midterm elections. 

Across the country, Democrats — who have for years been the party calling for a nonpartisan process for drawing political maps — are weighing the merits of “unilaterally disarming” by putting the drawing of maps in the hands of independent bodies in blue states while Republicans are redrawing maps in red states such as Texas in an explicit effort to hold on to their slim congressional majority. 

Next month, voters in California will weigh in on a referendum asking if the Democrats in control of the state’s government can temporarily bypass the independent map-drawing commission and redraw maps to benefit Democrats as a counter to the Republican effort in Texas. 

State Rep. Francesca Hong (D-Madison), a candidate in the Democratic primary for governor, told the Wisconsin Examiner after the Thursday rally that Wisconsin Democrats should push for a permanent resolution to the state’s map debate because a more effective counter to increasing authoritarianism than tit-for-tat congressional gerrymanders is creating systems that allow government to be more responsive to voters’ wishes. 

“Here in Wisconsin, what the people want are permanent fair maps, and that means keeping the decision of redistricting out of politicians’ hands and within a group of nonpartisan folks,” she said. “If we’re going to have representative democracy, that’s what we need. But we also have to remember to be proactive, and that’s why the permanent fair maps matter. And if we’re going to be responsive to an eroding democracy, that’s also how we should be empowering the people …” 

After Thursday’s rally, the advocates — including members of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, League of Women Voters of Wisconsin and Fair Maps Wisconsin Coalition — were going into the Capitol to deliver the draft of their plan to legislators. 

Under the plan, the state Department of Administration would be responsible for managing the selection of 18 independent redistricting commission members (15 acting members and three reserve members). 

The membership would be divided evenly between representatives of the two major political parties and unaffiliated. Members would not be allowed to hold other public offices and could not be a family member of a public office holder. Lobbyists and anyone who has donated more than $2,000 to a candidate for office in a year over the previous five years wouldn’t be allowed to sit on the commission. 

After the DOA selects a pool of 240 applicants, the majority and minority leaders of both legislative chambers would be allowed to strike down a certain number of candidates. 

The IRC would be required to hold public hearings while it deliberates on the maps. Approval of final maps would have to come through a two-thirds majority vote that includes votes from members representing the interests of both major parties and the independents. 

The plan includes a provision for members to rank proposed maps if such a “multi-partisan agreement” can’t be reached. 

Any proposed maps from the commission would need to still be approved by the Legislature and governor within 30 days. If maps aren’t approved, the Legislature or governor must provide a written explanation to the commission and the commission would have 15 days to respond or provide new maps. 

The Legislature and governor would have three attempts to approve maps before Aug. 15 of a redistricting year. If maps can’t be codified by then, anyone in the state would have the authority to file a lawsuit with the Wisconsin Supreme Court to adopt a commission-proposed map. 

Democrats said at the rally that they want to make sure the commission is crafted in a way that prevents meddling after the fact from politicians. Redistricting commissions in states such as Iowa and Ohio have been undermined once their proposals were subjected to the political process. 

Sen. Jeff Smith (D-Brunswick) said Republican legislators like the Iowa-style commission because if they vote down the commission’s proposals three times, the map-drawing authority returns to the Legislature. 

“They figured out the flaw in that model,” he said. “That is why we need a Wisconsin model, a Wisconsin model that works for all of us.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Democratic Party of Wisconsin Chair Ben Wikler speaks at a climate rally outside of Sen. Ron Johnson’s Madison office in 2021. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)

There is no clear frontrunner in the Democratic primary for governor of Wisconsin. Attorney General Josh Kaul, with his name recognition and two statewide wins under his belt, might have been the favorite, except that he decided not to get in. Now former Democratic Party of Wisconsin Chair Ben Wikler has announced he won’t be using his star power and prodigious fundraising skills to take a run at the governor’s mansion.

I caught up with Wikler Thursday by phone while he was at home with his kids, working on a book about Wisconsin and national politics and fielding phone calls from reporters about his decision to stay out of the race. Despite his decision, Wikler is still involved in politics behind the scenes, raising money and helping create an infrastructure to support his party’s eventual nominee for governor as well as Democrats who are trying to win seats in the Legislature and in Congress.

Wikler deserves a lot of credit for the recent hopeful direction of politics in Wisconsin — culminating in the election of a liberal state Supreme Court majority that forced an end to gerrymandered voting maps which previously locked in hugely disproportionate Republican legislative majorities in our 50/50 state. His vision for a progressive political revival in Wisconsin and across the nation delighted a lot of grassroots Democrats as well as Jon Stewart of “The Daily Show”, who urged him to run for president after listening to Wikler describe what Democrats need to do to reconnect with working class voters and turn the political tide.

As Wisconsin Republicans coalesce around U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, a yes-man for President Donald Trump, the stakes in the Wisconsin governor’s race could not be higher. But Wikler says he’s not worried.

“I think there are multiple candidates who can absolutely win and could do a perfect job on our side,” he said on the phone. “I don’t see the same on the Republican side. I think Tom Tiffany is a real political misfire for the GOP in a moment like this.”  

“I have a real conviction that we have a very clear path to be able to win. Not without a fight — this is Wisconsin — but I would rather be Team Democrats and democracy and an economy that works for working people than Team MAGA and tariffs and authoritarian masked men grabbing people off the street.”

Still, on a recent weekend drive through the Driftless Area, I saw huge Trump banners flying over fields of soybeans farmers can’t sell because of Trump’s trade war with China. It might be hard for some voters, even those who are hurt by Trump administration policies, to switch teams as people’s core sense of identity is so tied to polarized political team loyalties.

“I think it’s true for all of us that it’s hard to come to the conclusion that it’s time to change after you’ve been going one way for a good while,” Wikler said. “But it’s also the case that in Wisconsin things don’t have to change very much to get a dramatically different result.”

Elections in this swing state will continue to be close. “But there’s every possibility of being able to energize and turn out several percentage points more people in a way that could generate a Democratic trifecta and help flip the U.S. House and shift power in local offices across the state,” he added.

In his unsuccessful bid for national Democratic Party chair, Wikler talked about how Democrats had lost working class votes and needed to reclaim their lost status as champions of working people. They needed to “show the receipts” for their work winning better health care, affordable housing, more opportunity and a better quality of life for the people that used to be their natural constituency, he said.

On “The Daily Show” he held up Gov. Tony Evers as an example, saying he ran on the promise to “fix the damn roads” and beat former Gov. Scott Walker. Then he fixed the roads and won a second time.

But a lot of progressives, especially public school advocates, were disappointed with the budget deals Evers struck with Republicans. This week DPI released final numbers showing that 71% of public schools across the state will get less money from the state under the current budget. Where are the receipts Wisconsin Democrats can show to make the case they will make things better?

Evers blocked a lot of bad things, Wikler noted. And in many ways things are better in Wisconsin, even as the national scene gets darker and darker under the current administration, he said. “The things that are going well are the kind of locally driven and state-level things that are not falling apart,” he said. He contrasted that with the Walker years when “there was a sense that core aspects of people’s personal lives were falling apart. People were leaving their careers in education and changing their whole life plans, because it felt like the pillars that supported their vision for how their lives were going to work were falling apart.”

There’s a “profound sense of threat” from Washington today, he added. But he believes that Democrats can stave off disaster in Wisconsin if they win a “trifecta” in state government, which he thinks is possible.

He draws on examples from the state’s history as a progressive leader, from the  famous 1911 legislative session that laid the groundwork for the New Deal to the first law protecting victims of domestic violence in the 1970s.

“There’s these moments when Wisconsin really leaps forward. And we have a chance for the first one in more than half a century in 2027,” he said. “And that’s the  moment where you have to deliver for people really meaningfully.”

He compares the chance of that happening in Wisconsin to the “Minnesota miracle,” when Tim Walz was re-elected governor and Democrats swept state government in our neighboring state. 

Trying to bring about a miraculous transformation in Wisconsin doesn’t mean Wikler is unrealistic. You don’t have to look any farther than Wisconsin’s southern neighbor, Illinois, to see the dystopian possibilities of our current politics. “I don’t think the way [Illinois] Gov. JB Pritzker is talking is alarmist at all,” Wikler says. “If you talk to people who fought for democracy in countries where it disappeared, the early days of the downfall look like what we’re seeing right now.”

To resist, we have to do multiple things, he said — fight in the courts, fight in downballot races, protect election administration “but also keep in mind that ultimately, the people whose votes you have to win are the people who already feel like democracy is not working for them. They think that all politicians are already corrupt, and warnings about the threats to democracy feels like just more partisan blather. And you have to connect with their lived experience and the things that they think about when they’re not thinking about politics. That’s where fixing the roads becomes the only way to get off the road to authoritarianism.”

Sounds like a good plan to me. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Charlotte Stone, 18, of Virginia Beach, Virginia, held a sign depicting President Donald Trump with a Hitler mustache, at the "We Are All DC" march Saturday, Sept. 6, 2025, in the District of Columbia to protest the deployment of National Guard troops in the nation's capital. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — House Democrats demanded Thursday that President Donald Trump rescind two ominous directives they say target protest and dissent in the United States, including directing federal law enforcement resources to investigate groups that are “anti-American” and “anti-Christian.”

In a letter to the White House the lawmakers sharply criticize a “complete and utter lack of any legal basis” for Trump’s Sept. 22 executive order “Designating Antifa as a Domestic Terrorism Organization” and his Sept. 25 memo directing federal law enforcement to investigate and disrupt a wide range of activities by groups or individuals with a vast array of beliefs.

