WASHINGTON — A federal judge blocked the Trump administration’s subpoenas to probe the Federal Reserve and Chair Jerome Powell, pointing to “a mountain of evidence” that President Donald Trump is using the investigation to force lower interest rates, according to an order unsealed Friday.

In a scathing 27-page order issued Wednesday, Chief Judge James Boasberg for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia wrote there is “abundant evidence that the subpoenas’ dominant (if not sole) purpose is to harass and pressure Powell either to yield to the President or to resign and make way for a Fed Chair.”

In explaining his rationale for granting the Federal Reserve Board of Governors’ motion to quash the subpoenas, Boasberg added, “For years, the President has publicly targeted Powell because the Fed is not delivering the low rates that Trump demands.”

On more than 100 occasions, Boasberg wrote, Trump or “his deputies” made statements attacking Powell. The judge detailed more than a dozen of Trump’s posts on his platform, Truth Social, in which he namecalls Powell and demands his resignation.

Boasberg also invoked the Trump administration’s attempts to criminally prosecute former FBI Director James Comey and New York State Attorney General Letitia James.

“Being perceived as the President’s adversary has become risky in recent years,” Boasberg wrote.

Boasberg wrote later in the order that he would also unseal the Fed Board’s motion to quash the subpoenas and the government’s opposition, as Department of Justice officials had already revealed details about the probe.

The government “has produced essentially zero evidence to suspect Chair Powell of a crime; indeed, its justifications are so thin and unsubstantiated that the Court can only conclude that they are pretextual. The Court therefore finds that the subpoenas were issued for an improper purpose and will quash them,” Boasberg concluded.

Prosecutor blasts ruling

In a brief press conference Friday afternoon during which she became combative with journalists, U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro slammed Boasberg’s decision as “outrageous” and said the administration plans to appeal.

“One of the age-old tools that all prosecutors have to investigate any crime, including cost overruns, is a grand jury subpoena. Today, however, in Washington, an activist judge has taken that tool away from us by inserting himself and preventing the grand jury from even obtaining, let alone hearing, evidence,” Pirro said. 

“He has neutered the grand jury’s ability to investigate crime. As a result, Jerome Powell today is now bathed in immunity, preventing my office from investigating the Federal Reserve. This is wrong, and it is without legal authority,” she said.

Investigation launched in January

Department of Justice officials served the central bank with grand jury subpoenas in mid-January as part of a probe into multi-year renovation costs at the Fed’s offices in Washington, D.C., and whether Powell lied about it to Congress in June.

The subpoenas prompted a rare video statement from Powell, who alleged the subpoenas were not about construction cost oversight, but about the Fed’s independence to set interest rates.

Powell’s term as chair expires in May. 

To replace him, Trump has nominated bank executive and former Fed Board Governor Kevin Warsh, who will need the support of all Republicans on the tightly divided Senate Banking Committee to reach a full Senate floor vote.

Retiring Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., who sits on the committee, has said he’ll refuse to back Warsh until the administration drops its criminal probe of Powell.

“This ruling confirms just how weak and frivolous the criminal investigation of Chairman Powell is and it is nothing more than a failed attack on Fed independence,” Tillis said in a statement Friday. 

“We all know how this is going to end,” he continued. “The U.S. Attorney’s Office should save itself further embarrassment and move on. Appealing the ruling will only delay the confirmation of Kevin Warsh as the next Fed Chair.”

Trump nominated Powell for the role during his first term, and President Joe Biden re-nominated him in 2021.The Senate overwhelmingly confirmed his appointment on both occasions. 

WASHINGTON — A group of food stamp recipients sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture this week over its efforts to prohibit the benefits from being used to purchase certain non-nutritious items.

Five consumers enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, brought the lawsuit March 11 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The recipients hail from Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee and West Virginia and are challenging the waivers in those states. 

President Donald Trump’s administration has so far approved waivers in 22 states — part of its Make America Healthy Again agenda — that restrict which items recipients of the federal food assistance program that helps 42 million people can buy with their benefits. 

The restrictions, which range from candy to sugar-sweetened beverages and other processed foods, differ throughout states. 

The agency has described the waivers as a “key step in ensuring that taxpayer dollars provide nutritious options that improve health outcomes within SNAP.” 

But the lawsuit claims that the “practical effect” of the waivers is “to destabilize food access for every SNAP participant in the affected states.” 

The lawsuit argues that the waivers “impose ambiguous and scientifically untethered product restrictions that vary not only by state but, in some instances, by store location.” 

