Construction on a new city hall in Raleigh, N.C., was at a standstill Nov. 18 as word of immigration raids kept away most workers. Industries with large immigrant workforces, such as construction, are asking for federal relief as they combat labor shortages and raids. (Photo by Clayton Henkel/NC Newsline)

As food prices remain high, the Trump administration has made it easier for farmers to hire foreign guest workers and to pay them less. Now, other industries with large immigrant workforces also are asking for relief as they combat labor shortages and raids.

Visas for temporary foreign workers are a quick fix with bipartisan support in Congress. And Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins’ office told Stateline that “streamlining” visas for both agricultural and other jobs is a priority for the Trump administration.

But some experts warn that such visas can be harmful if they postpone immigration overhauls that would give immigrant workers a path to green cards and citizenship.

“Lack of permanent status is costly to migrants, employers, and the broader economy,” wrote Pia Orrenius, a labor economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, in a report published in June. Workers are “vulnerable to policy changes triggered by a change in administration, most recently the threat of mass deportations.”

In a Nov. 25 interview with Stateline, Orrenius said the crackdown on illegal immigration could be a good thing if it leads to permanent solutions.

“If you can stop undocumented immigration, then great. This is a great time to work on comprehensive immigration reform,” Orrenius said. “Where is there a scarcity of workers and how do we address those legally instead of illegally?”

Restaurants, construction and landscaping businesses have lost a combined 315,000 immigrant workers through August this year, more than any other industries, according to a Stateline analysis of Current Population Survey data provided by the University of Minnesota at ipums.org.

The construction industry needs more foreign worker visas like those already being provided for agriculture to prevent more delays in building everything from homes to highways, business owners say.

The industry needs help to “provide lawful workers while working to prepare more Americans for permanent careers in construction,” said Jaime Andress, testifying at a congressional hearing last month on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of America trade group. About 92% of contractors with open positions are having trouble finding enough skilled labor, whether it’s for construction of buildings, highways or utility infrastructure, she testified.

There are about 145,000 fewer immigrants working in restaurants, on average, through August of this year compared with the same period in 2024, the Stateline analysis found. There are about 127,000 fewer in construction and 43,000 fewer in landscaping.

One landscaping firm, which did not agree to an interview, lost $50,000 in contracts this year when workers stopped showing up because of rumored immigration raids, said Rebecca Shi, chief executive officer of the Chicago-based American Business Immigration Coalition, which advocates for employers seeking immigration changes.

“He had 75 workers and 50 of them didn’t show up one day because there were rumors ICE was going to be in the area,” Shi said. “Many of them were citizens and legal workers, but they were worried about family members and neighbors, so they didn’t show up either. It’s bad for the economy when you lose a worker, but it’s also the fear and uncertainty. We know restaurants that have lost 50% of staff and are at risk of closing because people just aren’t showing up.”

The coalition organized a “fly-in” in October to Washington, D.C., to ask members of Congress for more help to legalize immigrant workers through work permits in hospitality, agriculture, construction, elder care, health care and manufacturing.

In a letter dated Dec. 2, thousands of businesses in all 50 states asked the administration for an additional 64,716 H-2B visas, saying they rely on them for seasonal surges in hospitality, tourism, landscaping, forestry, seafood production and other industries.

And a bipartisan group of 33 U.S. senators from 22 states signed a letter Nov. 13 by Maine Independent Sen. Angus King and South Dakota Republican Sen. Mike Rounds asking for more H-2B seasonal employment visas.

“Employers’ workforce needs cannot be met with American workers alone,” the letter said.

Construction contractors say they need visas that are similar to the H-2A visas for agriculture that the Trump administration streamlined in October to make them easier and cheaper for farmers to hire temporary foreign workers.

The Associated General Contractors of America wants visas like the proposed new H-2C visas floated by Pennsylvania Republican U.S. Rep. Lloyd Smucker. Those would allow up to 85,000 less-skilled temporary workers in construction, hospitality and other fields to stay in this country up to nine years. The bill, introduced in September, has not advanced.

The association also supports a pathway to legal status for some workers already in the country, as proposed by Florida Republican U.S. Rep. María Elvira Salazar and Texas Democratic U.S. Rep. Veronica Escobar. The bill, introduced in July, also has not advanced.

“Workforce shortages are the leading cause of construction project delays,” said Brian Turmail, a vice president at the association. “Nearly 1 out of 3 contractors have been impacted in one way or another by enhanced ICE enforcement activities. That number is almost certain to increase now that ICE has received significant boosts to its budget as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.”

Those industries are asking for more help as the latest federal immigration raids further affect workforces in Illinois, Maryland and North Carolina, with more raids planned in Louisiana. Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a data research organization at Syracuse University, reported a “massive redeployment of government military and civilian personnel to immigration enforcement” in recent months, with total detentions reaching more than 65,000, according to a Nov. 24 report. Nearly three-quarters of those arrested have no criminal convictions.

Construction, landscaping and other industries are already heavy users of H-2B visas for temporary non-agricultural foreign workers, according to government figures reviewed by Stateline.

In fiscal year 2025, which ended in September, there were about 209,000 H-2B visas, with Texas (20,051), Florida (18,515), North Carolina (8,634), Colorado (7,723) and Louisiana (7,234) getting the most. The most common occupations were building and grounds (94,152); food service (31,403); construction (16,729); farming, fishing and forestry (15,665); and personal care (12,170).

Some of the largest users of the visas last year were Core Tech Construction of New York City, a concrete coring and cutting firm (2,619 visas); ABC Professional Tree Services of Texas, which provides land clearance services (1,913); and Progressive Solutions LLC of Arkansas, which provides herbicide application to utilities (1,882).

The H-2B visa program needs to be streamlined and expanded to be useful for employers and workers, said David Bier, director of immigration studies at the libertarian CATO Institute, who has written about the visas.

Employers don’t always get the workers they want because the United States limits H-2B visas to 33,000 twice a year. Requests for the visas have already surpassed the 33,000 cap for the first half of fiscal 2026.

“The paperwork is a nightmare for employers and there are a lot of steps for workers also,” said Bier. “And there are so few visas available that your chance of getting all you need is almost nil.”

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

A drone watching a protest. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

“It is a unique bill that has a lot of emotion and nuances to it,” said Rep. Chuck Wichgers (R-Muskego), describing a bill to give local law enforcement the power to disable or destroy drones. Speaking to the Assembly Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety on Wednesday, Wichgers said that the bill would give “the bare minimum protection” for both the public and police as global drone technology continues to rapidly evolve.

Although current state law prohibits the use of weaponized drones, the devices are not actually defined in statute. Wichgers’ bill would define a weaponized drone as one which “is equipped with a taster, firearm, flamethrower, chemical, or explosive device.” 

Wichgers cautioned that “we can easily complicate this bill,” especially given the growth of drone technology around the world. Over the last two decades, drones have gone from being scarcely heard of outside military settings to becoming household objects. The U.S. military’s infamous Reaper and Predator drones, some of which are the size of small planes, have long been used in combat for reconnaissance and lethal strikes. Today, however, the same small and cheap quad-copter drones used by photographers, landscapers and children are being outfitted with explosives for kamikaze-style attacks on armored vehicles on Russian and Ukrainian battlefields, where an estimated 70-80% of casualties are caused by drones.

“It’s beyond fascinating,” Wichgers  said of “this is a big and global issue.” Wichgers told committee members that “we need to start getting language in statute,” since only certain federal agencies currently have the authority to down weaponized drones. “This bill allows Wisconsin law enforcement to mitigate a threat posed by a weaponized drone by detecting, tracking and identifying the drone and then intercepting, disabling, or in a worst case scenario, destroying the drone.” 

In order to protect public safety,  Wichgers said  that “these powers should be extended to local law enforcement.” He added that the federal government provides grants to help mitigate drone threats, as well as $500 million set aside for fiscal year 2026-27, as part of the Trump administration’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.” “The difficulty is that law enforcement should not have to waiver if there is an immediate threat for a drone that is weaponized or carrying a load that is harmful to the public,” said Wichgers. “Our airspace needs to be safe, just like we’re safe on our roads.” 

A quickly moving goalpost 

The bill was requested by the Police Chief Association of Waukesha County, Wichgers said. “State law must be enacted that is responsive to current and future needs as best as we can determine them in order to prevent harm and protect our communities,” he added. 

Committee members chimed in with a variety of questions. Rep. Shae Sortwell (R-Two Rivers) joked about farmers using weaponized drones to eliminate sandhill cranes consuming crops. Wichgers brought up  his own examples, including nervous neighbors calling the police to check out roofers who might be using drones for survey work, or a drone being used at a concert to drop fentanyl on people who then overdose in the crowd. “Right now the police would say, ‘Sorry, the Wisconsin Legislature is dragging their feet on passing a law that gives me permission to disarm that drone that’s a threat, we’ll have to wait till next session,” said Wichgers. 

Dan Thompson, chief of the Waukesha Police Department, told the committee,  that “drones carry contraband, surveillance equipment or worse, weaponized payloads” and that the technology can “present a unique danger that demands an immediate intervention.” 

The chief’s comments prompted Rep. David Steffen (R-Howard) to seek clarification that under the proposed bill a drone does not, in fact, need to be weaponized, and that law enforcement only need to “reasonably suspect” that it could pose a public safety threat in order to shoot it down. Sortwell said that the bill’s language seemed broad. 

Sortwell questioned whether as the bill is written, shooting down a drone could be justified at any time. Legislative counsel said, “I don’t know that I can really answer that.” Sortwell shot back, “The fact that you can’t say ‘no’ is troubling.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Gov. Tony Evers appointed John W. Miller, a venture capitalist, to serve as the next secretary and CEO of the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation. (Photo courtesy Evers' office)

Gov. Tony Evers appointed John W. Miller, a venture capitalist who previously served on the University of Wisconsin System Board of Regents, to serve as the next secretary and CEO of the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation.

Miller will fill the spot left vacant by Missy Hughes, who had served in the position since 2019 but stepped down from it in September just ahead of launching her campaign for governor. She joined a crowded field of candidates seeking Democratic nomination in 2026.

Evers said in a statement that Miller has a “proven track record of helping spearhead business growth and success in Wisconsin and around the Midwest, which makes him uniquely qualified to lead the exceptional team at WEDC.” 

“Under my administration, WEDC has entered a new era, focused on helping build an economy that works for everyone from the ground up. From investing in our workforce and higher education to bolstering entrepreneurs and budding businesses to leveraging public and private partnerships, John understands what it takes to build the 21st-century economy Wisconsinites need and deserve, and I have no doubt that his leadership will help us continue our work toward a stronger future for our state and communities across Wisconsin,” Evers said. 