“While protecting public safety and countering genuine threats are essential responsibilities of government, the sweeping language and broad authority in these directives pose serious constitutional, statutory, and civil liberties risks, especially if used to target political dissent, protest, or ideological speech,” states the letter led by Democratic Reps. Mark Pocan of Wisconsin, Jared Huffman of California and Pramila Jayapal of Washington. 

The letter comes just two days ahead of thousands of nationwide demonstrations, dubbed “No Kings Day,” against the activities of the Trump administration, including the deployment of federal law enforcement and National Guard troops in major American cities.

“Regardless of whether the President agrees with someone’s political views, the Constitution guarantees their right to speak and assemble peacefully. Officials must not label individuals as ‘supporting Antifa’ or ‘coordinating with Antifa’ based solely on their protected speech,” according to the letter. 

“Antifa” is not one group. Rather, it’s an ideology that disapproves of the fascist style of governance.

The letter continues: “In fact, neither the memo nor the executive order clearly defines ‘Antifa’ as a specific entity. Instead, the executive order conflates nonviolent protest and activism with doxing and violent behavior. Without clear definitions and limits, this vague framing could subject lawful political expression and assembly to the same treatment as terrorism.”

Twenty-eight other Democratic lawmakers signed alongside Pocan, co-chair of the Congressional Equity and Labor caucuses; Jayapal, former head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus; and Huffman, founder of the Congressional Freethought caucus.

When asked about the letter, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson responded to States Newsroom: “The only thing Democrats love defending more than criminal illegal aliens is Antifa.”

Trump memo

Trump’s Sept. 25 national security memo orders the National Joint Terrorism Task Force and its local offices to create a comprehensive national strategy to not only disrupt and prosecute political violence but also to investigate funders and employees of organizations “that aid and abet” those who commit violence or who are “recruiting and radicalizing” people to do so. 

There are about 200 such task forces in the U.S., including at least one in each Federal Bureau of Investigation’s 56 field offices and the rest in local, state and other federal agencies, according to the FBI.

The memo states that “Common threads animating this violent conduct include anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.”

Such conduct, according to the memo, is organized “through a variety of fora, including anonymous chat forums, in-person meetings, social media, and even educational institutions” and then escalates “to organized doxing.”

The directive also instructs Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and the commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, who also happens to be Bessent after Trump fired his original pick two months into the job, to be on the lookout for suspect funding streams and ensure no tax-exempt entities “directly or indirectly” finance political violence or domestic terrorism. 

‘Fever dream of conspiracies’

The memo does not create any new parts of the criminal code or grant any new powers to federal law enforcement, including the FBI and agents who work in the criminal investigations units at the Department of Treasury and IRS.

The American Civil Liberties Union described the memo as “a fever dream of conspiracies, outright falsehoods, and the president’s distorted equation of criticism of his policies by real or perceived political opponents with ‘criminal and terroristic conspiracies.’”

“Through the memo, the president instructs federal departments and law enforcement agencies to use authorities they already have and focus them on investigations of civil society groups — including nonprofits, activists, and donors — to ‘disrupt’ and ‘prevent’ the president’s fever-dream version of ‘terrorism’ and ‘political violence,’” the ACLU’s Hina Shamsi wrote in an Oct. 15 article posted on the organization’s website.

A U.S. National Park Service lock keeps John Brown's Fort shut and secured in the Harpers Ferry National Historical Park Lower Town on Oct. 2, 2025 in Harpers Ferry, West Virginia, during the government shutdown. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Bare-bones staffing during the government shutdown across the Interior Department and the U.S. Forest Service is leaving America’s treasured natural assets vulnerable to lasting damage, according to advocates for public lands, including current and former agency employees.

National parks and most public lands remain accessible to visitors, including those run by the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management and Fish and Wildlife Service. 

But the lack of staff already has led to reports of bad behavior, like illegal camping and BASE jumping at California’s Yosemite National Park, and parks advocates and workers told States Newsroom they fear more to come as the shutdown that began Oct. 1 continues with no end in sight.

Adjustments to park staff meant to “front-load visitor services” hide some of the long-term harms, said John Garder, the senior director of budget and appropriations at the advocacy group National Parks Conservation Association. 

The NPS furloughed more than 9,000 of its roughly 14,500 workers, according to a planning document published just before the shutdown began on Oct. 1. 

That has left the people responsible for protecting “irreplaceable resources” and trail management workers needing to instead clean visitor centers and oversee parking, Garder said.

“What that’s done is created this facade for the visitors, so that in many cases they don’t see the damage that’s happening behind the scenes,” he said in a phone interview Wednesday.

Should parks be closed?

The NPCA, a nonprofit that advocates for national parks, has called for parks to close during the shutdown to avoid lasting damage. Others in the conservation community have joined in.

Aaron Weiss, the deputy director of the conservation advocacy group Center for Western Priorities, likened the situation to allowing visitors to ramble through an unstaffed Smithsonian museum.

“The national parks are effectively museums,” he said. “This would be like the Smithsonian saying, ‘Well, you know, we don’t have the staff to keep the Smithsonian museum staffed, but we’ll go ahead and leave the gates, the doors open, and come in and take a look, do what you want.’ 

“That would be horrifically irresponsible of the Smithsonian, but that is exactly what the National Park Service is saying.”

The nature of many park sites makes closing difficult. 

The largest parks, comprising sprawling lands, often lack comprehensive fencing or other ways to keep people out. Public lands outside the Park Service, including those managed by BLM and the Forest Service, are even less likely to have barriers to entry.

Still, the Interior Department under President Donald Trump has prioritized keeping parks open to an extent other administrations have not planned for during shutdowns, by transferring funds meant for park maintenance to be used for operations.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum has downplayed reports of improper behavior in the parks while blaming the closures on congressional Democrats who have mostly opposed a stopgap spending bill that would reopen the government. Democrats want Republicans to negotiate on expiring health care tax credits.

“Of course, all of our many sites…. would be better operated and better staffed if the Senate would just get us back in the government,” Burgum said in a Fox News interview Tuesday. “Way to go, Senate Democrats.”

Spokespeople for the NPS did not return messages seeking comment this week. Many communications staff across the federal government have been furloughed during the shutdown and are not legally allowed to respond to messages.

BLM spokeswoman Alyse Sharpe said in an email that the agency would “keep public lands as accessible as possible” during the shutdown. 

“Critical functions that protect life, property, and public health will remain in place, including visitor access in many locations, law enforcement, and emergency response,” she wrote.

Sharpe did not respond to questions about the concerns over lands’ long-term health.

‘Demoralizing’ atmosphere

Meanwhile, the shutdown has accelerated a drop in morale for the federal workforce responsible for public lands, at least some of whom are exasperated by what they see as the Trump administration’s failure to value their work. 

More than half of Interior’s nearly 60,000 employees have been furloughed during the shutdown. That reality, on top of staff reductions earlier this year and threatened additional layoffs by Trump and White House budget director Russ Vought, have added to a sense for many resource managers that the administration doesn’t place a priority on their jobs.

Chris Tollefson, a former communications official at the BLM and the Fish and Wildlife Service who took a buyout this year after a nearly 27-year run at the Interior agencies, said the administration’s posture was “demoralizing” for the agencies’ career employees who consider their work on behalf of public lands a calling.

“The people I know get into this because they care passionately about the land and about the resources they protect,” he said. “Most of them have deep roots in the communities they come from, and it’s really demoralizing to feel like your life’s work has been devalued and that what you’re doing doesn’t matter, that the people in charge feel like it doesn’t matter. So it’s been really hard.”

One furloughed Interior Department worker, who requested her identity be withheld because she is not authorized to speak to reporters, said the department may have trouble attracting qualified employees in the future.

“I came to the government to get a little bit more stability, thinking that it was going to be a safer bet,” the furloughed worker said. “And that has definitely not been the case. It’s not felt as stable as other positions. … I think a lot of folks that are with the federal government are there because of the perception of stability. When you take away that perception of stability, those positions aren’t going to be quite as attractive to talent that you would have attracted.”

Oil and gas permitting continues

Further irritating advocates of conservation, the shutdown has not slowed oil and gas development despite furloughs of staff responsible for science and recreation.

As of Oct. 15, the BLM had issued an average of 19.8 oil and gas permits per day since the shutdown began at the start of the month. That’s roughly on par with a typical month during Trump’s second administration, and represents the highest per-day average since May, according to an analysis of publicly available data by Weiss.

“It’s a statement of values,” Weiss said. “The Interior Department is telling the agency and telling America, ‘The folks who manage drilling on public lands are more important than the folks who actually do the day-to-day caring for our public lands.’ You don’t have the biologists, you don’t have the land managers, you don’t have the folks doing the trail maintenance. Those folks have all been furloughed, but the folks doing the oil and gas permitting are somehow essential.”

Agencies and departments can list some workers as exempt from furloughs. Those employees are kept on the job, though they generally do not receive paychecks until the government is reopened. 

In a post to Instagram on the first day of the shutdown, the Interior Department said it would continue issuing permits “and other efforts related to American Energy Dominance” despite a lapse in appropriations.

A lab tech uses equipment employed for in vitro fertilization. (Photo by Getty Images)

President Donald Trump said Thursday his administration had negotiated a lower price for a major fertility drug and would issue a regulation allowing employers to cover part of employees’ fertility coverage.