The lawsuit also claims that people with chronic illnesses are “losing access to products they need to manage blood sugar or sustain diets they need to maintain baseline health care needs.” 

“The challenged waivers also create confusion and conflict at the point of sale by depriving SNAP recipients of clear notice about which products remain eligible for purchase,” the lawsuit notes. 

The SNAP recipients are represented by the National Center for Law and Economic Justice, a nonprofit that advocates on behalf of low-income families, individuals and communities, along with the law firm Shinder Cantor Lerner. 

A spokesperson for USDA said Friday the agency would not comment on pending litigation.  

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers arrested a Sheboygan Falls woman during a routine check-in this week, taking her back into custody just months after an immigration court judge canceled her deportation order and began the process of securing her a green card.

Elvira Benitez, 51, spent six months in ICE custody last year after accidentally crossing the Canadian border during a family road trip in Michigan. Benitez fled an abusive home in Michoacán, Mexico, as a teenager and lived without legal status for 35 years, her family said. She first entered the immigration court system after last year’s arrest.

She was among more than 25,000 people arrested by ICE in July 2025 alone. Roughly a third of immigrants arrested by the agency nationally between January and mid-October 2025Wi had neither a prior criminal history nor pending criminal charges, including Benitez.

In her absence, her two adult daughters — both U.S. citizens — took in their school-age siblings. Judge Richard Drucker of the Cleveland immigration court cited her younger children’s struggles during Benitez’s initial detention as a reason to cancel her deportation and set her on the path to legal residency.

Drucker initially signaled a willingness to grant Benitez relief in early November, but the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) delayed her background check — necessary for her path to a green card — for over a month, eventually releasing her in mid-December.

The agency soon appealed Drucker’s order, stalling Benitez’s green card process. She continued attending mandatory check-ins at the Milwaukee DHS office, where ICE agents arrested her Tuesday morning before transferring her to a holding facility outside Chicago.

ICE arrested at least 107 people at the DHS office in downtown Milwaukee between January and mid-October 2025 — more than at any other Wisconsin site named in ICE arrest records. Three-quarters of those immigrants  had no pending criminal charges or past convictions, compared with just 17% of all immigrants arrested by ICE in Wisconsin during the same period.

Benitez had no other run-ins with law enforcement that could have triggered her recent arrest, said Crystal Aguilar, her eldest daughter. In Aguilar’s view, the arrest calls into question “whether families who follow the rules can rely on the decisions made in immigration court,” she added.

She complied with all requirements following her initial release, including attending every ICE supervision appointment, according to her attorney, Marc Christopher. DHS was not legally required to arrest her while its appeal is pending, he added.

Benitez’s detention serves “no legitimate public safety purpose,” Christopher wrote in a Tuesday press release. “It separates a mother from her vulnerable U.S. citizen children despite a federal immigration judge already recognizing the extreme hardship her removal would cause them.”

An ICE spokesperson told Wisconsin Watch that Benitez will remain in custody “pending further immigration proceedings.”

“Being in detention is a choice,” they added, suggesting that undocumented immigrants should self-deport or face arrest and a permanent ban on re-entering the U.S.

This article first appeared on Wisconsin Watch and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

A coalition of mostly Democratic-led states is suing the Trump administration over a new federal requirement that would force colleges to report detailed admissions data, including race, gender, test scores and financial aid for individual students. 

The mandate is an expansion of a 40-year-old system known as IPEDS and follows the 2023 Supreme Court decision banning race-based admissions. The lawsuit argues the new requirement could threaten student privacy and overburdens universities.

The Trump administration’s requirement comes as data suggests the Supreme Court ruling has already shifted campus demographics: Black enrollment has dropped at several elite universities, while Asian American enrollment has increased at some schools. Researchers say it may take years to fully understand how admissions patterns are changing.

For roughly 40 years, the federal government’s primary way of collecting data and information about colleges and universities across the U.S. has been a database called Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, or IPEDS.

Included in IPEDS data is information on enrollments, graduation rates and financial aid, and some of this data has informed higher-ed policies and research. 

In August, President Donald Trump issued a memorandum directing the Department of Education to use IPEDS data as a way to track whether colleges are considering race in admissions decisions.

Trump’s directive was preceded by the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which banned colleges from considering race directly in admissions decisions. 

The Trump administration isn’t just looking for demographic data from IPEDS, but also is rolling out a new reporting mandate for four-year colleges — the Admissions and Consumer Transparency Supplement (ACTS) — to report detailed admissions data such as race, gender, test scores and financial aid levels.