Miller, who currently lives in Fox Point with his family, started his career as a congressional staffer for former U.S. Rep. Jerry Kleczka, a Democrat who represented Wisconsin’s 4th Congressional District (now represented by U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore). He went on to attend the University of Wisconsin Law School, graduating in 2006.

Miller then worked at Miller-St. Nazianz Inc., his family’s agricultural equipment manufacturing business, including as president and CEO for several years. He founded a venture capital fund called Arenberg Holdings LLC. in 2015 in Milwaukee; the firm works to mentor and invest in early-stage companies in the Midwest. 

Miller said in a statement that he is “honored” that Evers selected him for the position.

“WEDC celebrated a record year of investments in 2025, and I have every intention of using my experience in the business community to continue that success into 2026 and beyond,” Miller said. 

Evers previously appointed Miller to serve on the UW Board of Regents in 2021, though the state Senate fired him from the position in 2024 after he rejected a deal reached between Republican lawmakers and the UW System that traded concessions on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) for funding for employee raises and capital projects.

Miller was also previously appointed to and served on the Library of Congress Trust Fund Board of Directors under President Barack Obama and on the United States Trade Representative Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations under President Joe Biden. 

His appointment takes effect Dec. 15.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Federal agents, including members of the Department of Homeland Security, the Border Patrol, and police, attempt to keep protesters back outside a downtown U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility on Oct. 4, 2025 in Portland, Oregon. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Members of the U.S. House Homeland Security Committee decried violence against law enforcement, but seemed to make little headway in identifying how to address the issue during a Wednesday hearing that often saw each party harshly blame the other.

Chairman Andrew Garbarino of New York, at his first hearing since taking over as for the retired Mark Green of Tennessee, sought to strike an even tone in an opening statement, condemning violence against police while noting that officers have a responsibility to maintain the public’s trust.

“Law enforcement personnel are public servants, not public figures. They stepped forward to safeguard our nation and uphold the laws enacted by this body,” Garbarino said. “But that alone does not absolve them from facing any form of accountability. Public trust and public safety go hand in hand.” 

Other members of the panel, though, were less even-handed, with Democrats strongly criticizing some tactics used by federal law enforcement officers under President Donald Trump and Republicans denouncing such criticism as fueling violence against police.

Several members of the panel, of both parties, acknowledged the two West Virginia National Guard members shot in a Nov. 26 alleged ambush in Washington, D.C.

Police witnesses denounce Nazi comparisons

Witnesses from three police organizations, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriffs’ Association and the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, largely agreed that heightened rhetoric about law enforcement activity was a danger to their members.

“The rhetoric coming from the top, calling officers Nazis and Gestapo, it better stop right now,” Jonathan Thompson, the executive director of the National Sheriffs’ Association, said. 

“You are inflaming dangerous circumstances. You’re attacking people that wake up every single day and do one thing: they put on their uniforms, they put on their star and… enforce the laws of this country.”

Daniel Hodges, a D.C. Metropolitan Police officer who responded to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack and who Democrats invited to testify to the panel as a private citizen Wednesday, said protocol of federal officers under Trump invited the comparison.

“There is a semi-secret police force abducting people based on the color of their skin and sending many of them via state-sponsored human trafficking to extraterritorial concentration camps,” he said. 

“Before we go around the room clutching our pearls, wondering how people could possibly compare law enforcement in this country to the Gestapo, maybe we should take a moment and ask ourselves if there isn’t some recent behavior on the government’s part that could encourage such juxtaposition,” Hodges said.

Patrick Yoes, the national president of the Fraternal Order of Police, said violence against officers was a nonpartisan issue.

“My members are both Democrat and Republican,” he said. “And we’re all having the same problem.”

ICE under microscope

Several Democrats said the tactics used by officers of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and its parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security, undermined their law enforcement mission and endangered them, while Republicans blamed that rhetoric for making police targets.

New York Democrat Daniel Goldman, a former federal prosecutor, objected to Thompson’s testimony that police officers “put on their uniforms.”

“The problem is that’s not the case,” Goldman said. “They don’t put on a uniform, they don’t wear identification, and they go out with masks on to — violently in many cases — arrest unsuspecting immigrants, non-violent, many of whom are actually here legally.”

Goldman said as a federal prosecutor he worked with DHS officers “who represented the very, very best of our country.” But under Trump, the department’s behavior had grown irresponsible, he said.

Illinois Democrat Delia Ramirez went further, calling DHS “the single biggest threat to public safety right now.”

“They use anonymity to terrorize our communities and to violate our rights,” she said. “They reject accountability. They disregard court orders and they violate consent decrees. Bottom line: DHS agents lie. They act with impunity. They reject checks and balances, and they ignore Congress and the courts.”

GOP defends DHS

Republicans on the panel deflected blame from DHS and drew a direct line from the rhetoric of some Democrats opposed to ICE’s tactics to physical attacks on law enforcement.

Tennessee Republican Andy Ogles said Ramirez’s comment “pisses me off” and characterized DHS agents as carrying out the rule of law.

“This is about the rhetoric against law enforcement, violence against law enforcement,” Ogles said. “This isn’t about ICE. This isn’t about deportations, or the (Homeland Security) secretary doing her job, securing the border and deporting those who are here illegally.”

Rep. Eli Crane, an Arizona Republican, played a video showing Rep LaMonica McIver, a New Jersey Democrat who also sits on the panel, confronting ICE agents at a detention facility in her district.

“What do you think it means to people that are out there watching and listening, watching social media, watching the news, and they see a member of Congress who sits on this committee go out there and behave like that?” Crane asked the witnesses.

Thompson answered he was “appalled.”

“Quite honestly, I find it reprehensible, and it’s obviously dangerous,” he said.

McIver said she had been doing her job to provide oversight.

Jan. 6 pardons at issue

Democrats also cited Trump’s pardons of people convicted of crimes as part of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol as condoning violence against law enforcement.

McIver suggested committee Republicans were hypocritical in condemning some anti-police rhetoric while staying silent or praising Trump’s decision to pardon Jan.6 rioters.

“It is not Democrats who are praising, let alone pardoning, people who stormed this very Capitol complex to beat police officers and hunt down elected officials,” she said.

Robin Galbraith, 61, of Maryland, and Donna Powell, 67, of Washington, D.C., held signs outside the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2025, ahead of a U.S. House vote on releasing the Epstein files. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — A bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers is pressing Attorney General Pam Bondi for a briefing this week to review the contents of the Epstein files ahead of the Justice Department’s legally binding public release date later this month.

Sens. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Ben Ray Luján, D-N.M., and Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Ro Khanna, D-Calif., sent a letter to Bondi Wednesday urging “transparency and clarity” as the department prepares to release evidence collected during the federal investigation of the sex offender. Epstein died in a Manhattan jail in 2019 awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.

“We write as the bipartisan lead sponsors of the Epstein Files Transparency Act to express our shared interest in supporting the Department of Justice’s efforts to carry out the provisions of this critical new law,” the lawmakers wrote. 

“In light of the short 30-day deadline to release the Epstein Files, we are particularly focused on understanding the contents of any new evidence, information or procedural hurdles that could interfere with the Department’s ability (to) meet this statutory deadline.”

The U.S. House overwhelmingly approved legislation, 427-1, to compel the Justice Department to publicly release the material. The Senate agreed unanimously. President Donald Trump, after months of calling the files a “hoax,” signed the bill into law on Nov. 19, starting the clock for the Dec. 19 release deadline.

Epstein surrounded himself with influential politicians and celebrities, and had a well-documented friendship with Trump.

‘New information’ emerges

The lawmakers highlighted in the letter that the Federal Bureau of Investigation released a memo in July stating that the department would not be publicly releasing any further information or material related to the Epstein investigation as officials “did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.”

But on Nov. 14, the department announced the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan would begin “new investigations” into any connections between Epstein and former President Bill Clinton, former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, and prominent investor Reid Hoffman.

Bondi said Nov. 19 during a press conference that “information has come forward, new information, additional information.”

“In the interest of transparency and clarity on the steps required to faithfully implement the Epstein Files Transparency Act, we request a briefing either in a classified or unclassified setting, to discuss the full contents of this new information in your possession at your convenience, but not later than Friday, December 5th, 2025,” the lawmakers wrote to Bondi.

The law has a carve-out to exempt the release of any material that is part of an ongoing investigation.

In response to States Newsroom’s request for comment, Department of Justice spokesperson Natalie Baldassarre wrote in an email, “I can confirm receipt of the letter but will decline to comment further.”

‘Never-before-seen’ Epstein island photos 

The letter to Bondi comes as Democrats on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform released “never-before-seen” photos and videos of Epstein’s residence on Little Saint James, a small private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands.

The committee requested the images from the U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Justice as part of the lawmakers’ ongoing inquiry into Epstein’s activities.

“These new images are a disturbing look into the world of Jeffrey Epstein and his island. We are releasing these photos and videos to ensure public transparency in our investigation and to help piece together the full picture of Epstein’s horrific crimes. We won’t stop fighting until we deliver justice for the survivors,” committee ranking member Robert Garcia said in a statement.

Some of the files, released publicly in a cloud folder, contain images of furnished bedrooms, bathrooms, a room with masks on the wall and what appears to be a dental exam chair, a telephone with a list of names on speed dial, some redacted, and a chalkboard with notes, some redacted, containing what appear to be the words “power” and “deception.”

Videos reveal a large compound with an inground swimming pool and winding stone walkway toward the sea, as well as short clips of bedrooms and at least one medicine cabinet.

The Republican-led committee investigation began in August and is separate from the new law requiring the Justice Department’s disclosure of evidence. 

Committee Republicans did not publish a press release as of Wednesday afternoon on the Democrats’ release of the images and videos.

Last month, committee Democrats released select emails provided by Epstein’s estate. Within hours, committee Republicans released a cache of 23,000 pages of correspondence.

The committee, chaired by Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., has issued several subpoenas, including one to the Department of Justice for all Epstein investigation files. Others include subpoenas to interview Epstein’s co-conspirator and convicted sex offender Ghislaine Maxwell, Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and several former attorneys general.

Epstein had over 1,000 victims, according to the FBI.

Epstein, a former hedge fund manager who claimed he only managed assets for billionaires, pleaded guilty to state charges of soliciting sex from a minor and soliciting prostitution. 

He avoided a federal investigation when the then-U.S. attorney in Miami, Alex Acosta, cut the plea deal with Florida prosecutors.