Pharmaceutical company EMD Serono will offer the popular in vitro fertilization drug Gonal-F at an 84% discount, Libby Horne, the company’s senior vice president of U.S. fertility & endocrinology, said in the Oval Office. 

The drug will be available on TrumpRX.com, a new website the White House has created to spotlight Trump’s work to reduce drug prices, Trump said.

The departments of Labor and Health and Human Services would issue guidance late Thursday, Trump said, to be followed by a regulation creating “a legal pathway for employers to offer fertility benefit packages” similar to vision or dental plans.

Sen. Katie Britt praised

The initiatives “are the boldest and most significant actions ever taken by any president to bring the miracle of life into more American homes,” Trump said. 

He credited U.S. Sen. Katie Britt, an Alabama Republican, for bringing the issue to his attention. 

“She’s the first one that told me about this,” he said. “I had not known too much about it, and we worked very rapidly together.”

Britt advocated for IVF after an Alabama Supreme Court ruling last year made the treatment illegal in the state. The state Legislature soon passed a law to ensure IVF remained legal.

At the Oval Office event Thursday, Britt offered high praise for Trump, saying he had prioritized the issue since the first time the pair spoke by phone.

“IVF is what makes the difference for so many families that are facing infertility,” she said. “The recommendations today that President Trump has set forth are going to expand IVF coverage to nearly a million more families, and they’re going to drive down cost significantly. Mr. President, this is the most pro-IVF thing that any president in the history of the United States of America has done.”

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. added that Trump was also “addressing the root causes” of infertility through a Make America Healthy Again agenda that seeks to avoid exposure to chemicals. 

Warren calls moves ‘broken promises’

Democratic U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren minimized the announcements, saying they fell short of providing the free IVF coverage Trump had pledged to work toward. 

The Massachusetts Democrat added that private employers would likely not choose to offer fertility coverage and said other cuts to health coverage would more than offset any positives.

“Trump’s new genius plan is to rip away Americans’ health insurance and gut the CDC’s IVF team, then politely ask companies to add IVF coverage out of the goodness of their own hearts — with zero federal investment and no requirement for them to follow through,” she wrote on social media. “It’s insulting, and yet another one of Trump’s broken promises to American families.”

Trump, asked about potential opposition from religious conservatives who oppose IVF, said he was unconcerned. 

“This is very pro-life,” he said. “You can’t get more pro-life than this.”

A sign with a notice of closure is seen pinned on the fence to the National Zoo on Oct. 12, 2025, in Washington, D.C. . The closure affects all the Smithsonian's 21 museums, its research centers and the National Zoo. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate left for its customary long weekend Thursday afternoon, following a brief three days in session despite the ongoing government shutdown. 

The House remained on an extended break from Capitol Hill, where neither Democrats nor Republicans seemed motivated to talk to each other despite mounting repercussions from the funding lapse.

Federal courts, for example, reported just as the shutdown began Oct. 1, they could use “fee balances and other funds not dependent on a new appropriation” to keep up and running through Friday, Oct. 17. 

“If the shutdown continues after Judiciary funds are exhausted, the courts will then operate under the terms of the Anti-Deficiency Act, which allows work to continue during a lapse in appropriations if it is necessary to support the exercise of Article III judicial powers,” the announcement stated. “Under this scenario, each court and federal defender’s office would determine the staffing resources necessary to support such work.”

A spokesperson for the courts wrote in an email to States Newsroom there were no updates to offer on funding or operations as of Thursday but signaled there could potentially be an announcement Friday. 

Trump spending cuts, layoffs 

The shutdown has had widespread ramifications across all three branches of government, including the Trump administration’s decision to cut spending approved by Congress and lay off thousands of federal employees, though that was temporarily halted by a federal judge this week. 

Federal workers who are categorized as essential will not receive their paychecks until after the shutdown ends. Furloughed employees may never receive the back pay authorized in a 2019 law if the Trump administration reinterprets it, as officials have said they might. 

None of the consequences produced any real sense of urgency this week on Capitol Hill, where West Virginia Republican Sen. Jim Justice organized a birthday party for his dog, or at the White House, where President Donald Trump held a ball for donors to his ballroom and focused on foreign policy. 

Just as they have for the last several weeks, members of Congress and administration officials continued holding separate press conferences and TV news appearances, lambasting their political opponents, none of which will help move the two sides closer together to reopen government. 

Failed vote No. 10

Senators failed for the 10th time to advance the stopgap government spending bill on a 51-45 vote, short of the 60 needed to move forward under the chamber’s legislative filibuster. Republicans control the chamber with 53 seats.

The Senate was also unable to move past a procedural hurdle on the full-year Defense Department funding bill after a 50-44 vote. The Senate Appropriations Committee approved the bill this summer on a broadly bipartisan 26-3 vote. 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told reporters ahead of the vote that Democrats want some of the other annual appropriations bills added on to create a larger bill, though he didn’t say which of the dozen he prefers. 

“It’s always been unacceptable to Democrats to do the Defense bill without other bills that have so many things that are important to the American people in terms of health care, in terms of housing, in terms of safety,” Schumer said. 

He added later that leaders from both political parties “have always negotiated these appropriations agreements in a bipartisan way. Once again, they’re just going at it alone.” 

Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, appeared to offer a package of bills negotiated between the parties before the vote on the defense bill. 

“We want this to be an open process with an opportunity to add additional bipartisan bills that address vital domestic priorities, including biomedical and scientific research and infrastructure,” Collins said. “And we want members to have a voice in the funding decisions that affect all of our states and constituents back home.”

Stopgap bills in 2025

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said during a floor speech earlier in the day the short-term government funding bill is needed to give lawmakers more time to negotiate final versions of the full-year spending bills. 

“We’re simply asking them to extend current funding bills for a few weeks while we work on full-year appropriations,” Thune said. 

Congress is supposed to work out a bipartisan agreement between the House and Senate on those bills by the start of the fiscal year on Oct. 1, but hasn’t finished on time since the 1990s. 

So every September, once back from their August recess, the House and Senate write a stopgap spending bill that typically keeps the lights on until mid-December. 

Those short-term measures, sometimes called continuing resolutions or CRs, were traditionally negotiated among Republican and Democratic leaders in both chambers until earlier this year. 

House Republicans, bolstered by a sweep in last year’s elections, decided in March to write a six-month stopgap spending bill on their own, after two bipartisan short-term bills were approved earlier in the fiscal year. 

Senate Democrats voiced frustration with the process but ultimately helped Republicans get past a procedural vote that required the support of at least 60 lawmakers, allowing the March stopgap to advance toward a simple majority passage vote. 

House Republicans repeated their previously successful maneuver last month, writing a stopgap spending bill on their own that would fund the government through Nov. 21. 

Senate Democrats, however, changed tactics and have voted repeatedly to block the House-passed stopgap bill from advancing. 

Health care standoff

Democrats maintain that Republican leaders must negotiate to extend the enhanced tax credits that are set to expire at the end of the year for people who buy their health insurance from the Affordable Care Act Marketplace. 

Republican leaders have said publicly over and over that they will, but cannot guarantee Democrats a final agreement will be able to pass both chambers. They also say talks will only begin after the stopgap bill becomes law and the government reopens. 

“Despite the fact we’re only in this position because of Democrats’ poor policy choices, Republicans are ready for that discussion,” Thune said. “But only once we’ve reopened the government.”

Thune also raised concerns over what message it would send for GOP leaders to negotiate during the shutdown, which he said would endorse the use of funding lapses to achieve policy or political goals. 

Shutdowns in history

Republicans forced the last two government shutdowns; the first in 2013 over efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act and the second in 2019 over Trump’s insistence lawmakers approve more funding for the border wall. Both were unsuccessful. 

Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a floor speech Thursday that Republicans drafting the stopgap spending bill on their own is a stark contrast to how things have worked for years and that they can’t expect Democrats to vote for something in which they had no say.  

“For the last month, the Republican leader’s favorite number has been 13. He keeps citing 13 CRs that we passed when I was majority leader. Of course we did,” Schumer said.  

“What he fails to mention — I’m not sure if he forgets, or he’s deliberately trying to ignore it — is that those 13 CRs were the product of bipartisan negotiation, of serious conversation. We had to make changes in those bills when our Republican colleagues suggested it,” he added. “They were in the minority, but they had the right to be heard, a right that has been completely shut out for Democrats under this new Republican majority.”

Schumer warned Republicans about open enrollment for the Affordable Care Act Marketplace beginning on Nov. 1, saying tens of millions of Americans will soon realize what congressional inaction means for their family budgets. 

He said Republicans’ unwillingness to negotiate before the shutdown began or since shows they “either don’t understand it or they’re brutally callous.” 

‘I want to be happy Mike’

House Speaker Mike Johnson said during a Thursday morning press conference that Republicans “have no idea” how the government shutdown will end, and blamed Democrats in the Senate for not voting to advance the stopgap bill. 

House Homeland Security Committee Chair Andrew R. Garbarino of New York said the government shutdown is undermining the day-to-day operations of the Department of Homeland Security.

“This shutdown is making our country less safe,” he said. 

Garbarino said roughly 90% of federal employees at the Department of Homeland Security are required to continue working because they have essential roles such as vetting customs at ports of entry and monitoring air space at airports. 

He said those working without pay include 63,000 U.S. Customs and Border Protection employees; more than 61,000 Transportation Security Administration agents; and 8,000 Secret Service agents. 

Garbarino added that he was grateful Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem was using funds from the “One Big Beautiful Bill” to pay the roughly 49,000 Coast Guard personnel. 