Colleges were expected to begin complying with the new reporting requirement this year, with responses due March 18, according to the suit.

A coalition of 17 states led by Massachusetts has filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court seeking to block the new mandate.  The states argue the ACTS survey imposes onerous reporting demands on universities and requires institutions to collect data they have not historically collected and may not be compelled to expose due to student safety. 

The lawsuit says the administration seeks “to fundamentally change IPEDS, converting it from a reliable tool for methodical statistical reporting to a mechanism for law enforcement and the furthering of partisan policy aims.” 

The states also argue that the new requirement is rushed, forces colleges to compile data in months that normally would take years, and risks reporting errors.

Other states listed as plaintiffs include California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin. It names U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon and Management and Budget Director Russell Vought as defendants.

Federal officials argue the additional reporting in the new survey is necessary to ensure transparency and confirm that colleges are complying with the Supreme Court’s ruling. 

Since the 2023 Supreme Court ruling, declines among Black college enrollment have been strongest at highly selective private universities.

An Associated Press analysis of 20 selective colleges found that nearly all saw a drop in Black freshman enrollment compared with 2023. At Harvard, Black enrollment fell from 18% in 2023 to less than 12% in the next incoming class. Princeton’s drop was from about 9% to roughly 5% Black freshmen in the following admissions cycle.

Several universities reported higher Asian American enrollment in the years immediately after the ruling. At Harvard, the share of Asian American freshmen rose from 37% to about 41%. Some institutions saw even larger changes — one analysis reported Asian enrollment jumping from 26% to 45% between 2023 and 2025 at a selective university.

Researchers suggest a cascading effect of higher enrollment numbers of Black and Hispanic students at public universities, as selective school admissions drop and students enroll at less selective colleges. Data from fall 2024 admissions cycles show Black and Hispanic enrollment rising about 8% at public flagship universities overall.

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

WASHINGTON — If Oklahoma GOP Sen. Markwayne Mullin is confirmed by the Senate to lead the Department of Homeland Security, he will take over an agency that has faced a weeks-long funding lapse, public blowback to its immigration enforcement strategy and a bottleneck of disaster relief awards left by his predecessor that drew bipartisan ire. 

Additionally, if the United States remains at war with Iran, he’d oversee monitoring for security threats. That is a task some lawmakers are skeptical the department can undertake during its shutdown. 

Mullin, who does not need any Democratic support to be confirmed to lead DHS, will have his nomination hearing March 18 before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. The committee will vote to move his nomination to the Senate floor the following day, committee Chair Rand Paul of Kentucky told reporters.

The Oklahoman would take over from Kristi Noem, whom President Donald Trump ousted after a disastrous two days of testimony on Capitol Hill that capped a controversial 14-month tenure as DHS secretary.

“She was tasked to do a very difficult job … and I think she has performed the best she can do under the circumstances,” Mullin said of Noem, shortly after the president announced his intention to nominate him. “Is there always lessons that can be learned? Every day there’s something you can do better.”

But Mullin would face the same challenges, if not more, once he takes over. 

In addition to heading Trump’s aggressive immigration push, which is at a low point in popular support after the fatal shootings of two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis in January, Mullin would also be tasked with restoring faith in the department’s spending decisions and repairing the pipeline for sending relief to disaster-stricken areas. 

Noem faced bipartisan scrutiny during hearings this month for her record on those issues, including awarding a $220 million no-bid contract for an ad campaign to a firm owned by a subordinate’s spouse and requiring that she personally approve almost all Federal Emergency Management Agency expenditures.

Noem often clashed with critics, especially Democrats. Mullin indicated he’d try to find more common ground.

“Yes, I’m a Republican. Yes, I’m conservative. But (the) Department of Homeland Security is to keep everybody (safe), regardless if you support me or not,” he told reporters. “My focus is to keep the homeland secure.” 

His time in Congress has not given Mullin a strong background in the subject matter. He’s never sat on any committees dealing with DHS policy. He is a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, which writes funding bills for the entire federal government, but is not a member of the subcommittee that oversees the DHS funding bill.

If the Senate confirms Mullin, he would be the first Native American to lead DHS. He is an enrolled member of the Cherokee Nation. 

Mullin’s office referred questions for this story to the White House. In an email to States Newsroom, the White House said the Trump administration has “no DHS related policy announcements to make at this time.”