Acosta would later become Trump’s Labor secretary in 2017.

Louisiana Republican U.S. Sen. Bill Cassidy talks with reporters in the Dirksen Senate office building on Wednesday, Dec. 3, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate committee that oversees health care started coalescing around an approach to lower costs for Americans during a Wednesday hearing, though several hurdles lay ahead.

Republicans and Democrats on the panel appeared to accept that enhanced tax credits for people who purchase their health insurance from the Affordable Care Act marketplace should not expire at the end of the year. Just days are left for open enrollment and premiums are expected to greatly increase. 

The bipartisan momentum among a select group of senators will need to build significantly in the days ahead if an extension of the subsidies is going to speedily garner the 60 votes needed to advance in the Senate and then move through the GOP-controlled House. 

It will also need President Donald Trump’s signature to become law, and he has so far not signaled support for an extension.

“I’m hoping that we can find a bill that can get 60 votes, that can fix the problem with the exchanges for January 1, 2026,” Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chairman Bill Cassidy, R-La., said. “It shouldn’t be a Republican solution. It shouldn’t be a Democratic solution. It should be an American solution.”

Cassidy cautioned lawmakers on the panel from pressing for “grandiose ideas,” saying Congress must “have a solution for three weeks from now.”  

A ‘political problem’ seen for the GOP

But extending the ACA marketplace subsidies, possibly with tweaks, is just a short-term solution that senators on the committee agreed will need to be followed up with an overhaul of the American health care system. 

Any efforts on larger-scale legislation will bump up against the deeply entrenched politics of the Affordable Care Act, well-funded lobbyists and next year’s midterm elections, none of which will make the process easy. 

Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, the ranking member on the panel, said he appreciated Cassidy’s “sentiment about wanting to do something quickly,” but said Republicans should have focused on the expiring ACA tax credits earlier in the year, instead of leaving it until now.  

“The reason for this hearing, to be frank, is that my Republican friends understand they’ve got a political problem,” Sanders said. “Their political problem is that all over America today, people on the Affordable Care Act are opening up packages coming from the insurance companies, and guess what? Their premiums on average are doubling and in some cases in my state are tripling or quadrupling.”

Sanders said Congress should extend the enhanced ACA marketplace tax credits for another year, or two, or three, while lawmakers sort through larger, structural issues around health care costs. 

“Yes, the current system is broken. Yes, we need to create a new system,” Sanders said. “But unfortunately, we aren’t going to do it in two weeks.”

Sanders suggested the committee hold a series of hearings in the months ahead featuring leaders from other developed countries that provide health care to all of their residents.

Extensions of tax credits debated

Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins said “there’s a limit to what we can do in this first year” and that lawmakers are “going to need a two-year plan.”

Collins indicated that she wants to see “reasonable” income caps to limit eligibility for ACA marketplace tax credits in any short-term extension that Congress may pass. 

Washington state Democratic Sen. Patty Murray said Republicans who are serious about addressing the spike in costs for ACA marketplace enrollees should work with Democrats to pass a “clean, one-year extension” of the enhanced subsidies. 

“And if their call for reforming tax credits is serious, we should look at that. We can talk about those reforms ahead of the 2027 year,” Murray said. “But I have to say, I’m not optimistic that most Republicans are serious about this because they refused to talk about this problem before right now, and I’ve been down this road before.”

Murray also rebuked Cassidy for not focusing the committee’s attention on the expiring tax credits earlier in the year by taking a swipe at his vote to confirm Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

“This is about as serious as expressing concern about RFK Jr.’s anti-vax crusade after voting to make him the most powerful public health official in the country,” Murray said.

‘Reasonable caps’ backed

Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski said members of the committee need to focus on what the next few months and years look like for Americans’ health care costs. 

“I think we’re going to need to have a short-term extension. But I think we can put reasonable caps on. I think that we can put some of the parameters that we have been talking about. There’s no great secret sauce here to how we’re going to deal with this particular dilemma that we’re in,” Murkowski said. “But we’ve got to be looking longer term to — how do we ultimately reduce these costs of care?”

Murkowski said she was also concerned about a decrease in funding for public health and prevention initiatives, before asking the witnesses appearing before the committee what their top recommendations would be for “prevention-type programs that have the strongest evidence for reducing long-term costs.”

Joel White, president of the Council for Affordable Health Coverage in Washington, D.C., said Congress should allow “premium discounts in the individual market for wellness programs,” which he said is currently illegal.

Marcie Strouse, owner and partner at Capitol Benefits Group in Des Moines, Iowa, suggested lawmakers open up health savings accounts “to allow for more holistic and preventive services.” She also said Congress could highlight “direct primary care and making sure people are actually getting the care that they need.”

Dr. Claudia M. Fegan, national coordinator at Physicians for a National Health Program in Chicago, suggested enhanced primary care and screening people for diseases like cancer that can be easier to treat when caught early. 

Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin said the hearing clearly demonstrated that there is “underlying agreement that this system needs a lot of reform.”

But, she said, Congress needs to take a look at the entire health care system, not just the Affordable Care Act. 

“I want to make a point that just under 50% of Americans get their health insurance through employers or group insurance, 20% are on Medicaid, 15% on Medicare, 1% on TRICARE or VA, and just over 6% are in this market,” Baldwin said. “There are problems with this market. But I have to say that abandoning the ACA … is not going to solve the system as a whole.”

Ohio Republican Sen. Jon Husted appeared supportive of a short-term extension of the enhanced ACA tax credits to provide Congress more time to address larger issues with health care affordability.

“We can freeze the subsidies where they’re at right now for a temporary period of time. I don’t know if that’s one year or two years to help give some relief,” he said. “And by the way, just because we continue those tax credits does not drive down the cost. It transfers the burden to the taxpayer and future generations. But it is a little help right now that we both can agree on. And then we’ve got to fix it.” 

Husted said there are easily a dozen bills that Congress could take up individually to start bringing down health care costs. 

Hawley offers plan for health costs tax exemption

Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley also appeared to side with extending the enhanced ACA marketplace tax credits in the short term.

“We are looking at a massive crisis unless Congress acts and acts soon,” Hawley said. “And my message is to the leadership of this body — to the leaders of the House, the leaders of the Senate —maybe it’s time we all locked ourselves in a room and got to a solution here.”

Halwey pitched a bill he just introduced to exempt health care from taxes. 

“If you pay premiums, you ought to be able to deduct that from your taxes. If you have out-of-pocket medical expenses, you ought to be able to deduct every dollar off of your taxes. You want to lower the cost of health care immediately. Do that. No taxes on health care for any American,” Hawley said. “And you set an upper limit so you don’t have rich people gaming the system. I get it. That’s fine. But let’s think about working people in this country who cannot afford health care.”

Hawley said it should be allowed whether an American itemizes on their taxes or not. 

All three panelists seemed initially supportive of the idea. 

Redoing tax credits in 2026

Cassidy said after the two-hour hearing he’s working to get support from lawmakers in both political parties for an integrated approach for next year.

“You could use the income that would be used to extend the subsidies, apply them to the bronze plan, because the bronze plan is so much less expensive. You could then put that balance into the health savings account,” Cassidy said, referring to coverage levels in plans on the ACA marketplace. “So it does continue the support using the existing mechanisms we have, but integrates the HSA, which gives first dollar coverage and could potentially lower the net deductible.”

Cassidy said Congress could extend the open enrollment period for the ACA marketplace and then fund the Health Savings Accounts, which are tax-advantaged savings accounts, before the end of March. 

“People would save their receipts and submit them for payment,” he said. “People do that all the time.”

A 2019 football game between the University of South Carolina and the University of Alabama at Williams-Brice Stadium in Columbia, South Carolina. (Photo by Streeter Lecka/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — U.S. House GOP leadership pulled a bill from the House floor Wednesday that would set a national framework for college-athletes’ compensation. 

The Student Compensation and Opportunity through Rights and Endorsements, or ‘‘SCORE” Act, would bar student-athletes from being recognized as employees and provide broad antitrust immunity to the NCAA and college sports conferences. 

The measure was on the House schedule for Wednesday, before the office of Majority Whip Tom Emmer announced Wednesday afternoon its consideration would be postponed. The notice did not provide a reason for the cancellation, as is typical. 

The bill’s lead sponsors are GOP Rep. Gus Bilirakis of Florida and Democratic Reps. Janelle Bynum of Oregon and Shomari Figures of Alabama.

The other original co-sponsors are all Republicans: House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Brett Guthrie of Kentucky, Education and Workforce Committee Chair Tim Walberg of Michigan, and Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio, Lisa McClain of Michigan, Scott Fitzgerald of Wisconsin and Russell Fry of South Carolina.

Bipartisan opposition

The bill has faced widespread Democratic opposition over concerns it would roll back student-athletes’ rights and give “unchecked authority” to the NCAA while failing to protect student-athletes. 

Though the bill has garnered broad GOP support, some in the party have pushed back against it. House GOP critics include Texas’ Chip Roy, who dubbed the bill a “Band-Aid on a gunshot wound” during a House Rules Committee hearing Monday. 

Roy, along with fellow House Freedom Caucus members, Byron Donalds of Florida and Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, joined Democrats in voting against the rule governing floor debate alongside several other measures Tuesday. The rule was still adopted, 210-209. 

The bill advanced in July out of the House Energy and Commerce and Education and Workforce committees, which have jurisdiction over elements of the bill.

The college sports world has grappled with the fallout from the NCAA’s 2021 guidelines, which let student-athletes profit from their name, image and likeness, or NIL. A patchwork of NIL laws exists across states, with no federal NIL law in place. 

In June, a federal judge approved the terms of a nearly $2.8 billion antitrust settlement that paved the way for schools to directly pay athletes. 

Senate Dems’ competing bill

Meanwhile, the bill would face a tough path in the Senate, where Democrats have expressed opposition. 

Democratic Sens. Maria Cantwell of Washington state, Cory Booker of New Jersey and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut introduced competing NIL-related legislation in September. 

Known as the Student Athlete Fairness and Enforcement Act, or “SAFE Act,” the bill “gives all athletes Name, Image and Likeness (NIL) rights, establishes uniform health and safety standards, protects scholarships and requires agents to register with a state and abide by clear contract requirements, including a 5 percent cap on fees,” according to Democrats on the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, where Cantwell serves as ranking member. 

Security personnel stand watch outside the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., in August. The Justice Department on Tuesday sued six more states for unredacted copies of their voter rolls. (Photo by Jonathan Shorman/Stateline)

The U.S. Department of Justice on Tuesday expanded its legal campaign to force states to turn over voter lists containing sensitive personal information, suing six more states that have refused to provide the data.