In a statement to States Newsroom, DHS said it would be able to continue hiring U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and “deploy law enforcement across the country to make America safe again” due to funding from the “One Big Beautiful Bill.” Amid the government shutdown, the Trump administration has continued its aggressive immigration crackdown.

Johnson expressed his frustration that some Homeland Security employees were working without pay.

“We should not have Border Patrol agents not (being) paid right now because Chuck Schumer wants to play political games to cover his tail,” the Louisiana Republican said. “I don’t like being mad Mike, I want to be happy Mike … but I am so upset about this.”

Bascom Hall, University of Wisconsin-Madison. (Ron Cogswell | used by permission of the photographer)

University of Wisconsin campuses could be limited in their ability to raise tuition under two Republican bills that received a hearing in the Senate Universities and Technical Colleges committee. One would leverage tuition freezes on campuses as a penalty for free speech violations, while the other would aim to help with affordability for students and families by capping tuition increases.

With the conclusion of the budget process over the summer and a $250 million investment in the UW system, Democratic and Republican lawmakers have recently turned their attention to potential policy changes that could be made to the higher education system in Wisconsin. Democratic lawmakers announced their own proposals for helping with higher education costs last week.

Implementing financial penalties on UW, technical colleges for free speech violations

Rep. Amanda Nedweski (R-Pleasant Prairie) said her bill would enshrine the principle of current University of Wisconsin system policy in law to clarify and protect the First Amendment rights of students, staff and visitors. 

Current UW system policy includes its commitment to freedom of speech and expression along with some accountability measures including conduct and due process mechanisms to address violations. 

A similar bill passed the Assembly in 2023, but failed to receive a vote in the Senate. Earlier versions of the policy were introduced after a controversial survey of UW campuses that found that a majority of students who responded said they were afraid to express views on certain issues in class. The survey had an average response rate of 12.5% across all UW System campuses. 

The latest iteration of the bill was introduced just six days after the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk, who has become a recurring point of discussion and debate. Lawmakers passed a resolution this week to honor his life.

Nedweski noted that another survey by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) that found that 35% of students say using violence to stop someone from speaking on campus is acceptable at least in rare cases. The survey included responses from 423 people. 

“It’s clearly even more chilling in light of the recent political assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk on a college campus. When we accept the false premise that speech is equivalent to violence, we allow violence to replace speech as a means of debate… We’ve seen many of our college campuses devolve into marketplaces of fear of certain viewpoints,” Nedweski said. “While Charlie Kirk’s assassination on the college campus is the most extreme example of this, it is not the first time conservatives on campus have been threatened or intimidated for their views.” 

Nedweski said the bill would help restore trust.

“The breakdown in public trust is real. It will only get worse unless our colleges and universities get serious about restoring intellectual diversity on campus, I believe,” Nedweski said. 

SB 498 would bar UW institutions from restricting speech from a speaker if their conduct “is not unlawful and does not materially and substantially disrupt the functioning of the UW institution or technical college.” It would also restrict enforcement of time, place and manner restrictions on expressive activities in public forum spaces, designating any place a “free speech zone,” charging security fees as a part of a permit application and sanctioning people for discriminatory harassment unless the speech “targets its victim on the basis of a protected class under law, and is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively bars a student from receiving equal access to educational opportunities or benefits.” 

If an institution is found to violate the provisions by a state or federal court, then it would receive a notice and a person whose expressive rights were violated would be able to bring action against the UW Board of Regents or a technical college board. A plaintiff could be awarded damages of at least $500 for the initial violation plus $50 for each day after the complaint was filed and the violation continues up to $100,000. A plaintiff could also be awarded court costs and reasonable attorney fees. 

Students, employees and campus organizations would have a due process guarantee under the bill. If the due process provisions are violated more than once in a five-year period, a campus would be required to freeze tuition for all students for the following two academic years.

Nedweski said she hadn’t spoken with the UW system about the legislation this session, but she is open to conversations. 

“I’ve expressed it from the start of the session for the UW to come and work with us on this to get to a place where they can be a thumbs up, but I haven’t heard from anyone,” Nedweski said. “They will express some concerns about certain language in the bill and definitions, and I’d like to say today that, of course, the door is still open.”

UW Interim Vice President of University Relations Chris Patton that the system’s concerns with the bills center on the penalties. 

Patton said the penalty of freezing state funding would put the system’s financial health at risk — and potentially compromise the system’s ability to carry out its mission of being a “marketplace of ideas.” 

“Freedom of expression and free speech is not just a constitutional principle. It’s at the very core of what makes our universities thrive,” Patton said. “The First Amendment guarantees this right, and our institutions take seriously our responsibility to uphold it for all students, faculty, staff, visitors and stakeholders at the Universities of Wisconsin. We already have really robust policies and procedures in place.”

Sen. Rachael Cabral-Guevara (R-Appleton), a coauthor on the bill, urged lawmakers to “please understand” that the bill is “not to punish any of our institutions,” but is to “ensure that they’re following what’s already in the Bill of Rights.”

Sen. Chis Larson (D-Milwaukee), the top Democrat on the committee, expressed concern about the aims of the legislation, whether free speech was a top concern that was widespread on campuses and whether the bill could bolster harmful language. 

“I appreciate you guys coming up here to embrace DEI for Republican viewpoints, which this seems to be what this bill is all about — making sure that Republican viewpoints are more represented and encouraged and being inclusive to that,” Larson said. 

“You can call it DEI for conservatism, but there’s nothing in the bill that addresses anything specific to conservatives, liberals, Republicans, Democrats,” Nedweski replied. “It’s free speech protections for everyone.”

Larson noted that he represents the UW-Milwaukee campus and often speaks with students about their concerns and free speech is typically low on the list. He said he hears concerns about affordability and safety more frequently. 

“Other concerns include safety, especially for students who are LGBTQ, students who are of a different race than Caucasian, of their safety on campus, of being targeted with hate crimes,” Larson said. 

Larson also brought up a recent Politico article, which exposed racist messages sent into a group chat of Young Republicans, to ask whether lawmakers thought their bill could encourage that type of speech. 

Larson said he wasn’t concerned with self-censorship that discouraged people from “saying these racist, homophobic, xenophobic, glorification of rape things out in the public, because that is something that in a free and open society should have consequences associated with it.”

“We do not have the exemption for hate speech in our laws and in the First Amendment. It does not exempt hate speech,” Larson said. “It seems to me that this [bill] would pave the way to be able to say, yes, that would be something that is not only allowed on campus, but encouraged.” 

Nedweski said she was not concerned that the bill would “further unhinge people.” 

“We’re all concerned about the political temperature that has risen so high in this country,” Nedweski said. “I don’t have concerns this bill is going to push anybody overboard. The intent is to protect people whether I agree with what their ideas… are or not. I have no association with the group that you’re talking about. I don’t agree with the things that they said. It’s unfortunate that that happened.”

Capping tuition increases

Under SB 399, the UW Board of Regents would be prohibited from increasing undergraduate tuition by more than the consumer price index increase in a given year. 

The bill, coauthored by Sen. Andre Jacque (R-New Franken) and Rep. Dave Murphy (R-Hortonville), was introduced this year after the UW system adopted its third consecutive tuition increase in July. The increases were a maximum of 5% for each campus and were implemented after the recent state budget did not reach the requests the system said would be needed to avoid a hike. 

“With the continued rising prices in almost every area of the economy, some increase in resident tuition is to be expected but we must set common sense guardrails so that any price increases are reasonable, ensuring the UW system remains a cost-effective option for Wisconsin families,” Jacque said. 

Jacque said the recent hike “might be the impetus for the timing this session” but he has seen it as a “reasonable policy” for a while, noting that versions of the bill have been proposed in previous years.

Murphy said he thought the legislation would make it so that lawmakers don’t “have to always be looking” at tuition.

“It’s just up and down and up and down and up and down,” Murphy said. The bill, he added, would help provide a semblance of predictability down the line. “If you have a youngster in the K-12 system and you’re looking at what college is going to cost in the future, you could probably have a good idea of where it is going to go.”

Larson said he found it “noble” what the Republican lawmakers were trying to accomplish with the bill, but asked about why there wasn’t any state contribution included in the bill.

He noted that the portion of state funding that makes up the UW system’s budget has been decreasing over many years. 

“It’s like the cost of groceries,” Larson said, comparing it to “shrinkflation,” a form of inflation where the price of a product stays the same but the size or quantity of a product is reduced. “We’re gonna freeze the cost of a loaf of bread, and then year after year, you’re going to get one slice less, one slice less, one slice less. It will still be the same cost, but you’re getting less. I worry… if you freeze it, we’re going to be getting the equivalent of one slice less every single year in terms of what the deliverable is from the University.” 

Murphy noted that the legislation would just cap increases, not freeze tuition. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The Journey to Justice Bus at Madison Christian Community Church on Sunday, Oct. 12. | Photo by Frank Zufall/Wisconsin Examiner

Solitary confinement, the practice of putting someone in isolation in a small cell, is not a topic you expect to hear discussed at church on Sunday.

But on Oct. 12, at the Madison Christian Community, was a stop of the 18-city, nationwide Journey to Justice Bus Tour, that included two panel discussions focused on the topic, one with four state legislators, including two candidates for governor.

Visiting the Journey to Justice bus, standing in a bathroom-sized solitary jail cell replica and hearing the real-life stories of those who had spent part of their lives confined in such spaces, visitors gained a visceral appreciation of the United Nations declaration that punishing people with more than 15 consecutive days in solitary is a form of  torture.