DHS funding

Mullin is a staunch Trump defender and supporter and will be tasked with carrying out his campaign promise of mass deportations of immigrants. To do that, DHS is flush with more than $175 billion for immigration enforcement and detention, through Republicans’ “One, Big Beautiful” law that Mullin voted for. 

“I look forward to earning the support of my colleagues in the Senate and carrying out President Trump’s mission alongside the department’s many capable agencies and the thousands of patriots who keep us safe every day,” Mullin wrote in a social media post shortly after the president’s announcement.  

Polling has found many Americans have soured on the campaign platform that won Trump a second term in the White House as DHS has deployed officers to conduct aggressive immigration enforcement in the interior of the country. Majorities of Democrats and independents said the Minneapolis shootings were a sign of broader problems in immigration enforcement, though most Republicans remained supportive of the administration.

The approach has led to massive protests against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, especially after the deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, both 37-year-old residents of Minneapolis. Another U.S. citizen, Ruben Martinez, was also killed by immigration agents in Texas last year.

Since Good and Pretti’s deaths last month, Democrats have blocked an appropriations bill for the department without significant changes in enforcement tactics. 

Mullin has argued that the appropriations bill provides an accountability measure in funding body cameras for immigration agents. He has pushed back on any restrictions on officers, such as barring them from covering their faces.

“We’re not going to handcuff law enforcement for a useless political exercise,” he wrote in a social media post.

Mullin’s reaction to Pretti video resembled Noem’s

One of the biggest criticisms from Noem was that she referred to Pretti and Good as domestic terrorists. Multiple videos contradicted those claims, and Noem refused to admit she made a mistake or apologize to their families when she was questioned by lawmakers.

While Mullin didn’t use that label, he made a similar claim, implying that Pretti’s actions were a felony. Mullin stressed his support for law enforcement.

“Obstructing federal law enforcement is a felony. Most Americans follow ICE instructions without thinking twice,” Mullin wrote on social media hours after the shooting. “These patriots are doing a difficult job under an 8,000% rise in death threats.”

Mullin was not the only Senate Republican to take that position, but some did take a different view.

Paul joined the top Democrat on the committee that oversees DHS, Gary Peters of Michigan, in grilling the heads of two immigration enforcement agencies within the department about Pretti’s death.

“He is retreating at every moment,” Paul said of Pretti. “He’s trying to get away, and he’s being sprayed in the face. I don’t think that’s de-escalatory. That’s an escalatory thing.”

Senators will get a chance to question where Mullin will lead the agency and whether he will continue some of Noem’s hardline immigration policies, such as the revocation of legal status for millions of immigrants who hail from countries initially granted protections because their home country is deemed too dangerous to return to. 

Mullin has often criticized local governments that have policies to not cooperate with or assist the federal government in immigration enforcement. 

In an interview with States Newsroom, Peters said he had not spoken with Mullin about leading DHS and looked forward to questioning him before the committee.

In addition to immigration-related agencies and FEMA, the department includes the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, the Secret Service and the Coast Guard. 

Additionally, the department will manage security for major events: the World Cup and the celebration for the 250th anniversary of the country’s founding that will occur blocks from the White House. 

FEMA bottleneck

Another Noem policy that drew bipartisan criticism was her requirement she give personal approval of any FEMA contracts or grants worth more than $100,000.

It effectively created a bottleneck of relief to disaster-stricken places, and lawmakers expressed their frustration to Noem that the policy meant delayed payments.

North Carolina GOP Sen. Thom Tillis berated Noem for his full 10 minutes of questioning when she appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee about how her policy has slowed down recovery efforts in North Carolina, which was hit by the devastating Hurricane Helene in 2024. 

It’s unclear if Mullin will keep that policy in place.

“The Department of Homeland Security has a very broad jurisdiction and I think there’s a lot of work that we need to do,” Mullin told reporters. 

FEMA’s disaster relief fund is somewhat unique among federal programs since Congress has granted it the authority to deficit spend; it cannot run out of money, even during a shutdown. 

Trump has sought to downsize FEMA, firing part of its workforce and directing his officials to restructure the agency. There is currently no permanent FEMA administrator.

No DHS assignments in Congress

Mullin spent a decade in the House before being elected to the Senate in a special election in 2022.

In his time in the House from 2013 to 2023, Mullin sat on the Energy and Commerce, Transportation and Infrastructure and Natural Resources committees.

In the Senate, besides Appropriations, he sits on the Armed Services, Indian Affairs and Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committees.