The Justice Department has now sued officials in more than a dozen states for the voter lists, following a first round of lawsuits filed in September. The lawsuits are aimed at mostly Democratic states that won’t turn over unredacted copies of the lists, which include driver’s license and partial Social Security numbers.

For months, the Trump administration has demanded that states provide copies of their voter lists, calling the information necessary for election integrity efforts. While some states have turned over lists that withhold sensitive personal data, most have declined to offer all the information on their lists.

Democratic election officials have raised privacy concerns over how the Trump administration plans to use the data. They are especially concerned that the Justice Department will share the data with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which is building a powerful citizenship verification tool. The Trump administration previously confirmed to Stateline it plans to share the data.

The new wave of lawsuits target Delaware, Maryland, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington, the Justice Department announced in a news release. The department has already sued California, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon and Pennsylvania.

“Accurate voter rolls are the cornerstone of fair and free elections, and too many states have fallen into a pattern of noncompliance with basic voter roll maintenance,” U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi said in a news release on Tuesday. “The Department of Justice will continue filing proactive election integrity litigation until states comply with basic election safeguards.”

Rhode Island Secretary of State Gregg Amore in September offered the Justice Department a free copy of his state’s publicly available voter list. The information is typically provided upon request with a $25 fee, but he refused to provide confidential personal information absent legal action.

“This lawsuit, like those filed in other states, is a continuation of the current presidential administration’s unconstitutional attempts to interfere with elections processes across the country,” Amore said in a statement on Tuesday. “One of my most important responsibilities as the chief state election official is safeguarding the data privacy of Rhode Islanders, who entrust us with their personal information when they register to vote. I will continue to fight to protect it.”

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to clarify the states previously sued by the Department of Justice. Rhode Island Current reporters Nancy Lavin and Christopher Shea contributed reporting. Stateline reporter Jonathan Shorman can be reached at jshorman@stateline.org.

U.S. Marshals and Homeland Security Investigations agents take a man into custody at the intersection of 14th and N streets NW in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 3, 2025. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — A federal judge late Tuesday barred federal agents from carrying out warrantless arrests in the District of Columbia unless they can demonstrate probable cause, after immigration advocates sued.

Under the preliminary injunction granted by U.S. District Senior Judge Beryl A. Howell, immigration agents can only arrest a person in the district without a warrant if they can establish that the individual is in the United States unlawfully and poses a flight risk before a warrant can be obtained from an authority. 

Advocates who brought the suit had said they believed Latinos were being targeted for arrests in the district, even those with legal status.

“Consequently, viewing all immigrants potentially subject to removal as criminals is, as a legal matter, plain wrong,” wrote Howell, who was nominated by former President Barack Obama.

Howell noted Trump administration officials’ public comments on the need to meet immigration arrest quotas, rather than focusing on targeted enforcement and probable cause.

“Here, ‘the record’ as a whole ‘leaves no doubt’ that defendants in practice have consummated a decisionmaking process that resulted in the implementation of a new policy of conducting warrantless civil immigration arrests based on a lower standard than probable cause,” according to Howell’s order.

National Guard presence

The suit stems from President Donald Trump’s August emergency declaration in the district that flooded the 68-square-mile capital with federal law enforcement and National Guard troops. 

As a result, there has been an uptick in aggressive immigration enforcement by federal officers, both in plain clothes and masked, in neighborhoods with high immigrant populations.

The four individual plaintiffs in the case are all immigrants with some form of legal status, such as a pending asylum case or temporary protections. But all were arrested and detained by federal officers, sometimes for days. 

In statements to the court, they described feeling like they were being kidnapped and argued they were targeted because of their ethnicity. They said they feared they will continue to be targeted because they are Latino.

The legal organizations representing the plaintiffs pushed for two class certifications, which means others who were affected would be represented in the suit. 

Howell said in her order that she would make a determination on those two class certifications at a later time. 

ACLU, others praise preliminary injunction

Legal groups representing the plaintiffs celebrated the preliminary injunction.

“Despite the Trump administration’s attempts at fear and intimidation, everyone in D.C. has rights, regardless of who they are and their immigration status; and all federal agents are required by law to respect these rights,” according to a joint statement from the legal groups who brought the suit against the federal government. 

Those legal groups included the American Civil Liberties Union of the District of Columbia; the American Civil Liberties Union; Amica Center for Immigrant Rights; CASA; National Immigration Project; the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs; and the law firm of Covington & Burling LLP.  

 

A woman is detained by federal agents after exiting a hearing in immigration court at the Jacob K. Javitz Federal Building on Sept. 3, 2025, in New York City. (Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to hear a lawsuit from the immigrant-rights group Voces de la Frontera against the authority of the state’s county sheriffs to hold people in county jails based on detainers from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 

The lawsuit from Voces will be immediately heard by the Supreme Court as an original action, meaning it won’t begin at the circuit court level and work its way up to the Supreme Court. The case comes as jurisdictions across the country wrestle with the effects of the Trump administration’s increased immigration enforcement and the level to which local law enforcement should participate.  

Courts in New York, Massachusetts, Minnesota and Montana have previously ruled that state law bars local law enforcement officers from complying with federal immigration detainers. A state law in Illinois prohibits local cooperation with federal immigration agents. 

Here in Wisconsin, more than a dozen county sheriffs offices have signed 287(g) agreements with ICE that grant sheriff’s deputies some immigration enforcement authority, including the ability to question people in custody about their immigration status and hold people in jail under federal detainers. 

The Dodge County sheriff maintains an agreement with the federal government to hold many types of federal detainees in the department’s jail — including immigrants. That agreement includes sheriff’s deputies transporting detained migrants to and from a controversial ICE facility in Broadview, Ill. 

Some departments in the state, including Madison and Milwaukee, have explicitly said they won’t cooperate with federal immigration efforts. 

Voces’ lawsuit argues that state law does not give Wisconsin law enforcement officers the authority to conduct civil immigration enforcement. 

In accepting the case, the Court said it would consider whether Wisconsin sheriffs have the authority to arrest people as part of a civil immigration enforcement action and how 287(g) agreements affect the application of state law. 

Departing from usual practice in which state Supreme Court decisions to accept cases are unsigned, conservative Justices Annette Ziegler and Rebecca Bradley dissented from the decision to hear the case. 

In a written opinion, conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn wrote Supreme Court rules state it takes four justices to agree to accept an original action and that normally these decisions are unsigned to prevent observers from inferring if the justices hold pre-established views on an issue. He added that just because some justices publicly dissented, that does not reveal how every justice voted in the decision to accept the case. 

“The public may begin to infer that if a justice does not publicly dissent to an order granting review in a case, that justice has joined the order taking the case,” he wrote. “That assumption would be unwarranted. Even if some of my colleagues publicly record their dissent, as in this case, that does not necessarily reveal which justices voted for or against the petition in closed conference. A grant order simply means the requisite number of justices voted to grant a petition — in this case, four —nothing more.”

Under Wednesday’s order, Voces has 30 days to file a brief in the case.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Annette Ziegler addresses the Wisconsin Judicial Conference Wednesday. (Screenshot | WisEye)

Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Annette Ziegler misquoted a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a recent dissent, stating that the country’s highest court said the opposite of what it ruled in a 2023 redistricting decision. Ziegler’s opinion pushed back against  the state Supreme Court’s decision to appoint a pair of three-judge panels to decide challenges to Wisconsin’s  congressional maps. 

On Nov. 26, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled 5-2 that two lawsuits alleging the state’s congressional maps are unconstitutional should be heard by the panels because of a 2011 law requiring that action. The Court’s four liberal justices were partially joined in the decision by conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn, who wrote in a concurring opinion that he disagreed with the majority’s decision to appoint the six judges who will sit on the panels. 

In a dissenting opinion written by Ziegler and joined by Justice Rebecca Bradley, the two conservatives argued the decision was made “in furtherance of delivering partisan, political advantage to the Democratic Party.”

But Ziegler wrote in her opinion the U.S. Supreme Court had recently affirmed that “the role of state courts in congressional redistricting is ‘exceedingly limited.’” 

Ziegler cited the Court’s 2023 decision in Moore v. Harper — which was about the North Carolina Supreme Court’s authority to weigh in on congressional redistricting. The phrase “exceedingly limited” does not appear once in the decision.  In that case, a 6-3 majority of the Supreme Court found the opposite of what Ziegler claimed.

“State courts retain the authority to apply state constitutional restraints when legislatures act under the power conferred upon them by the Elections Clause,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. 

The misquote was first reported by Slate and Urban Milwaukee’s Bruce Murphy. 

The day after the decision was published, the opinion was withdrawn from the state court’s website and replaced with a different version. The change wasn’t publicly acknowledged by the Court and only removes the quotation marks around the phrase “exceedingly limited.” The correction does not change Ziegler’s mischaracterization of the decision in Moore v. Harper.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

People are sworn in as new U.S. citizens during a special U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services naturalization ceremony on the Hollywood Sign Terrace at historic Griffith Observatory on Oct. 21, 2024 in Los Angeles. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration late Tuesday paused all immigration applications from 19 countries the president earlier had listed for restricted travel into the United States, a move that freezes processing for green card holders and citizenship applications.

After two West Virginia National Guard members were shot in the District of Columbia by an Afghan national who was granted asylum, the Trump administration has moved to halt and reexamine all forms of legal immigration, which is handled by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. 

One guard member, U.S. Army Spc. Sarah Beckstrom, 20, died, and U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, 24, remains critically wounded, although his condition is said to be stable. The suspect, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, pleaded not guilty to several charges on Tuesday. 

The memo says that USCIS will place a hold on processing benefits requests — including citizenship processing — from immigrants hailing from the 19 “high-risk” countries and the agency will re-review any of those approved requests for immigrants who entered the U.S. after Jan, 21, 2021, or under the Biden administration. 

The 19 countries with travel restrictions into the U.S. are: Afghanistan, Burma, Burundi, Chad, Cuba, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Laos, Libya, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Togo, Turkmenistan, Venezuela and Yemen. In June the president issued a travel ban on those 19 countries. 

The hold will remain in place until otherwise directed by USCIS Director Joseph Edlow, according to the memo.

The memo also states that USCIS will delay action on all applications for asylum and withholdings for removal, regardless of country of origin, “pending a comprehensive review.” A withholding of removal is granted by an immigration judge when a country is deemed too dangerous for an immigrant for deportation, so a third, safer country must be chosen.