In the Hollywood presentation, the practice is reserved for hardened criminals, a safeguard against violence that’s necessary to keep good order and discipline.

But the reality is that small procedural violations, medical conditions, mental health crises sometimes even pregnancy are reasons people inside our prisons end up isolated for multiple days at a time.

Those who have experienced solitary confinement, otherwise known as restrictive housing or segregation, say it is traumatizing and even years after they’ve been released from prison, they are still reliving dark memories.

The Solitary and Conditions of Confinement Legislation panel at the church included four Democratic state legislators, including gubernatorial hopefuls  Sen. Kelda Roys and Rep. Francesca Hong, both of Madison. Roys, an attorney, has served on the Judiciary Public Safety Committee and worked on the Innocence Project when she was a law student at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Milwaukee area Reps. Darrin Madison and Ryan Clancy also participated. Madison is a former organizer for Youth Justice Milwaukee and a member of the Correction Committee. Clancy sits on the Corrections Committee and has served on the Judiciary and Law Enforcement Committee.

Jen Ann Bauer, who spent five and a half years in prison and is currently serving the remainder of her sentence on community supervision said she was put in solitary confinement at least four times, with the longest lasting 90 days.

“When people hear you’re in solitary confinement, they think discipline, and it is so much more to the detriment of human beings,” she said. “It is isolating. It is defeating. It is control and it is torture. We are often placed in solitary confinement for protection or safety measures, minor and major rule violations, or simply for struggling with trauma and mental health. And let’s be honest, most incarcerated people are already trauma survivors. So I ask, how is isolating a wounded person somehow equal to safety? Solitary doesn’t lock a body in a cell. It locks a person inside their own mind. Time stops and pain does not.”

In solitary, Bauer said, she paced the floor just to remind herself that she still existed.

“Women survive through connection, through relationships, and so when you take away human contact, you take away the very thing that keeps us alive,” she said. “No one is built to handle 23 hours a day in a cell. That’s not discipline, that’s psychological torture.”

She added  that in solitary there is no interaction with outside family members, weakening relationships with children.

Observing  people who spent time in solitary,  she said, she saw that they changed for the worse.

“People with dreams come out of solitary unable to make eye contact, unable to trust and unable to believe in themselves or the world around them,” she said. “Solitary doesn’t confine a body. It suffocates the heart. It doesn’t correct behavior. It destroys identity. Solitary confinement causes psychological and emotional distress, more harm, more trauma. Solitary confinement is not a tool. It is a wound, and it is a wound the system continues to inflict on people and then blame them for bleeding.”

Ventae Parrow agreed with Bauer that solitary confinement  had no redeeming  impact on him in prison other than causing him to reflect on what he wanted for his life. He questioned who had the authority to determine whether one should be in solitary, and noted that many who experienced it came out angrier.

“And now you got angry humans coming out back to the community with the vengeance in their heart and their mind versus rehabilitation,” he said.

Tom Denk, an advocate with several WISDOM affiliates and a member of the Mental Health Action Partnership, moderated the panel. Denk, who had also spent time in solitary confinement, noted there is a high rate of mental illness among incarcerated residents, 45%, and the experience of being isolated exacerbates their conditions.

“The use of solitary confinement or restrictive housing is a correctional practice with significant ethical implications,” said Denk. “Prolonged isolation has been associated with severe psychological distress, including anxiety, depression and increased risk of self-harm. It also worsens existing mental health conditions and contributes to higher rates of recidivism.”

But Denk said solitary is often chosen as a method to address psychosis instead of treatment.

Talib Akbar, vice president of the non-profit advocacy group WISDOM, the organizer of the event, said any rule violation in prison could result in being sent to solitary. He said even being a couple of feet outside a cell door could result in being sent to solitary.

The Wisconsin Examiner recently heard from a former resident of Oshkosh Correctional Institution who said he was put in segregation after calling the nearby fire department to report concerns over the prison’s fire safety protocols. He claims that when the fire department called the prison’s facility manager, the manager became upset that the resident didn’t follow the chain of command, and the resident was placed in segregation.  

The panel also addressed the types of medical treatments residents receive in solitary.

Megan Hoffman Kolb whose father, Dean Hoffmann, died in solitary confinement at Waupun Correctional Institution in 2023,  said her father, who suffered from mental illness for 30 years, didn’t consistently get the right medication for the first 80 days in Waupun and never received a psych intake exam, which he was supposed to have received.

She said when her father recorded a credible threat from his cellmate, the prison’s response was to place him in solitary.

“In solitary, he was locked alone in a concrete cell, 24 hours a day, no books, no paper, no phone calls home, no medication,” she said. “The lights were left on constantly. Silence was deafening, broken only by the sounds of people crying out down the hallway. He told staff he was suicidal, hearing voices and couldn’t sleep. A correctional officer responded, ‘What do you want me to do about it?’”

She added, “Solitary confinement is not just isolation. It’s sensory deprivation. It’s a slow unraveling of a person’s mind in a small space. Days blur together, hope disappears for someone already struggling with mental illness, unbearable, and it’s not just emotional, it’s biological. Prolonged solitary confinement literally changes the brain.”

After nine days in solitary, Kolb said, her father took his own life by hanging himself from the cell door. She had viewed the video of his body being removed.

She said the cost of solitary is the trauma the family has experienced, along with the lawsuits, investigation and broken communities, and at the end of the day, taxpayers are being asked to pay for all of it.

“We are pouring millions into a system that tortures instead of treats,” she said, “and families like mine are left paying the ultimate price.”

Regarding the cost of operating solitary, Akbar noted that prisons have to assign more correctional officers (COs) for supervision there because they are considered more dangerous areas, which also raises the cost.

Rep. Clancy said he is against solitary and the ultimate goal should be to ban it outright, but a more attainable goal is proposed legislation that would restrict solitary to 10 days and require 15 hours a week of programming while in solitary to ensure there are visits by people.

“When you talk to people at the DOC and they say, ‘Well, we looked at your legislation, it is onerous. There’s no way we’re going to be able to do that.’ We’re like,‘Great, then don’t put people in solitary.’”

He added, “Please understand that the goal here is to end solitary, but it’s also to bring to people’s minds the real harm from it.”

Rep. Madison said he grew up with a friend who went to prison and was put in solitary, and when his friend got out he still struggled with isolation. One time, the friend wasn’t able to contact Madison and then attempted suicide but didn’t die.

“I was reminded that it is our correctional system that creates the conditions where folks, even when they are released into the community, feel locked up,” he said.

“We simply incarcerate too many people,” said Roys.  She added the goal should be to ensure public safety, not incarcerate people who don’t pose a threat. 

“If we actually want public safety, then we need to change the way we are thinking about that time when people are incarcerated, and it really should be that time that they are building their skills so that they are going to see that they can thrive, and that is why we need to be fostering relationships,” she said.

She also said there needs to be reform of the Truth-in-Sentencing law that is leading to longer prison stays without parole, resulting in more people in prison, and also reforming community supervision to change  a “gotcha” attitude — finding technical violations of those on extended supervision that would send them back to prison, instead of  focusing on helping people succeed in the community.

“If our parole officers, probation officers (POs) viewed their role as facilitating success, and they judged themselves not by how many people would get reincarcerated, but by how many people succeed and never have to be reincarcerated, that’s transformational, and you don’t necessarily need statutes to do that. You absolutely do need a strong will and strong leadership from the top director who says what we are doing.”

Hong said more could be done through executive orders and the governor’s clemency power to grant pardons. She also said she would like to invest more to hire social and mental health workers.

“The more helpers that we have in an institution, the fewer enforcers we need in that same institution,” Clancy said. 

“We have to stop saying that our jails and prisons are understaffed,” he added. “They are not understaffed. They are overpopulated.”

Clancy also said the DOC should pay mental health staff as much, or more, as it does  guards, to help hire and retain staff.

Women in solitary

During a panel discussion on women in solitary, Juli Bliefnick said that after she was assaulted inside  a prison while eating lunch, she was placed in solitary for six days, and during that time she had her monthly period, but male guards didn’t allow her to shower or have clean clothes. She had a similar experience in a county jail.

“That’s some of the most dehumanizing experiences of my whole life,” she said.

In another jail, Bliefnick witnessed a friend who was eight months pregnant put in a cell and stripped naked to look for drugs as the friend screamed.

“You can even move from that environment for decades, and you can still dream about it,” she said.  “You can still think about it like til this day, like I can hear jingling keys, and I’ll still get like, you know, like a fear of like a guard coming to, you know, harass me about something or another, and it’s a terrifying thing because I’m not there anymore. You know, your brain tricks you into thinking that you are. You carry it with you no matter how long you’ve been removed from it.”

Jessica Jacobs, who has not been incarcerated for eight years, still said she is traumatized by her time in solitary.

“Various times I’ve been incarcerated, being stuck in a room like that kind of did something different to me that maybe other people might not understand,” said Jacobs, “but so I had post traumatic stress disorder already, and then the amount of treatment that I had to suffer and go through while I was incarcerated has made it worse. And so I find myself today, sometimes where I get overwhelmed or stimulated, I know my nervous system is out of whack, where I feel like I have to close myself up into my room, and that’s kind of weird, you know, and I feel like I have to lock myself up, and I just don’t even try to figure out what it is. I know that it’s connected to that.”