He chairs an appropriations subcommittee that handles funding for the legislative branch, and on the HELP Committee, he chairs the panel on Employment and Workplace Safety.  

Mullin, whose congressional staff totals nearly 40, based on records from the Legistorm data service, would oversee an agency with more than 272,000 employees and an annual budget of approximately $64 billion. 

Former pro fighter’s Senate confrontations

During a 2023 HELP Committee hearing, Mullin challenged International Brotherhood of Teamsters President Sean O’Brien to a physical fight, after heated testimony. 

“You know where to find me,” Mullin, who is a former professional MMA fighter, said to O’Brien.

Mullin will also have to appear before Paul, who he’s referred to as a “freaking snake,” for his confirmation hearing. Mullin also expressed sympathy for a neighbor of Paul’s, who was charged with assaulting the senator on his front lawn, breaking several ribs.

When pressed by reporters, Paul did not address Mullin’s comments.

“We’ll see how the hearing goes,” he said. 

WASHINGTON — The Department of Defense announced Friday that six more American troops have died as a result of the war in Iran, bringing the total to 13 since the conflict began in late February. 

U.S. Central Command wrote in an early-morning social media post that a “KC-135 refueling aircraft went down in western Iraq” on Thursday and that four of the six crew members aboard had been confirmed dead, but posted later that no one survived. 

“The circumstances of the incident are under investigation. However, the loss of the aircraft was not due to hostile fire or friendly fire,” Central Command said.

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Gen. Dan Caine said during a press conference at the Pentagon the “incident occurred over friendly territory in western Iraq while the crew was on a combat mission.”

He reiterated there was no “hostile or friendly fire” that led to the crash. 

“We’re also aware of a fire on board the USS Gerald R. Ford. We’re thinking about the crew there who were injured in the fire,” Caine said. “We believe and hope that everyone will be okay.”

U.S. Naval Forces Central Command posted on social media late Thursday the fire began “in the ship’s main laundry spaces” and that it “was not combat-related and is contained.”

The post said the ship was in the Red Sea in support of the Iran war, which the administration has dubbed Operation Epic Fury. 

“There is no damage to the ship’s propulsion plant, and the aircraft carrier remains fully operational,” the post said. “Two Sailors are currently receiving medical treatment for non-life-threatening injuries and are in stable condition.” 

Before Friday, there had been seven U.S. deaths reported in the conflict.

‘Heaviest day’ underway

Caine said during the briefing that military officials expect Friday will be the “heaviest day of kinetic fires” in the Iran war since it began on Feb. 28. 

“They’re continuing to destroy the Iranian Navy to ensure freedom of navigation. And this means going after Iran’s minelaying capability and destroying their ability to attack commercial vessels,” he said. “And we’re targeting their defense industrial base so they cannot rebuild the capabilities that can harm America’s interests or our partners in the future.”

Caine said while the U.S. military has made “progress” since it began bombing nearly two weeks ago, “Iran still has the capability to harm friendly forces and commercial shipping.”

The Pentagon’s efforts, he said, remain “complex, dangerous and difficult.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who was also at the briefing, said he believes Iran’s new supreme leader has been “wounded and likely disfigured.”

Hegseth also criticized journalists for not providing the government with more favorable coverage of the war in Iran, before moving on to recognize the troops killed during the airplane crash in Iraq.

“War is hell. War is chaos. And as we saw yesterday with the tragic crash of our KC-135 tanker, bad things can happen,” he said, later adding that “war, in this context and in pursuit of peace, is necessary.”

Air strike on girls’ school

Hegseth did not provide any updates about the military’s investigation into whether it bombed a girls’ school in Iran in the first days of the war, killing at least 168 people.  

“I can report that CENTCOM has designated an investigating officer to complete a command investigation,” he said. “The command investigation will take as long as necessary to address all the matters surrounding this incident. And the investigating officer is from outside CENTCOM and is a general officer.”

Nearly every Democrat in the Senate sent a letter to Hegseth earlier in the week demanding military officials conduct “a swift investigation into the strikes on this school and any other potential U.S. military actions causing civilian harm, and the findings must be released to the public as soon as possible, along with any measures to pursue accountability.”

The New York Times reported the same day that an “ongoing military investigation has determined that the United States is responsible for a deadly Tomahawk missile strike on an Iranian elementary school.”

Hegseth declined to say exactly what additional objectives President Donald Trump believes the military must accomplish before ending the bombing campaign he began alongside the Israeli government. 

“The president has his hand on the throttle and will decide, ultimately, when they’ve been reached that serve the purposes of the United States of America,” he said.