“USCIS has considered that this direction may result in delay to the adjudication of some pending applications and has weighed that consequence against the urgent need for the agency to ensure that applicants are vetted and screened to the maximum degree possible,” according to the memo. “Ultimately, USCIS has determined that the burden of processing delays that will fall on some applicants is necessary and appropriate in this instance, when weighed against the agency’s obligation to protect and preserve national security.”

President Donald Trump and his administration have often criticized immigrants who were granted temporary legal protections under the Biden administration, arguing they were not properly vetted. 

That has included a special program created for Afghan allies fleeing the Taliban takeover after the chaotic withdrawal by the U.S. in 2021, as well as Latin Americans granted humanitarian parole from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. 

President George W. Bush holds an ear of corn during a 2004 campaign stop at a farmer’s market in Davenport, Iowa. America’s corn industry has become a political force, courted by presidential hopefuls and protected by both parties. Corn production has surged in recent decades. But the fertilizer used to grow it is warming the planet and contaminating water, researchers have found. (Tim Sloan / AFP via Getty Images)

This story is from Floodlight, a nonprofit newsroom that investigates the powers stalling climate action. Sign up for Floodlight’s newsletter here. 

For decades, corn has reigned over American agriculture. It sprawls across 90 million acres — about the size of Montana — and goes into everything from livestock feed and processed foods to the ethanol blended into most of the nation’s gasoline. 

But a growing body of research reveals that America’s obsession with corn has a steep price: The fertilizer used to grow it is warming the planet and contaminating water.

Corn is essential to the rural economy and to the world’s food supply, and researchers say the problem isn’t the corn itself. It’s how we grow it. 

Corn farmers rely on heavy fertilizer use to sustain today’s high yields. And when that nitrogen breaks down in the soil, it releases nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas nearly 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Producing nitrogen fertilizer also emits large amounts of carbon dioxide, adding to its climate footprint.

Agriculture accounts for more than 10% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, and corn uses more than two-thirds of all nitrogen fertilizer nationwide — making it the leading driver of agricultural nitrous oxide emissions, studies show.

The corn and ethanol industries insist that rapid growth in ethanol — which now consumes more than 40% of the U.S. corn crop —  is a net environmental benefit, and they strongly dispute research suggesting otherwise.

Since 2000, U.S. corn production has surged almost 50%, further adding to the crop’s climate impact. 

Yet the environmental costs of corn rarely make headlines or factor into political debates. Much of the dynamic traces back to federal policy — and to the powerful corn and ethanol lobby that helped shape it. 

The Renewable Fuel Standard, passed in the mid 2000s, required that gasoline be blended with ethanol, a biofuel that in the United States comes almost entirely from corn. That mandate drove up demand and prices for corn, spurring farmers to plant more of it. 

Many plant corn year after year on the same land. The practice, called “continuous corn,” demands massive amounts of nitrogen fertilizer and drives especially high nitrous oxide emissions. 

At the same time, federal subsidies make it more lucrative to grow corn than to diversify. Taxpayers have covered more than $50 billion in corn insurance premiums over the past 30 years, according to federal data compiled by the Environmental Working Group.

Researchers say proven conservation steps — such as planting rows of trees, shrubs and grasses in corn fields — could sharply reduce these emissions. But the Trump administration has eliminated many of the incentives that helped farmers try such practices. 

Experts say it all raises a larger question: If America’s most widely planted crop is worsening climate change, shouldn’t we begin growing it a different way?

How corn took over America

Corn has been a staple of U.S. agriculture for centuries, first domesticated by Native Americans and later used by European immigrants as a versatile crop for food and animal feed. Its production really took off in the 2000s after federal mandates and incentives helped turn much of America’s corn crop into ethanol.

Corn’s dominance — and the emissions that come with it — didn’t happen by accident. It was built through a high-dollar lobbying campaign that continues today.

In the late 1990s, America’s corn farmers were in trouble. Prices had cratered amid a global grain glut and the Asian financial crisis. A 1999 report by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis said crop prices had hit “rock bottom.”

In 2001 and 2002, the federal government gave corn farmers and ethanol producers a boost — first through the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Bioenergy Program, which paid ethanol producers to increase their use of farm commodities for fuel. Then the 2002 Farm Bill created programs that continue to support ethanol and other renewable energy.

Corn growers soon after mounted an all-out campaign in Washington. Their goal: persuade Congress to require gasoline to be blended with ethanol. State and national grower groups lobbied relentlessly, pitching ethanol as a way to cut greenhouse gasses, reduce oil dependence and revive rural economies.

“We got down to a couple of votes in Congress, and the corn growers were united like never before,” recalled Jon Doggett, then the industry’s chief lobbyist, in an article published by the National Corn Growers Association. “I started receiving calls from Capitol Hill saying, ‘Would you have your growers stop calling us? We are with you.’ I had not seen anything like it before and haven’t seen anything like it since.”

Their persistence paid off. In 2005, Congress created the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), which requires that a certain amount of ethanol be blended into U.S. gasoline each year. Two years later, lawmakers expanded it further. The policy transformed the market: The amount of corn used for ethanol domestically has more than tripled in the past 20 years.

When demand for corn spiked as a result of the RFS, it pushed up prices worldwide, said Tim Searchinger, a researcher at Princeton University’s School of Public and International Affairs. The result, Searchinger said, is that more land around the world got cleared to grow corn. That, in turn, resulted in more emissions. 

That lobbying brought clout. “King Corn” became a political force, courted by presidential hopefuls and protected by both parties. Since 2010, national corn and ethanol trade groups have spent more than $55 million on lobbying and millions more on political donations, according to campaign finance records analyzed by Floodlight. 

In 2024 alone, those trade groups spent twice as much on lobbying as the National Rifle Association. Major industry players — Archer Daniels Midland, Cargill and ethanol giant POET among them — have poured even more into Washington, ensuring the sector’s voice remains one of the loudest in U.S. agriculture.

Now those same groups are pushing for the next big prize: expanding higher-ethanol gasoline blends and positioning ethanol-based jet fuel as aviation’s “low-carbon” future.

Research undercuts ethanol’s clean-fuel claims

Corn and ethanol trade groups didn’t make their officials available for interviews.

But on their websites and in their literature, they have promoted corn ethanol as a climate-friendly fuel. 

The Renewable Fuels Association cites government and university research that finds burning ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions by roughly 40-50% compared with gasoline. The ethanol industry says the climate critics have it wrong — and that most of the corn used for fuel comes from better yields and smarter farming, not from plowing up new land. The amount of fertilizer required to produce a bushel of corn has dropped sharply in recent decades, they say.

“Ethanol reduces carbon emissions, removing the carbon equivalent of 12 million cars from the road each year,” according to the Renewable Fuels Association.

Growth Energy, a major ethanol trade group, said in a written statement that U.S. farmers and biofuel producers are “constantly finding new ways to make their operations more efficient and more environmentally beneficial,” using things like cover crops to reduce their carbon footprint.

But some research tells a different story.

A recent Environmental Working Group report finds that the way corn is grown in much of the Midwest — with the same fields planted in corn year after year — carries a heavy climate cost.

Research in 2022 by agricultural land use expert Tyler Lark and colleagues links the Renewable Fuel Standard to expanded corn cultivation, heavier fertilizer use, worsening water pollution and increased emissions. Scientists typically convert greenhouse gasses like nitrous oxide and methane into their carbon-dioxide equivalents — or carbon intensity — so their warming impacts can be compared on the same scale.

“The carbon intensity of corn ethanol produced under the RFS is no less than gasoline and likely at least 24% higher,” the authors concluded.

Lark’s research has been disputed by scientists at Argonne National Laboratory, Purdue University and the University of Illinois, who published a formal rebuttal arguing the study relied on “questionable assumptions” and faulty modeling — a charge Lark’s team has rejected.

A 2017 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that the RFS was unlikely to meet its greenhouse gas goals because the U.S. relies predominantly on corn ethanol and produces relatively little of the cleaner, advanced biofuels made from waste. 

The problem isn’t just emissions, researchers say. Corn ethanol requires millions of acres that could instead be used for food crops or more efficient energy sources. One recent study found that solar panels can generate as much energy as corn ethanol on roughly 3% of the land. 

“It’s just a terrible use of land,” Searchinger, the Princeton researcher, said of ethanol. “And you can’t solve climate change if you’re going to make such terrible use of land.”

Most of the country’s top crop isn’t feeding people. More than 40% of U.S. corn goes to ethanol. A similar amount is used to feed livestock, and just 12% ends up as food or in other uses.

As corn production rises, so have emissions 

Globally, corn production doubled from 2000 to 2021. 

That growth has been fueled by fertilizer, which emits nitrous oxide that can linger in the atmosphere for more than a century. That eats away at the ozone layer, which blocks most of the sun’s harmful ultraviolet radiation.

Global emissions have soared alongside corn production. Between 1980 and 2020, nitrous oxide emissions from human activity climbed 40%, the Global Carbon project found. 

In the United States, nitrous oxide emissions from agriculture in 2022 were equal to roughly 262 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, according to the EPA’s inventory of greenhouse gas emissions. That’s equivalent to putting almost 56 million passenger cars on the road.

The biggest increases are coming straight from the Corn Belt.

Ethanol’s climate footprint isn’t the only concern. The nitrogen used to grow corn and other crops is also a key source of drinking water pollution.

According to a new report by the Alliance for the Great Lakes and Clean Wisconsin, more than 90% of nitrate contamination in Wisconsin’s groundwater is linked to agricultural sources — mostly synthetic fertilizer and manure. 

The same analysis estimates that in 2022, farmers applied more than 16 million pounds of nitrogen beyond what crops needed, sending runoff into wells, streams and other water systems.

For families like Tyler Frye’s, that hits close to home. In 2022, Frye and his wife moved into a new home in the rural village of Casco, Wisconsin, about 20 miles east of Green Bay. A free test soon afterward found their well water had nitrate levels more than twice the EPA’s safe limit. “We were pretty shocked,” he said. 

Frye installed a reverse-osmosis system in the basement and still buys bottled water for his wife, who is breastfeeding their daughter, born in July.

One likely culprit, he suspects, are the cornfields less than 200 yards from his home.

“Crops like corn require a lot of nitrogen,” he said. “A lot of that stuff, I assume, is getting into the well water and surface water.”

When he watches manure or fertilizer being spread on nearby fields, he said, one question nags him: “Where does that go?”

What cleaner corn could look like

Reducing corn’s climate footprint is possible — but the farmers trying to do it are swimming against the policy tide.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, backed by President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans, strips out the provisions of President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act that had rewarded farmers for climate-friendly practices.