Jacobs said she remembers being locked up with a 17-year-old girl who had been sex-trafficked by her father, and the girl was missing her babies and was distraught and wanted mental health services, but Jacobs cautioned against it, knowing that seeking those services often meant being sent to solitary or being restricted to a chair.

“And the next thing I know, they hauled her off and stuffed her in solitary confinement by herself,” said Jacobs. “And then came the big banging and the cries began.”

Yolanda Perkins said her mother was in prison for 17 years and spent time in solitary, and that time changed her mother permanently.

“My mother hasn’t been incarcerated in about 20 years, but she won’t go into a room by herself,” said Perkins, adding, “It affects how she grandparents her grandchildren. It affects her communication with them. It affects her communication with society. And so she still struggles.”

Bliefnick spoke about her work with the Ostara Initiative, working with doulas to end the practice of putting pregnant and postpartum women in solitary for protective custody.

“Punishing women who are in that condition is actually a common practice,” she said, “and I mean, can you think of anything worse than putting a woman who just had a baby and had it ripped away from [her getting] 24 hours in solitary confinement like that? That’s like a horrible practice to begin with. It’s like they treat them like cattle, and then to put them in solitary confinement for their protection is like the cruelest thing that you could possibly imagine.”

This story has been updated to fix the photo captions identifying Jen Ann Bauer and Megan Hoffman Kolb

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

St. John's Lutheran Church in Madison, Wis., is being converted into a 10-story high-rise that will combine a worship space with more than 100 affordable apartments. Lawmakers see the potential for much-needed housing on church-owned land, but opponents worry local communities could lose their authority over neighborhood development. (Video screenshot courtesy of St. John's Lutheran Church)

Growing up in a religious family, Florida Republican state Sen. Alexis Calatayud has seen how many church communities are no longer anchored to a single building in the way they used to be. Her small prayer groups take place over chats these days, not necessarily in person or sitting shoulder-to-shoulder in pews.

With churches in her Miami-Dade County district grappling with shrinking membership and aging buildings, Calatayud thinks those institutions can do good with their unused land, by acting as anchors of new housing rather than as bystanders in neighborhood redevelopment.

“When you look at someone sitting on a small church, on a 10-acre property with a dwindling congregation, the question becomes, ‘How can this entity continue to be the beating heart of the community?’” Calatayud said in an interview.

“I think it’s to create a village, where we can create more housing and even centralize other needs in the community on that land.”

This year, Florida enacted a measure, sponsored by Calatayud, allowing multifamily residential development on land that is both owned by a religious institution and occupied by a house of worship, so long as at least 10% of the new units are affordable. Some housing advocates believe the zoning override has the potential to unlock roughly 30,000 parcels statewide.

Florida’s new law is part of a growing movement known as YIGBY — Yes in God’s Backyard. Touted by many faith leaders, lawmakers and developers, the movement imagines a connection between a religious mission to serve and the very real hurdles of building affordable housing.

If the U.S. is to meet the nation’s demand for new apartments, developers are going to need land, experts say, and parcels owned by faith-based organizations are starting to become a part of the solution for some states. At the same time, some skeptics question whether the movement could strip local communities of having a say in neighborhood development.

Places of worship are found in every corner of the United States. Land owned by faith-based organizations makes up 84 million square feet in New York City, for example, with enough land for 22,000 units on just the vacant lots and surface parking lots of those organizations, according to the Furman Center of New York University. Elsewhere, HousingForward Virginia says faith-based organizations own 74,000 acres in the state, nearly twice the size of Richmond.

California enacted what is considered the first statewide YIGBY law in 2023. It cleared the way for churches and other places of worship, as well as nonprofit universities, to create affordable housing on their land. It allows landowners to bypass public hearings, discretionary votes by city councils or planning boards, and certain environmental reviews so long as they meet affordability requirements, with at least 75% of the homes affordable for low-income households.

Several states — Arizona, Colorado, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York and Texas — have considered YIGBY legislation this year, though none has passed. And a bill filed last month in Congress would allow rental properties to be built on currently unused church land with federal assistance.

Opponents of the Colorado bill frame it as state overreach on local zoning decisions and worry about a potential pathway for religious landowners to bypass Fair Housing Act protections for housing applicants who may not share that faith, according to a position paper opposing Colorado’s YIGBY legislation.

Beverly Stables, a lobbyist for the Colorado Municipal League, told Stateline that local governments worry YIGBY bills could undermine constitutional home-rule authority and saddle towns with unfunded state mandates.

“Our members have worked successfully with schools and churches on housing projects already,” she said. “The question is, what problem are we really trying to solve?”

The Rev. Patrick Reidy, an associate professor of law at Notre Dame who has studied the relationship between housing and faith-based organizations, says states and cities are eager to partner with faith-based organizations to use their land.

It’s not an easy decision for faith leaders to switch the purpose of their land from a devoted congregation space to housing, he said.

“The decision to change the way church land has been used historically for decades or even centuries is not easy for a place of worship to make, so lawmakers should meet faith communities where they are,” said Reidy, who also is co-director of Notre Dame’s Church Properties Initiative.

“It’s more an understanding that the way places of worship approach housing is from a moral mission to serve, so things like financing, zoning and legal know-how to create housing requires some walk-through for faith-based organizations,” Reidy said.

“The real challenge is learning to speak each other’s language.”

‘Right in the middle’

Every afternoon at 3:22, members of St. John’s Lutheran Church in Madison, Wisconsin, pause what they are doing and pray. Whether they are working, at home, watching baseball’s Milwaukee Brewers or sitting in a temporary worship space, they pray at that exact time.

It isn’t random: “322” is the address where the German Lutheran church has stood downtown at East Washington Avenue and North Hancock Street — just a block from the state Capitol — for 170 years, the Rev. Peter Beeson said.

Congregation members no longer worship there because the site could be set for the biggest transformation in its history: trading in stained-glass windows and church pews for a 10-story high-rise that will combine a worship space with more than 100 affordable apartments.

Beeson told Stateline that the congregation moved out of the building in the fall of 2023 for a groundbreaking later that same year.

“Our current building was built in 1905, and was nearing the end of its useful life, with many additions and renovations over the years,” Beeson said. “And it made sense to sacrifice our existing building to build affordable housing plus worship and community space as a way of serving our mission — providing much needed affordable housing for 130 or so families, and providing a home for the congregation for the next 150 years.”

The congregation, founded in 1856 by German Lutherans, has evolved with the needs of its community.

The church hosted a men’s homeless shelter for more than 20 years, ran a drop-in center for people with mental illness and offered small-scale aid for residents seeking anything from bus tickets to steel-toed work boots to child care, Beeson said.

Before construction could get underway on the housing project, though, Beeson and the church ran into a familiar issue that constrained housing across the country in 2023 — rapidly increasing construction costs and skyrocketing interest rates.

Beeson said he isn’t deterred. Other projects have taken 10 to 15 years to break ground, he said. “So keeping that timeline in mind, we are right in the middle.”

He believes the project, which has received sizable donations from community members via GoFundMe, is a God-ordained mission to provide a service for its community.

“We are continuing to move forward with the project. There have been setbacks and challenges along the way,” Beeson said. “However, like God led the Israelites through the wilderness with a pillar of fire by day and a pillar of clouds by night, God continues to open doors and pave pathways to bring this project to completion.”

Ceding local control

The economic realities surrounding homebuilding are among many hurdles challenging congregations that want to develop new housing.

In states such as Colorado, local governments worried that a proposed statewide development measure that would give preferential treatment to faith-based organizations could undermine local control and even potentially open the door to religious discrimination.

“Not suggesting it from all entities,” said Stables, of the Colorado Municipal League, “but we were concerned about the potential for discrimination, and potential violations of Fair Housing Act requirements.”

Stables also thinks this year’s legislation was premature, just a year after Colorado lawmakers made sweeping changes to land use rules — including new laws removing parking minimums and encouraging transit-oriented developments and accessory dwelling units — that she said haven’t had time to take effect or be meaningfully implemented locally.

She also said the bill would have stripped local governments of zoning authority while offering no new resources. More than 200 municipalities opted into an affordable housing fund created through a 2022 ballot initiative, Stables said, but the legislature has been sweeping out some of that money for other budgetary needs, leaving cities under-resourced to deliver on those housing goals.

In the end, Colorado’s legislation passed the House but died in the Senate after supporters concluded it didn’t have the votes to pass.

YIGBY supporters elsewhere have had to balance the tension between state goals and local zoning authority. A 2019 Washington law requires cities and counties to offer density bonuses for affordable housing on religious land — an incentive, but not a legal override of zoning laws.

In Minnesota, state Sen. Susan Pha, a Democrat, told Stateline she modeled some aspects of her YIGBY proposal off the California law. She also tailored aspects of her bill — such as a focus on middle-housing options like small studios — to find solutions that work specifically for her state.

Pha said some of her big battles have been around the allowances of small lot sizes, such as 220-square-foot studio units, which she said the state “really needs” in order to make a dent in its housing shortage.

“The obstacle really is zoning,” Pha said. “If we can change some of those zoning requirements, we could produce more affordable housing and leverage the space and the dedicated work these faith-based organizations already do.”

Pha’s bill failed to reach a floor vote.

Other YIGBY-like policies have passed in localities including Atlanta; Montgomery County, Maryland; and Seattle. Atlanta’s program aims for the creation of at least 2,000 units of affordable housing over eight years.

When New York City passed its City of Yes housing initiative in December 2024, it permitted faith-based organizations to convert underused properties into housing by lifting zoning, height and setback requirements.