Four Milwaukee aldermen are expressing concern about “the lack of adequate guardrails, auditing, supervision, and transparency” surrounding the use of Flock Safety license plate reader cameras. In a three-page letter sent Wednesday to the city’s Fire and Police Commission (FPC), Common Council President José Pérez and Alders Marina Dimitrijevic, Alex Brower and Sharlen Moore said that recent cases like one involving a Milwaukee police officer who used Flock to stalk a romantic partner “are alarming and underscore the systemic oversight gap rather than an isolated failure.” 

The letter is the latest ripple in a wave of community pushback against the use of Flock Safety cameras, which are equipped with license plate reading technology and can be accessed by law enforcement agencies across the country using search terms and filters. Critics also express concern that the cameras can be used for backdoor surveillance by the federal government, particularly as the Trump administration pursues an aggressive immigration crackdown. 

Audit data reviewed by Wisconsin Examiner shows that officers often use vague terms like “investigation,” “suspicious,” “cooch,” or just “.” to search the network. Some Wisconsin communities have canceled their contracts with the multi-billion dollar Flock Safety company due to concerns about its technology.

 

 

Just a day before the Milwaukee council members sent their letter to the FPC, TMJ4 reported that the Milwaukee Police Department cut off access to its license plate reader database. The police department said officers have been blocked from using the system while the department re-evaluates who needs access to the technology. Currently, TMJ4 reported, only officers in “sensitive portions” of MPD’s Criminal Investigations Bureau can access Flock for emergency cases. The department, headed by Chief Jeffrey Norman, has also banned facial recognition technology after months of community pushback.

In their letter, the four Milwaukee alders warned that a system like Flock — capable of “tracking movement patterns, identifying vehicles, and storing sensitive location data” — can be “weaponized against residents, including survivors of domestic violence, journalists, advocates, and everyday community members.” 

The alders were especially alarmed about a recent case involving Josue Ayala, a Milwaukee police officer facing one misdemeanor count of misconduct in public office for allegedly using Flock to track two people, one of whom was Ayala’s a romantic partner, 179 times. When he used Flock, Ayala entered the search term “investigation,” the most common search used by Wisconsin law enforcement agencies during the first half of 2025, according to the Examiner’s analysis of audit data.

In their letter, Milwaukee council members ask the FPC what specific training officers must receive to access Flock; how use is supervised real time, who’s responsible for reviewing searches, how frequently audits are conducted, and what “independent body oversees compliance and investigates misuse?” The alders are demanding that the city support reforms including: 

• Independent auditing of Flock cameras and other license plate reading technology;
• Limiting the purpose for using these technologies to “documented casework,” 
• Establishing a system of real-time flagging and increasing approval to use the system by supervisors,
• What the letter calls “a clear firewall for immigration enforcement,” preventing the police department’s Flock network from being used by federal agencies in ways that go against the department’s own policies restricting cooperation with immigration enforcement, 
• Transparent reporting including query volume trends, high-level categories of uses, who the data is shared with, and discipline/misuse outcomes, 
• Oversight hearings built into normal governance routines, such as the council’s Public Safety and Health Committee, which the letter notes “is a natural forum for recurring surveillance oversight hearings and for receiving transparency reports,” 
• Treating surveillance technology contracts as public interest infrastructure agreements “requiring clarity on retention and disclosure, clear rules on secondary use, and enforceable audit access for the city and designated independent reviewers,”
• And reforms to local legislation such as adopting a Community Control Over Police Surveillance (CCOPS) policy, which local activists and community members have been calling for in recent years. 

Just a day after the alders issued their letter, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Wisconsin also sent its own communication to the Public Safety and Health Committee regarding Flock and other police surveillance technology. 

“It is critical that our community has a say in if and how invasive surveillance technologies are used, how they are deployed against residents, if and how their data is stored and shared with third parties, and whether spending our limited tax dollars on surveillance technologies is the best way to promote public safety,” the ACLU letter stated.

Abuse of surveillance tech cases across Wisconsin

The ACLU’s letter also noted “a disturbing trend in Wisconsin and across the country regarding law enforcement abuse of Flock [Automatic License Plate Reader] technology to stalk and harass people, in most cases women.” 

If convicted, Ayala could face up to nine months in prison and up to $10,000 in fines. However, a criminal complaint issued for Ayala mentions that negotiations have been underway for a settlement that would include his resignation. 