And in April, Trump’s USDA canceled the $3 billion Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities initiative, a grant program designed to promote farming and forestry practices to improve soil and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The agency said that the program’s administrative costs meant too little money was reaching farmers, while Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins dismissed it as part of the “green new scam.” 

University of Iowa professor Silvia Secchi said the rollback of the Climate-Smart program has already given farmers “cold feet” about adopting conservation practices. “The impact of this has been devastating,” said Secchi, a natural resources economist who teaches at the university’s School of Earth, Environment and Sustainability.

Research shows what’s possible if farmers had support. In its recent report, the Environmental Working Group found that four proven conservation practices — including planting trees, shrubs and hedgerows in corn fields — could make a measurable difference. 

Implementing those practices on just 4% of continuous corn acres across Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin would cut total greenhouse gas emissions by the equivalent of taking more than 850,000 gasoline cars off the road, EWG found.

Despite setbacks at the federal level, some farmers are already showing what a more climate-friendly Corn Belt could look like.

In northern Iowa, Wendy Johnson farms 1,200 acres of corn and soybeans with her father. On 130 of those acres, she’s trying something different: She’s planting fruit and nut trees, organic grains, shrubs and other plants that need little or no nitrogen fertilizer.

“The more perennials we can have on the ground, the better it is for the climate,” she said.

Across the rest of the farm, they enrich the soil by rotating crops and planting cover crops. They’ve also converted less productive parts of the fields into “prairie strips” — bands of prairie grass that store carbon and require no fertilizer.

Under the now-cancelled Climate-Smart grant program, they were supposed to receive technical assistance and about $20,000 a year to expand those practices. The grant program was terminated before they got any of the money.

“It’s hard to take risks on your own,” Johnson said. “That’s where federal support really helps. Because agriculture is a high-risk occupation.”

The economics still favor business as usual. Johnson knows that many Midwestern corn growers feel pressure to maximize yields, keeping them hooked on corn — and nitrogen fertilizer. 

“I think a lot of farmers around here are very allergic to trees,” she joked. 

In southeast Iowa, sixth-generation farmer Levi Lyle, who mixes organic and conventional methods across 290 acres, uses a three-year rotation, extensive cover crops and a technique called roller-crimping — flattening rye each spring to create a mulch that suppresses weeds, feeds the soil and reduces fertilizer needs. 

“The roller crimping of cover crops is a huge, huge opportunity to sequester more carbon, improve soil health, save money on chemicals and still get a similar yield,” he said.

But farmers get few government incentives to take such climate-friendly steps, Lyle said. “There is a lack of seriousness about supporting farmers to implement these new practices,” he said. 

And without federal programs to offset the risk, the innovations that Lyle and Johnson are trying remain exceptions — not the norm.

Many farmers still see prairie strips or patches of trees as a waste, said Luke Gran, whose company helps Iowa farmers establish perennials.

“My eyes do not lie,” Gran said. “I have not seen extensive change to cover cropping or tillage across the broad acreage of this state that I love.”

The next corn boom?

Despite mounting research about corn’s climate costs, industry groups are pushing for policies to  boost ethanol demand. 

One big priority: Pushing a bill to require that new cars are able to run on gas with more ethanol than what’s commonly sold today.

Corn and biofuel trade groups have also been pressing Democrats and Republicans in Congress for legislation to pave the way for ethanol-based jet fuel. While use of such “sustainable” aviation fuel is still in its early stages domestically, corn and biofuel associations have made developing a market for it a top policy priority. 

Secchi, the Iowa professor, says it’s easy to see why ethanol producers are trying to expand their market: The growth in electric vehicles threatens long-term gasoline sales.

Researchers warn that producing enough ethanol-based jet fuel could trigger major land-use shifts. A 2024 World Resources Institute analysis found that meeting the federal goal of 35 billion gallons of ethanol jet fuel would require about 114 million acres of corn — roughly 20% more corn acreage than the U.S. already plants for all purposes. That surge in demand, the authors concluded, would push up food prices and worsen hunger.

Secchi calls that scenario a climate and land-use “disaster.” Large-scale use of ethanol-based aviation fuel, she said, would mean clearing even more land and pouring on even more nitrogen fertilizer, driving up greenhouse gas emissions. 

“The result,” she said, “would be essentially to enshrine this dysfunctional system that we created.”

Floodlight is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates the powers stalling climate action. 

Rob-n-Cin farms has expanded to become a concentrated animal feeding operation. Environmental groups and local residents have filed a petition against the DNR's decision to grant the farm a wastewater discharge permit. (Photo by Darren Hauck/Getty Images)

Two environmental groups filed a petition late last month challenging the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources’ decision to grant a permit allowing a West Bend dairy farm to operate as a concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO). 

The dairy, Rob-n-Cin Farms, has been operating as a CAFO for several years without a permit. Under state law, CAFOs are required to obtain Wisconsin Pollution Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) permits, which regulate the pollution industrial activities such as factory farms are allowed to discharge into local waterways. 

CAFOs are industrial farming facilities with more than 1,000 animal units — one animal unit is equivalent to a 1,000-pound cow. Rob-n-Cin plans to expand its herd from 1,300 cows to 2,000. After expanding, the herd will produce more than 18 million gallons of manure every year which the farm plans to  spread on fields in Ozaukee and Washington counties. 

In 2023, the DNR investigated the farm for operating as an unpermitted CAFO and issued a notice of noncompliance against the farm. 

Since then, Rob-n-Cin has been going through the process to obtain a permit, drawing complaints from local residents and community groups. Those complaints include the farm’s failure to list two satellite locations where it plans to spread manure in its permit application, the lack of sanctions on the farm for operating unpermitted and the effect on local groundwater. 

Residents are worried about the farm’s effects on the Milwaukee River watershed and the Cedarburg Bog, which is protected as a state natural area and national natural landmark. 

On Nov. 26, the environmental-focused law firm Midwest Environmental Advocates filed a petition for a contested case review of the DNR’s permit approval on behalf of Milwaukee Riverkeeper and area residents. The residents include a nearby organic farm and neighbors of Rob-n-Cin. 

The petition alleges that the DNR has not proven the expansion will comply with the state’s groundwater quality standards, particularly the limits for phosphorus and nitrates. The permit includes statements that the farm will follow statewide best practices for manure spreading but the petition argues that’s not enough and the DNR should have done more to prove the groundwater will be protected.

“DNR’s issuance of a permit relying solely on standard practices that are not intended to ensure compliance with groundwater quality standards is unreasonable,” the petition states. “This is particularly true in an area of high susceptibility where many members of the public raised credible concerns of groundwater contamination and examples of excessive nitrate levels. Rob-n-Cin needed to demonstrate, and DNR needed to find, that issuance of a permit would not lead to continued or widespread groundwater contamination in excess of established standards. Simply relying on default nutrient management practices without performing analysis or investigation was unreasonable.” 

The petition also argues the DNR should require monitoring of the local groundwater after the expansion is complete, stating that state regulators can’t know if the farm is violating its standards if it isn’t tracking how the expansion affects the groundwater. 

And the petition states that the DNR did not complete a sufficient environmental review before approving the permit. 

“DNR conducted no substantive evaluation of environmental or socioeconomic impacts of the WPDES permit, including effects on groundwater, Cedar Creek, Mole Creek (a Class II trout stream), the Milwaukee River watershed, which is subject to an EPA-approved [Total Maximum Daily Load] for nutrients and sediment, or the Cedarburg Bog,” the petition states. 

In a news release, MEA attorney Adam Voskuil said the DNR’s authority requires it to prove that the expansion won’t violate state water standards and it has failed to do so. 

“State law is clear that the DNR is required to affirmatively determine — not merely assume — that Rob-n-Cin’s manure-spreading plan will not violate groundwater quality standards. Without off-site groundwater monitoring, there’s simply no way to obtain the data necessary to make that determination,” Voskuil said.

If the petition for a contested case hearing is granted, a hearing on the permit approval will be held by an administrative law judge. That decision would be appealable to the state circuit court system.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Students arrive for the first day of school at a Minnesota elementary school. Four-day school weeks are gaining in popularity, especially in rural districts. But researchers say the evidence on four-day weeks is unclear. (Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)

Northeast of the capital city of Des Moines in central Iowa, the 400-student Collins-Maxwell Community School District is one of many across the state shifting to a four-day school week.

Like many rural K-12 schools, the district has struggled to find teachers, and it sees the four-day week as a useful recruiting tool. It also wants to curb student absences, which tend to spike on Mondays and Fridays.

The district maintained its traditional five-day calendar in August and September. But from now on, with scattered exceptions, the middle school and high school in the Collins-Maxwell district will be closed on Mondays. To meet Iowa’s minimum number of instructional hours, the district will lengthen the other days during four-day weeks.

Superintendent Marc Snavely said he watched nearby schools transition to shorter weeks and was intrigued by the reports he got from his counterparts in other districts. Snavely hopes the shorter week will boost teacher morale, reduce burnout, and make the rural district more competitive with nearby districts that are larger and can offer teachers better pay.

“Ultimately, the ‘why’ behind the four-day school week came down to staff recruitment and retention,” Snavely said in an interview. “We felt being a small school district, the four-day week would allow us to better compete.”

He added that surrounding schools with four-day weeks said they experienced fewer discipline problems and improved attendance. And rural school districts across the country tout the four-day work week as a way to stretch tight school budgets amid K-12 funding uncertainties at the federal and state levels.

But despite the reports of higher attendance and calmer classrooms, education researchers say the evidence tells a more complicated story.

Emily Morton, lead researcher for the Northwest Evaluation Association, which creates standardized testing for K-12 schools, cautioned that the promised benefits have not shown up in the data. Moreover, longer school days can harm academic performance, Morton said.

But such concerns might not matter as four-day school weeks become more popular nationwide.

“One thing that does show up clearly is that there is an extremely high approval rating for these policies,” Morton said. “Parents and students overwhelmingly want to stay on a four-day week once they have it.”

A rural trend

There are more than 2,100 schools in 26 states using four-day weeks, according to researchers at Oregon State University. In Iowa, the number of districts on a four-day schedule has grown from six in 2023-24 to more than two dozen in 2025. In Colorado, two-thirds of districts are on the altered schedule.

But so far, it’s almost entirely a rural phenomenon.

“To my knowledge, there’s not a single urban district using a four-day week,” Morton said. “What a four-day week looks like in a rural community is very different from what people in suburban or urban areas imagine.”