Unlocking land, a bit at a time

In an interview with Stateline, Atlanta Mayor Andre Dickens pointed out that some of the city’s historic churches sit on prime land with underused parking lots that at one time were filled by many of the churchgoers’ cars.

Unlike many developers who might flip properties after short-term affordability requirements expire, Dickens said, churches may offer stability, since their mission is to serve “the least, the less and the lost” — meaning they might be less likely to sell off the property due to market pressure.

Atlanta is working with financial partners such as Enterprise and Wells Fargo to guide faith-based institutions that need that help, he said.

“Churches are usually on great corners, and they’re hallmarks of the community with land that’s underutilized, and their mission aligns perfectly with affordable housing,” Dickens said. “We’ve got churches that say, ‘Teach us how to develop. We have no idea what we’re doing.’”

The potential is vast, experts say. California faith-based organizations and nonprofit colleges own about 170,000 acres of land, equivalent in size to the city of Oakland, and much of it could be developed under the state’s YIGBY law, according to a 2023 report by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at the University of California, Berkeley.

In North Carolina, congregations have had small successes. A Presbyterian church in Charlotte turned an unused education wing into 21 units of permanent housing, and an Episcopal church in Chapel Hill built three tiny homes on its property for a trio of formerly homeless residents.

Eli Smith, the director of the nonprofit Faith-Based Housing Initiative, argues that state YIGBY laws should ease affordability requirements for small infill projects such as those in North Carolina and allow them to get built more quickly. Otherwise, he said, small churches’ projects “can’t get off the ground.”

“Think of it as a cottage neighborhood tucked behind a sanctuary — people know each other, it’s beautiful, it’s meaningful,” Smith said. “The future of this movement isn’t in [high-rise apartment] towers; it’s in small, intentional communities that fit their surroundings.”

Stateline reporter Robbie Sequeira can be reached at rsequeira@stateline.org.

President Donald Trump speaks as Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Kash Patel, left, and U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi look on during a press conference in the Oval Office of the White House on Oct. 15, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

President Donald Trump and FBI Director Kash Patel claimed victory Wednesday in what they said was a months-long surge of law enforcement in major cities and pledged to continue sending federal authorities to address violent crime in U.S. cities.

The FBI arrested more than 8,700 suspects during an initiative Trump dubbed “Operation Summer Heat” from June to September. 

The exact parameters of the operation, which had not been previously made public, were unclear as Trump and Patel said during an Oval Office appearance that they would continue to prioritize aggressive enforcement, particularly in major cities led by Democrats.

“Honestly, we haven’t really gotten going yet,” Trump said. “If we didn’t have to fight all these radical left governors, we could’ve had Chicago taken care of, as an example.”

Since June, Trump has pursued a controversial and legally questionable effort to send National Guard troops to U.S. cities — Los Angeles; Washington, D.C.; Memphis and Portland, Oregon — to deal with protestors and general street crime while consistently hinting that more deployments would be coming. 

He said Wednesday that residents of Chicago largely approved of aggressive policing tactics and were “walking around with MAGA hats.” Trump won just 28% of the vote in Chicago’s Cook County in the 2024 election, compared to 70% for Democrat Kamala Harris.

“They’re not interested in National Guard, Army, Navy — bring them in, bring in the Marines,” he said. “They just want the crime to stop.” 

The crime push took Trump by surprise, he said, noting it was not a primary part of his campaign.

“I did get elected for crime, but I didn’t get elected for what we’re doing,” he said. “This is many, many steps above.”

He also identified White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller as an architect and chief communicator of the administration’s law enforcement policies, though he made a passing implication that Miller’s far-right views were too extreme for much of the country.

“I love watching him on television,” he said. “I’d love to have him come up and explain his true feelings. Maybe not his truest feelings — that might be going a little bit too far. But Stephen, thank you for doing an incredible job. The people of this country love you.”

Political crime and Caribbean boats

Trump again broached the possibility of defying two typical norms of presidential power: calling for prosecutions to retaliate against officials who’d investigated him and defending the extrajudicial strikes on alleged drug runners in the Caribbean Sea that he said could expand to land.

Standing between Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi, Trump said U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff, who, as a U.S. House Democrat before joining the Senate, led congressional investigations into Trump, and former prosecutor Jack Smith, who led criminal prosecutions, should be investigated.

“Deranged Jack Smith is, in my opinion, a criminal,” Trump said. 

“I hope they’re looking at Shifty Schiff,” he added, referring to the California Democrat. “I hope they’re looking at political crime, because there’s never been as much political crime against a political opponent as what I had to go through.”

Trump said the military’s attacks on vessels suspected to be bringing drugs to the United States had effectively halted drug importation from Venezuela. The operation could expand to land targets, he said.

“We are certainly looking at land now, because we’ve got the sea very well under control,” he said.

Gov. Tony Evers speaks to reporters in March 2025. Evers has written the Department of Energy urging officials not to cancel $1.5 billion in funds for Wisconsin projects. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

With more than $1.5 billion in federal energy investments in Wisconsin at risk, Gov. Tony Evers is urging the Trump administration not to roll back previously awarded funds in the face of rising energy costs.

Evers’ response, in a letter to U.S. Department of Energy Secretary Chris Wright, followed multiple news reports in the last week about energy projects on target lists for cancellation.

The governor’s office has compiled a list of 22 projects for which federal Energy Department funding totaling $1.56 billion has been marked for cancellation.

“Federal support plays a critical role in advancing the Wisconsin Idea and American innovation, lowering energy bills for families across America, supporting clean energy development to improve energy independence and resilience, creating good-paying jobs in innovative industries and sectors, and maintaining our nation’s leadership in science and technology,” Evers wrote Tuesday in his letter to Wright.  

“Given these clear benefits and the importance of these investments to Wisconsin’s and our nation’s economy, I was deeply concerned to see reporting last week containing a list of over 600 DOE funding awards that are potentially going to be targeted for termination with no clear reasoning or justification.”

Evers’ letter mentions several Wisconsin projects and companies on the target list, including several that the Wisconsin Examiner reported on this week.

The letter also notes forecasts of rising costs for electric power that the energy policy think tank Energy Innovation attributes to the tax and spending cut megabill that President Donald Trump signed July 4.

“Terminating these funding awards at a time of record-high energy demand and rising costs would be counterintuitive, reckless and ill-advised,” Evers concludes in his letter to Wright. “I urge you to reaffirm DOE’s commitment to honoring these funding awards and to continue supporting these investments that drive Wisconsin’s and the nation’s energy landscape forward.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Brandon Parnell, 39, and Latoya Gaines, 40, both of Birmingham, Alabama, traveled to Washington, D.C., to demonstrate outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, Oct. 15, 2025. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday drew protests from activists and lawmakers who warned the case threatens to gut a key provision of the Voting Rights Act and strip minority populations of the chance to elect candidates to Congress.

The Congressional Black Caucus convened a press conference on Capitol Hill just hours after the justices heard the case brought by the state of Louisiana and a group of voters who argue Section 2 of the landmark 1965 law violates the Constitution by discriminating against white voters. The section prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate based on race.

Protesters rally at the U.S. Capitol and in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, Oct. 15, 2025, as justices heard a case from Louisiana challenging the Voting Rights Act. (Video by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

U.S. Rep. Troy Carter, a Louisiana Democrat and member of the caucus, cautioned his state could lose two majority Black congressional districts if the court strikes down the section in question.

“Critics claim that the VRA is no longer needed, but history and data tells quite a different story,” Carter said.

“Though Black people make up one-third of the population (in the state), only five (Black) Louisianians have served in the U.S. House out of 171. That’s not equal representation. That’s a travesty. Without protections like Section 2, Black communities will lose power. Their concerns are sidelined, and our democracy is weakened.”

U.S. Rep. Terri Sewell, a Democrat of Alabama, said she sat through the more than two hours of oral arguments in the Supreme Court Wednesday morning into afternoon.

“What was clear in the questioning of the majority on the court is that they have something in mind,” Sewell said, adding that she believes the conservative majority wants to “claw back Section 2, if not to eliminate it totally.” 

Two years ago, the justices affirmed Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, finding that an Alabama congressional district map likely violated it. 

“This case is more than just about congressional maps. It’s about who we are as a nation and what we want our democracy to be. Now, I may be the first Black congresswoman from Alabama, but I damn sure won’t be the last,” Sewell said.

Earlier Wednesday, hundreds of demonstrators gathered outside the Supreme Court before and during oral arguments. 

Nearly two dozen advocacy groups organized the rally, dubbed “Fight for Fair Maps.” Speakers included leaders from the NAACP, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, The Urban League and the National Council of Negro Women.

Fatima Goss Graves, president and CEO of the National Women’s Law Center, invoked in her speech the names of past civil and voting rights leaders, like Ida B. Wells and Amelia Boynton Robinson.

“These black women were on the front line of the battle to secure voting rights. They understood that it was a necessary foundation for everything else, for our freedom, for our safety, for our economic security,” Graves said.

Those fighting against Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act “want to make the right to vote nothing but words on a paper. They want to take away anything that feels real about our ability to have these rights,” Graves said.

Many in the crowd held signs featuring the face of the late civil rights leader and Georgia U.S. Rep. John Lewis next to the words “Protect Our Vote.”

Latoya Gaines, 40, of Birmingham, Alabama, said she traveled to Washington, D.C., “to stand in solidarity with my people.” 