Departments are also inconsistent in how they respond to the use of vague or overly common search terms. After the Examiner approached the Waukesha Police Department about why hundreds of Flock searches had been labeled with only “.” in the field indicating the reason for the search, a spokesperson said that a single officer was responsible for the searches and had been counseled and retrained. By contrast the West Allis Police Department — the state’s most frequent user of the “.” Flock search term during the first half of 2025 — only asserted that its officers are properly trained, and that it investigates misuse cases “when warranted.” 

In addition to Ayala, another officer accused of misusing surveillance technology is Jay Johnson, the chief of the Greenfield Police Department. Johnson is facing felony misconduct in public office charges for installing a department-owned pole camera on his property during a messy divorce. Johnson is also accused of destroying data by deleting text messages after a meeting where he learned about the accusations and was offered a chance to retire. 

In Menasha, Wisconsin, Cristian Morales is facing felony misconduct in public office charges for allegedly using Flock to track someone while he was off duty. If convicted, the Menasha Police Department officer could be imprisoned for up to three and a half years and be fined up to $10,000. As with Ayala, Morales’ alleged misuse of Flock was discovered only after a complaint was made to another police department, and not through oversight by Menasha, Auto Wire reported. 

A new case of Flock abuse in Kenosha

In Kenosha County, a sheriff’s deputy was reportedly offered a severance package to resign, and has yet to face charges for inappropriate use of surveillance technology. 

Internal investigation documents obtained by the Examiner through an open records request show that, in late September, Frank McGrath, at that time a Kenosha County Sheriff Department deputy, logged into an app on his phone to access his agency’s Flock network. McGrath wanted to search for a specific vehicle, entering “suspicious” as the reason for using the AI-powered cameras. But McGrath was off duty, and his searches — lacking any case numbers — weren’t intended to find a murder suspect, stolen car, or kidnapped child. Instead, McGrath was apparently stalking another Kenosha County deputy whom he was dating. 

McGrath’s 16 Flock searches were first noticed by Kenosha County Sheriff Capt. Erik Klinkhammer, during an audit in October 2025. After checking the license plate which McGrath repeatedly searched in the TIME system — a consolidated information database used by law enforcement — Klinkhammer confirmed that the targeted vehicle belonged to a Kenosha County Sheriff’s deputy, whose name is redacted in the documents obtained by the Examiner through records requests. 

“There was no indication that [REDACTED] or her vehicle were connected to any investigation, and informal internal speculation suggested a possible romantic relationship between McGrath and [REDACTED],” the internal investigation report states. “These factors raised concerns regarding McGrath’s motive for conducting off-duty searches of her vehicle.” 

None of McGrath’s other Flock searches were like those that raised Klinkhammer’s suspicions. McGrath was placed on administrative leave and ordered to report to the sheriff’s office for questioning. The vice president of the Kenosha Sheriff Offices union was also notified of the situation.

McGrath initially denied having misused Flock stating that, “he performed the searches through the FLOCK app on his phone and dismissed the relevance of questions about a relationship with [REDACTED],” the investigation report states. McGrath surrendered his badge and firearm before leaving the room. “Within moments,” the reports continued, McGrath returned with the union vice president saying he didn’t want to leave the situation unresolved, and admitting that he was having romantic relationship problems with the deputy whose license he searched in Flock. Klinkhammer then called the deputy in question, who confirmed that she already knew about McGrath monitoring her vehicle through Flock. “[REDACTED] said she was not afraid of McGrath and is not in fear of her safety,” the investigation report states. 

In a separate interview, the deputy McGrath was monitoring also appeared with a union representative. She said that McGrath had told her about the Flock searches a week or two before Klinkhammer contacted her. “[REDACTED] stated she did believe his actions were in violation of policy and found it ‘weird,’ but she did not report the information to a supervisor,” the investigation report states. She elaborated on a close friendship she had with another male coworker who, after learning about her relationship with McGrath, had been giving her the “cold shoulder.” 

“She was extremely upset by this change, and while speaking with McGrath on the day of the FLOCK searches, she became emotional and cried,” the investigation report states. “She explained that she and this coworker communicated daily, both on and off duty, and the sudden distance was upsetting. She stated that McGrath told her her reaction was not normal and questioned whether she had romantic feelings for the coworker. [REDACTED] told him she did not, explaining she was simply hurt by the loss of the friendship.”

Later, McGrath questioned her about who had access to her vehicle. “Because she lives with her parents, she explained that either her mother or father can take her car at any time,” the investigation report states. “She noted it was unusual that McGrath repeatedly asked this question.” The two eventually had “a significant argument related to her having male friends,” which led to her distancing herself from her male friends, after which things with McGrath improved, according to the report. 