Dr. Shanon Taylor, an education professor at the University of Nevada, Reno who studies school scheduling, said districts typically adopt the model for economic and staffing reasons, not academic ones. Rural districts often save money on transportation, utilities and building operations, she said, and the promise of permanent three-day weekends helps recruitment efforts.

However, the burden of accommodating this transition may fall heavily on parents who work five days a week, and especially on the parents of younger students who must find a child care alternative on the selected day off.

“The research is still mixed,” Taylor said. “We don’t yet have decisive evidence showing academic benefits or drawbacks.”

In June, researchers at the University of Oregon published a review of 11 studies on four-day school weeks, which included data on academic achievement, attendance, discipline and criminal activity. The impact of a four-day week varied based on grade level and on location, the Oregon researchers found, but overall “there was no evidence of large positive effects.”

They also noted that “maintaining activities that foster healthy youth development on the fifth day is important for minimizing other negative impacts.”

State vs. local clashes

In some states, the policy has sparked conflict between state and local officials.

“There’s a lot of tension between state leaders and rural districts over whether the four-day week is something the state should allow,” said Morton. “In Oklahoma, when the state tried to take it away, districts simply shifted to ‘virtual Fridays’ — and instruction mostly didn’t happen.”

The Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, a conservative think tank, found through a public records request that more than 100 Oklahoma districts had at least one school where students had at least two full weeks’ worth of “virtual days” in the 2022-23 school year. More than 60 districts had at least one school that went online for three weeks or more. During many of those days, there was minimal live instruction.

In response, Oklahoma this year enacted a law that restricts public schools’ ability to shift to virtual learning. The measure limits districts to two days of virtual instruction each school year, and only allows them under certain circumstances, such as a state of emergency declared by the governor.

Missouri enacted a law in 2024 requiring that certain big city, charter and county districts obtain voter approval before adopting or continuing a four-day week. The Independence School District, a 14,000-student suburban system on the edge of Kansas City that switched to the shorter week in 2023-24, has since sued the state, alleging the law unconstitutionally targets certain districts based on arbitrary criteria such as county size.

Last year, a New Mexico mandate for districts to adopt calendars with more school days was halted in court. And Arkansas legislators considered a bill that would allow for range of instructional times from 160 to 190 days, which would be contingent on a school’s rating. A large number of rural districts there have moved to four-day schedules.

Meanwhile, uncertainty over the costs and benefits of the approach are likely to persist.

Morton, the education assessment researcher, said that small rural districts might not be equipped to determine whether a four-day week produces benefits until further studies are conducted across the country.

“Even if your test scores stay flat, nearby districts might be rising, so your ‘flat’ could actually be a negative effect,” she said. “States need to equip districts with what national research shows, because local data will never be able to answer these questions alone.”

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

Wisconsin Act 20, a 2023 law that made major changes to literacy education in the state, requires school districts to provide short literacy screenings to students as a way of identifying “at-risk” students. A girl reads a book in a school library. (Getty Images)

The Department of Public Instruction (DPI) released data on the first year of annual literacy screenings this week, finding about 36% of 4K through third-grade students fell below the 25th percentile for reading.

Wisconsin Act 20, a 2023 law that made major changes to literacy education in the state, requires school districts to provide short literacy screenings to students as a way of identifying “at-risk” students. Students who scored below the 25th percentile on the reading screener are required under the law to receive a personal reading plan and additional support. Schools must report data on the screenings to the DPI, which is required to compile a report. 

The first annual report covers screenings done in the 2024-25 school year. 

The response rate to the reporting requirement was 98% with 428 out of 437 local education agencies submitting data.

State Superintendent Jill Underly said in a statement that the rate represents a strong commitment to the state’s literacy efforts, and that the report overall provides the state with a baseline.

“These data are critical in helping schools guide instruction and intervention — not to define a student’s potential,” Underly said. “School districts have already demonstrated their strong commitment to this effort, and I am encouraged by how fully they embraced the work from day one.” 

According to the report, 36.8% of Wisconsin students in 4K through the third grade — or 97,414 students — scored below the 25th percentile on their assessment of fundamental skills on universal screening assessments. 

The report also provides information on the number of students who have started receiving interventions. 

For students in 5K through third grade, a total of 86,228 students — or 40% of the total enrollment — began receiving interventions. Students in 4k are not required to have a personal reading plan.

The implementation of the law has been drawn out over the last couple of years. According to DPI, schools have also started receiving funding from the $50 million that was initially set aside in the 2023-25 state budget to help with professional development and training requirements as well as curriculum costs, but wasn’t released until the budget approved this year due to disagreements between lawmakers and Gov. Tony Evers.

“With time and a sustained investment in strengthened classroom instruction and, as needed, additional reading support, we can move steadily toward our goal of making sure every Wisconsin child excels at reading by the end of third grade,” Underly said.

Sen. John Jagler (R-Watertown), who assisted with leading the law through the Legislature, said in the statement that the results show the depth of the issues that Wisconsin students are facing.

“This shows why this law was needed in the first place. Hopefully, education leaders will focus on getting these students the interventions they need,” Jagler said.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, right, looks on as U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a meeting of his Cabinet in the Cabinet Room of the White House on Dec. 2, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said Tuesday he did not witness a controversial — and potentially illegal — second strike in early September that killed two survivors clinging to a burning alleged drug-running boat off the Venezuelan coast.

The secretary’s exact order in the Sept. 2 strike has been under scrutiny after The Washington Post reported Friday that Hegseth gave a verbal directive to “kill everybody” that in turn led the commanding admiral to order a follow-on strike to kill two alleged drug smugglers who survived an initial attack.

Hegseth’s comments responded to a reporter’s question at the end of President Donald Trump’s livestreamed two-hour Cabinet meeting. 

“I watched that first strike live. As you can imagine, at the Department of War we got a lot of things to do, so … I moved on to my next meeting,” Hegseth told reporters. 

The secretary said he learned a “couple of hours later” that Adm. Frank M. “Mitch” Bradley “made the correct decision to ultimately sink the boat and eliminate the threat.”

When pressed by the reporter if he saw any survivors after the initial strike, Hegseth said “I did not personally see survivors … the thing was on fire.”

“This is called the fog of war. This is what you in the press don’t understand,” he replied.

Hegseth said he didn’t know the exact amount of time between the first and second strikes. He declined to answer follow-up questions.

Bipartisan lawmakers on the Senate and House Armed Services committees announced probes over the weekend into the follow-on strike that killed the survivors. Numerous military law experts argue killing survivors of a shipwreck is in clear violation of the Pentagon’s laws of war.

Hegseth authorized strike

Hegseth initially called The Washington Post investigative report “fabricated, inflammatory, and derogatory,” in a post on social media Friday.

On Monday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters during the daily briefing that Hegseth had “authorized Admiral Bradley to conduct these kinetic strikes.”

“Admiral Bradley worked well within his authority and the law directing the engagement to ensure the boat was destroyed and the threat to the United States of America was eliminated,” Leavitt said at the briefing.

On social media Monday night, Hegseth wrote: “Admiral Mitch Bradley is an American hero, a true professional, and has my 100% support. I stand by him and the combat decisions he has made — on the September 2 mission and all others since.”

A New York Times article Monday, citing five U.S. officials who spoke separately on the condition of anonymity, reported that Hegseth gave an initial written order for an operation to kill the alleged drug smugglers on the boat and destroy the entire vessel. 

The officials said Hegseth did not address additional steps if the first missile did not accomplish both goals, and that he did not give Bradley additional orders in response to video surveillance of the boat, according to the Times, which wrote that Bradley ordered “several” follow-on shots.

The strike in question was the first of nearly two dozen U.S. attacks on boats in the Caribbean Sea, which the administration alleges are smuggling narcotics. The operations, over several months, have killed 83 individuals, according to a CNN timeline.

‘I rely on Pete’

Trump defended Hegseth at Tuesday’s Cabinet meeting, saying “Pete’s done an amazing job.”

Regarding the attack, Trump downplayed the importance of a follow-on strike.

“I still haven’t gotten a lot of information, because I rely on Pete, but to me, it was an attack. It wasn’t one strike, two strikes, three strikes,” he said.

“Pete didn’t know about a second attack having to do with two people. And I guess Pete would have to speak to it. I can say this, I want those boats taken out, and if we have to, we’ll attack on land also, just like we attack on sea,” Trump said.

Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on Sunday that he “wouldn’t have wanted that,” referring to the killing of two men clinging to the wreckage. 

“Pete said he did not order the death of those two men,” Trump continued.

Trump posted Sept. 2 on his Truth Social platform a 29-second edited video of the attack.

On Sept. 3, Fox News’ “Fox & Friends” played the video from Trump’s post on repeat while interviewing Hegseth, who told the hosts that 11 alleged “narco-terrorists” were killed in the attack.

“I watched it live. We knew exactly what they were doing and we knew exactly who they represented,” Hegseth said on the network’s talk show, which he hosted on weekends prior to being appointed and confirmed as secretary of Defense.

The Intercept first reported on Sept. 10 that survivors of the initial Sept. 2 strike were killed in follow-up blasts.

Congressional inquiries

Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle are now inquiring to learn if what happened on Sept. 2 amounts to a war crime. 

U.S. Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., issued a statement Tuesday, criticizing Hegseth and calling on Trump to fire him if he violated the laws of war.

“At the Pentagon, the buck stops with the Secretary of Defense, period,” Slotkin said.

The first-term Democrat and former CIA official recently participated in a video, now targeted by a Pentagon investigation, reminding service members that they have a right to refuse “illegal orders.”  

“True leaders own the calls they make and take responsibility for their actions. Secretary Hegseth should release the full video of the strike and lay out publicly what happened, without throwing the uniformed military under the bus,” Slotkin said.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune defended the administration Tuesday when asked by reporters about the Sept. 2 event and Hegseth’s other controversies, including discussing real-time bombing of targets in Yemen in March on the publicly available app Signal.

“I think the Trump administration and the peace-through-strength policies that they are employing around the world are making our country safer, and so Secretary Hegseth is a part of that,” the South Dakota Republican said.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., speaks to reporters while walking to his office on Nov. 10, 2025 on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Tom Brenner/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Republicans and Democrats in the Senate agree that health care costs are rising too quickly and expect to vote next week on legislation that could help Americans. 

The only catch is that party leaders hadn’t decided as of Tuesday what to include in the bills. 

Senators also seemed to accept that neither proposal will garner the bipartisan support needed to advance, leaving the tens of millions of Americans who purchase their health insurance from the Affordable Care Act marketplace with complicated decisions to make before open enrollment ends Dec. 15. 