“We believe in fair math,” said Gaines, as she demonstrated with the group Black Voters Matter and held a sign bearing the message “We Fight Back.”

Brandon Parnell, who also traveled from Birmingham and represented Black Voters Matter, stood alongside Gaines as they held signs toward the traffic driving by the Supreme Court.

“I’m here to fight for my voting rights because I’m a voter,” said the 39-year-old, as he waved an American flag and clasped an ACLU-sponsored sign reading “Protect People, Not Power.”

Jan Kleinman, 65, of Baltimore, Maryland, attended with fellow League of Women Voters members. 

“I grew up in a League of Women Voters household,” Kleinman said. “The vote is really powerful and shouldn’t be diluted.”

“I truly believe in fair redistricting, like districts that accurately represent a majority of their citizens. Obviously not everyone is going to always be happy with who gets elected, but the closer we can get to making more people happy, the better our democracy,” Kleinman said.

A sign on the entrance to the U.S. National Arboretum is seen as it is closed due to the federal government shut down on Oct. 1, 2025 in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

This report has been updated.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order Wednesday, blocking the Trump administration from moving forward with the thousands of layoffs it initiated after the government shutdown began Oct. 1, as well as any others that officials might want to carry out.  

The hearing in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California took place at the same time White House budget director Russ Vought appeared on the conservative Charlie Kirk podcast to preview his next steps.

Vought warned the initial Reductions in Force, the technical term for a layoff notice, were just “a snapshot” and that as many as 10,000 federal workers would lose their jobs if the shutdown drags on.

“We’re going to keep those RIFs rolling throughout this shutdown because we think it’s important to stay on offense for the American taxpayer and the American people,” Vought said. “We want to be very aggressive where we can be in shuttering the bureaucracy, not just the funding, but the bureaucracy.”

Judge Susan Illston said during the hearing that she granted the temporary restraining order because Trump administration officials had “taken advantage of the lapse in government spending, government functioning to assume that all bets are off, that the laws don’t apply to them anymore and that they can impose the structures that they like on the government situation that they don’t like.” 

Illston said laws and regulations still apply during a shutdown and that, by all appearances, the Trump administration’s actions in the case are politically motivated. 

“Things are being done before they’re thought through — very much ready, fire, aim,” Illston said.

The ruling will put the approximately 4,000 layoffs noticed during the shutdown on hold as the court case proceeds. 

DOJ unprepared to speak on merits of case

Elizabeth Hedges, a Justice Department attorney arguing the case on behalf of the Trump administration, said several times during the brief hearing she wasn’t prepared to speak about the merits of the case — a position that confounded the judge, who gave Hedges several chances to reverse course.  

“We may be able to address the merits at the next stage,” Hedges said, after telling Illston she would need to check with others before making any statements about why the administration believes its actions are legal. 

Danielle Leonard, an attorney representing the labor unions that brought the lawsuit, urged the judge to grant a temporary restraining order for all the departments and agencies that make up the executive branch, not just those that have announced RIFs.

Leonard said she believes Trump administration officials have decided how many additional federal employees to lay off during the shutdown, but have opted not to share that information with the court.

“The decision has been made, it’s just a question of implementation and timing,” Leonard said, around the same time Vought was giving his podcast interview. 

Illston, who was nominated by former President Bill Clinton, said at the end of the hearing she expected the attorneys to find a day in the coming weeks when they can attend a hearing on the next stage, which would be a preliminary injunction.

Senate deadlocks for ninth time

On the other side of the country, Republicans and Democrats continued to spar on Capitol Hill over the reasons for the shutdown, as the Senate failed for a ninth time to advance a short-term government spending bill. 

The 51-44 vote was nearly identical to the others that have taken place since mid-September, and neither side appeared inclined to make concessions or even try to negotiate. 

Nevada Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto and Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman, both Democrats, and Maine independent Sen. Angus King voted with Republicans to advance the bill. Kentucky GOP Sen. Rand Paul voted no.

Democrats maintain there must be a bipartisan deal to extend the enhanced tax credits that are set to expire at the end of this year for people who get their health insurance from the Affordable Care Act Marketplace. 

GOP leaders said they are willing to begin negotiations on that issue, but only after Democrats vote to advance the stopgap bill that would fund government through Nov. 21. 

The House voted mostly along party lines to approve the legislation in mid-September, but it has remained stalled in the Senate ever since, unable to garner the 60 votes needed to advance toward final passage. Republicans control the chamber with 53 seats.

Congress needs to approve the stopgap bill since it, once again, failed to approve all 12 of the full-year government funding bills by the Oct. 1 start of the new fiscal year.

The only other way to end the funding lapse would be for both chambers to reach a broadly bipartisan consensus on all of those appropriations bills. 

Layoffs across agencies

The layoffs initiated by the Trump administration during the shutdown were detailed further on Tuesday in court filings from the labor unions’ attorneys as well as Trump administration officials.  

Stephen Billy, senior adviser at the Office of Management and Budget, wrote the number of layoff notices had changed since Friday when he outlined the Reductions in Force to the court.

The numbers have fluctuated significantly for some departments, but not for all. 

• Commerce: Approximately 600 employees, up from 315
• Education: Remained at 466 employees
• Health and Human Services: 982 employees, down from a range of 1,100 to 1,200
• Housing and Urban Development: Stayed at 442 employees
• Homeland Security: Decreased to 54 from 176 employees
• Treasury: Reduced somewhat to 1,377 employees, from 1,446 

Energy, EPA layoffs

Federal workers at those departments have 60 days between when the notice was sent and when they will no longer have jobs, though a different standard is in place at the Energy Department and the Environmental Protection Agency. 

Energy officials, the document says, “issued a general RIF notice informing 179 employees that they may receive a specific notice in the future if it is determined they will be part of any RIF. If so, that notice would provide the relevant notice period.”

But a spokesperson for the Energy Department emailed States Newsroom on Tuesday evening to confirm officials had issued RIF notices to workers in the Offices of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Clean Energy Demonstrations, State and Community Energy Programs and Minority Economic Impact.

“All these offices played a major role in the Biden administration’s war on American Energy,” the spokesperson wrote. “They oversaw billions of dollars in wasteful spending and massive regulatory overreach, resulting in more expensive and less reliable energy. These offices are being realigned to reflect the Trump administration’s commitment to advancing affordable, reliable, and secure energy for the American people and a more responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars.”

Further confusing the situation at the Energy Department, a footnote in the court document filed by Billy said that particular agency isn’t actually experiencing a lapse in funding. 

The Billy court document said EPA officials sent 28 employees “intent to RIF” notices and will send formal RIF notices “to any affected employees at least 60 days prior to the effective date.” 

A separate document, filed by Thomas J. Nagy Jr., deputy assistant secretary for Human Resources at HHS, said “data discrepancies and processing errors” led to 1,760 employees receiving layoff notices instead of the intended 982.

“Employees have been working since October 10, 2025, to rescind the notices that had been issued in error,” Nagy wrote. 

At CDC, ‘eliminating entire offices’

Yolanda Jacobs, president of the American Federation of Government Employees Local 2883, wrote in a brief to the court that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “issued RIF notices to approximately 1,300 employees, eliminating entire offices at the agency. Then, within 24 hours, the CDC rescinded approximately 700 of those RIF notices.” 

Jacobs wrote the 600 CDC workers who received RIFs will officially lose their jobs on Dec. 8, even though they have already lost access to work email and computers. 

“Many Union members have told me that they are experiencing serious mental health problems and have found it very difficult to get their work done, given all of the turmoil that they have experienced this year,” Jacobs wrote, referencing previous RIF notices and reinstatements. “Members have told me that they worry on a day-to-day basis about whether they will have a job the next day. They said that they have felt like the Trump Administration has been using them as bargaining chips this year.”

Jacobs wrote that the Trump administration has decided to lay off many human resources workers, which had blocked other workers who received RIFs from being able to get information about how to roll over their health insurance coverage. 

During past RIFs, she wrote, workers had “access to the employment records, including paystubs and performance records, that they need for processing their separations,” but cannot since they are locked out of computer systems. 

Layoffs hit Department of Education

Rachel Gittleman, president of AFGE Local 252, which represents nearly 3,000 Education Department workers, wrote in a separate filing the layoffs will impact numerous programs, including civil rights, communications and outreach, elementary and secondary education, post secondary education, and special education and rehabilitative services.

“Receiving RIF notices has caused many employees enormous stress. A father of two young boys contacted me—he just moved into a new home and relies on his job to support his family,” Gittleman wrote. “He told me (he) doesn’t know what he will do next.”

Workers on maternity or disability leave also received layoff notices, “forcing them to job-hunt and face financial insecurity while managing newborns or health conditions,” she wrote. 

Following past RIF notices, the department provided “career transitioning and counseling, benefits and retirement training, and access to other human resources and employee assistance programs.” But Gittleman wrote that isn’t happening this time. 

‘Devastated’ HUD employees

Ashaki Robinson, regional vice president for AFGE Council 222, which represents nearly 5,000 HUD workers, said the layoff notices for that department will impact employees in Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Massachusetts, Puerto Rico, Texas and Washington, D.C., who manage a variety of programs. 

“They are devastated that the RIF is happening and are very concerned about losing their incomes, health insurance coverage for themselves and dependents, and other employment benefits in 60 days, when they will be separated from employment,” Robinson wrote. 

The hundreds of HUD workers who have received RIF notices, she wrote, were “targeted for termination not because of anything they did themselves, but because of decisions made by elected officials that may have been driven by politics.”