ACA marketplace plans are expected to increase by 26% on average next year, though a failure by Congress to extend enhanced tax credits would lead monthly payments for subsidized enrollees to increase by 114% on average, according to analysis from the nonpartisan health organization KFF. 

“I don’t think at this point we have a clear path forward,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune said. “I don’t think the Democrats have a clear path forward.”

Vote on Democratic bill expected

Thune guaranteed a small group of Democratic senators a floor vote on a health care proposal of their choosing in exchange for their votes on the spending package that ended the government shutdown. 

Democrats are widely expected to put forward a bill to extend enhanced tax credits for people who buy their health insurance from the Affordable Care Act Marketplace. Those subsidies are set to expire at the end of the year without congressional action. 

But it isn’t clear if the Democratic bill would extend the credits for one year or a longer period. 

GOP leaders are trying to rally support around a health care proposal of their own, while acknowledging it won’t get the 60 votes needed to advance under the Senate’s legislative filibuster rules. 

Thune said Republican senators had a “robust discussion” about health care issues during their closed-door lunch, where Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo of Idaho and Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chairman Bill Cassidy of Louisiana presented some ideas. But no final agreements were reached. 

Thune, R-S.D., said conversations will continue ahead of the vote next week and likely afterward.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said Democrats “have a plan” but declined to say exactly what it entails.

“Stay tuned,” Schumer said. “We had a great discussion and I will tell you this: We will be focused like a laser on lowering people’s costs.”

Looking for a solution

West Virginia Sen. Shelley Moore Capito said Republican talks on health care have been “vigorous” but that they hadn’t yet “decided on the clear path.” 

Capito said her “expectation” is that GOP senators will put a bill on the floor next week to bring down the costs of health insurance premiums and health care as quickly as possible, though that hadn’t been finalized.  

“I like the idea of people having control of the money as opposed to insurance companies, where they take a 20% profit,” Capito said, echoing comments by President Donald Trump. “I think that has merit.”

Capito said senators didn’t discuss during their lunch whether to extend open enrollment past Dec. 15 or possibly reopen it next year, should Congress pass a health care bill that addresses the ACA marketplace tax credits in some way.

New Hampshire Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen said there is no indication there will be bipartisan agreement to extend the enhanced ACA subsidies or any other health care proposal by next week’s vote, though bipartisan conversations continue.  

As for Democrats’ plan, Shaheen said it wasn’t “clear” what legislation party leaders will put on the floor for a vote or when they’d make that announcement. 

‘Mindful of the timeline’

North Dakota Republican Sen. John Hoeven said there is “strong support” among GOP lawmakers for making changes to how the enhanced ACA tax credits work before extending them for any length of time. 

But he said those negotiations will take more time. 

“In my opinion, if we have (the vote) next week, we probably won’t be at a point where we can get a big bipartisan agreement,” Hoeven said. “It’s more likely they’ll put something up that fails. We put something up that fails. And we keep working towards, hopefully, something that can work and that is bipartisan.”

There is a “good chance,” he said, that will happen in December or January, a timeline that would likely put a solution after open enrollment closes. 

Hoeven declined to say if a deal would extend open enrollment or include a second window for Americans to select insurance, but said Republicans are aware of the deadlines. 

“We’re very mindful of the timeline,” Hoeven said. “So all the things we’re talking about recognize that it needs to be able to take effect next year or this year.”

Student protesters shout during a “Hands Off Our Schools” rally in front of the U.S. Department of Education building in Washington, D.C., in April. The same group held a virtual press conference Tuesday to protest President Donald Trump’s efforts to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education. (Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A pair of Democratic lawmakers joined student leaders Tuesday in blasting President Donald Trump’s ongoing efforts to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education. 

U.S. Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts and U.S. Rep. Lauren Underwood of Illinois, alongside college and high school students from across the United States, rebuked the Trump administration’s plans to shift several of the Education Department’s responsibilities to other Cabinet-level agencies as part of a larger effort to abolish the 46-year-old Education Department. 

Markey said Trump’s and Education Secretary Linda McMahon’s “dismantling of the department will have immediate negative consequences for students, for families, for local schools nationwide,” during a virtual press conference organized by “Hands Off Our Schools,” a coalition encompassing student government leaders from Washington, D.C.

“When a parent or superintendent needs support or technical assistance, there will be no one to pick up the phone,” he said. 

McMahon defended the move at a Nov. 20 White House press briefing, saying “these interagency agreements to cut our own bureaucratic bloat are a key step in our efforts to shift educational authority from Washington, D.C., to your state education agency, your local superintendent, your local school board — entities that are accountable to you.” 

But Markey and Underwood said the administration’s moves would have deeply negative impacts.

“The Trump agenda to destroy the Department of Education is not about cutting red tape — it is about enacting cruelty and intentionally breaking the programs that ensure the promise of education is delivered to every single student,” Markey said. 

Underwood said “this administration’s attacks on our Department of Education are part of a much larger assault on the very foundations of our constitutional rights and our democracy.”

She added that “by tearing down the Department of Education, this administration has made an explicit choice to abandon students and families.” 

Underwood — who is a registered nurse — also took aim at the department’s proposal stemming from congressional Republicans’ “big, beautiful” law that would place stricter loan limits on students pursuing graduate nursing programs because they would not fall under the “professional” degree classification. 

She said the effort is “devastating for our already overburdened nursing workforce, and it’s a disaster for our health care system, especially in rural communities.” 

‘Brainless decision’ 

Students from California, Texas, Virginia and Washington, D.C., also slammed the department’s plans to transfer responsibilities to other agencies and potential impacts on marginalized students. 

“This brainless decision to shift programs out of the (Education Department) is targeting the most vulnerable among us,” Darius Wagner, a student at Georgetown University, said, describing the move as “unnecessarily cruel.” 

“Other federal departments that now (bear) this responsibility do not have the resources, staff or expertise to manage these programs and will inevitably mismanage resources that will leave our most vulnerable children behind,” Wagner added.

Ayaan Moledina, a high school student in Austin, Texas, said “dismantling and destroying the department will lead to major consequences on the success of marginalized students.” 

Moledina, who serves as federal policy director of the advocacy group Students Engaged in Advancing Texas (SEAT), said that “without a federal department, there will be no federal oversight of institutions to guarantee the basic and fundamental rights of students.” 

He added: “There will be no federal assistance for institutions to implement federally mandated programs, putting more of a burden on schools that already have their plates full.” 

Six interagency agreements 

The agreements to transfer several of the Education Department’s responsibilities to four other departments drew swift condemnation from Democratic officials, labor unions and advocacy groups, who questioned the legality of the effort and voiced concerns about the harm that would be imposed on students, families and schools as a result. 

The Education Department clarified that it would “maintain all statutory responsibilities and will continue its oversight of these programs” regarding its six agreements signed with Labor, Interior, Health and Human Services and State.

Prior to the six announced interagency agreements, the agency had already undergone a slew of changes that the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily greenlit in July, including mass layoffs that gutted more than 1,300 employees and a plan to dramatically downsize the department ordered earlier this year. 

Members of the U.S. Secret Service and other law enforcement agencies respond to the shooting of two members of the West Virginia National Guard near the White House on Nov. 26, 2025. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The man accused in the shooting of two West Virginia National Guard members in the District of Columbia pleaded not guilty in his Tuesday arraignment hearing, during which he appeared virtually from a hospital bed.

U.S. Army Spc. Sarah Beckstrom, 20, died as a result of her injuries, and U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, 24, remains in the hospital with severe wounds. 

D.C. Superior Court Magistrate Judge Renee Raymond denied bond for 29-year-old Rahmanullah Lakanwal, an Afghan national who officials allege drove across the United States to the district from his residence in Washington state. The guard members were attacked while on duty in a downtown neighborhood blocks from the White House.

“He came across the country 3,000 miles, armed with a specific purpose in mind,” Judge Raymond said in her reasoning for denying him bond. “The government’s case is exceedingly strong.”

The U.S. Attorney’s Office filed charges Tuesday for first-degree murder while armed; possession of a firearm; and assault with the intent to kill. 

Lakanwal’s next court date is Jan. 14.

“The nature and circumstances of the instant offense, the strength of the government’s case, and the sheer terror that resulted, that continues to animate because of his actions, leads me to conclude that no conditions or combination of conditions, will reasonably ensure the safety of the community,” Raymond said.

West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey wrote on social media Tuesday that Wolfe “remains in critical condition but is stable.”

“Doctors and the family are optimistic about his current progress and note that he has responded to some basic requests such as a thumbs up sign and wiggling his toes,” Morrisey said.

Troops in the district

The West Virginia National Guard members shot last week are among the 2,000 troops stationed in the district since August, after President Donald Trump declared a “crime emergency.” 

Republican governors have offered to send their states’ reserves of National Guard members to the nation’s capital. A federal judge last month found the president’s deployment of troops to the district illegal. 

Lakanwal was granted asylum this year after he came to the United States through a special humanitarian program for Afghanistan allies who served along American forces and had to flee the country after the Taliban took it over following the chaotic U.S. withdrawal in 2021. 

The shooting that took place on the eve of the Thanksgiving holiday has resulted in Trump expanding his immigration crackdown to include a halt to asylum applications, as well as increased scrutiny on visa applications from Afghan nationals. 

“In the wake of last week’s atrocity, it is more important than ever to finish carrying out the president’s mass deportation operation,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said at Monday’s press briefing. “They must go back to their home countries.”

Translator appears for Lakanwal

During Tuesday’s arraignment, Lakanwal seemed to thrash around in pain in his hospital bed. A translator also appeared virtually for Lakanwal. 

Lakanwal’s lawyer raised concerns about U.S. Attorney Jeanine Ferris Pirro, a former Fox News host, holding future press conferences, warning that could harm a “free and fair trial” for Lakanwal. Pirro held a press conference on Thanksgiving morning to discuss the shooting.

“The government at their own peril … continue to taint a potential jury pool against Mr. Lakanwal as a result of their press conferences,” he said.

Department of Defense press secretary Kingsley Wilson said during a Tuesday briefing at the Pentagon that all National Guard members in the district would be armed. 

Following last week’s shooting, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said he would request an additional 500 National Guard members be deployed in the district. 

It’s unclear if that directive would violate a federal judge’s order that found the August deployment unlawful. The federal judge stayed her Nov. 20 order for three weeks to give the administration time to either appeal or remove the troops. The Trump administration filed an emergency appeal after the shooting in the district.

Ashley Murray contributed to this report.