Surveillance motivated by jealousy

“[REDACTED] denied any physical altercations, domestic violence, or concerning behavior of that nature during the relationship,” the investigation report states. “She stated McGrath did not like her having male friends, wanted to go through her phone at times, and had expressed jealousy issues, but she denied any physical incidents. She also denied believing she was being stalked, stating that she and McGrath shared their iPhone locations with each other.”

The two talked about the situation again after McGrath was placed on leave, devolving into another argument. “[REDACTED] stated McGrath never asked her to lie for him and instructed her to tell the truth,” the investigation report states. “She confirmed they are still currently in a relationship, though McGrath has made only limited comments about discussing the situation with his union representative.” The investigation report notes that, “when asked why she did not initially report McGrath’s FLOCK use after he told her, [REDACTED] said she did not know what to do and felt the situation was strange.”

When he spoke with investigators, McGrath said he’d undergone Flock training and understood police databases can only be used for “legitimate investigative purposes,” and agreed that his own use was “unauthorized.” However, McGrath told investigators that his understanding of Flock and license plate reader policies “was vague” and he said that “although he signs off on policy updates, he often does not read them.”

McGrath said that his own insecurity and the way the female deputy reacted to her friend cutting her off contributed to his misuse of Flock. “He explained that he first ran a partial plate using the digits he knew, then used an Antioch, Illinois, camera hit from a prior visit to his residence to identify her full plate number,” the investigation reads. “He then continued searching her movements through the system. His stated goal was to determine whether [REDACTED] was at home or possibly visiting the male coworker he was suspicious of.” 

McGrath said he “knew [he] probably shouldn’t have” used Flock for personal reasons “but believed FLOCK was not as tightly regulated as TIME.” He also said that he didn’t use other police databases such as LEADS or New Work for personal reasons “and could not explain why he treated FLOCK differently.” McGrath also admitted to initially lying to Capt. Klinkhammer “claiming he was embarrassed and ashamed,” the investigation report notes. 

Besides Flock, McGrath also used a squad car tracking system called Polaris to monitor his partner. “He admitted these searches were motivated by jealousy, stating he checked to see where she was, who she might be sitting near, or which deputies she was working alongside,” the report states. “He agreed this behavior was inappropriate and understood how it could be viewed as stalking-type conduct.” McGrath entered the reason for the searches as “suspicious” as “likely an attempt to legitimize the searches, and stated that although he knew in the back of his mind that what he was doing was wrong, he was not in the right frame of mind at the time.”

‘Knowingly and repeatedly’ misusing Flock

The internal investigation found that McGrath “knowingly and repeatedly” misused Flock and Polaris, and was not truthful when confronted by a supervisor about his actions. “His actions constitute an abuse of his authority and a serious breach of trust regarding confidential law enforcement information,” the investigation report states. “His pattern of personal surveillance using restricted law enforcement systems, coupled with his initial dishonesty, represents serious misconduct. The misuse was repeated, knowing, and extended over multiple months. It occurred off duty, and it was directed at a fellow member of this agency in the context of a romantic relationship.” 

Kenosha County Sheriff Lt. Chase Forster concluded in the investigation that “this level of misconduct significantly undermines the integrity and credibility expected of a Kenosha County Sheriff’s Deputy, and formal discipline is warranted.” Yet that discipline never came. 

According to a John Doe petition filed by Kevin Mathewson, a controversial local figure who runs the Kenosha County Eye, McGrath resigned and avoided having his case referred to the district attorney’s office. Mathewson also wrote on Kenosha County Eye that McGrath received a severance agreement when he resigned. Mathewson points out in his John Doe petition that other Wisconsin officers — including in Milwaukee, Menasha and Greenfield — have faced misconduct in public office charges for abusing Flock. By filing a John Doe petition, Mathewson is asking a judge to consider whether probable cause exists to charge McGrath. If a judge decides that probable cause exists, he or she may appoint special prosecutors to explore options to convict.

The Examiner reached out to the Kenosha County Sheriff’s Office for comment. Acting as a spokesperson, Forster declined to comment, saying that the criminal investigation is being carried out by the neighboring Racine County Sheriff’s Office. While a spokesperson from Racine County confirmed that the department is  “working on it,” referring to the investigation against McGrath, they declined to comment further, stating that Kenosha is in charge of releasing information and statements. The Racine County Sheriff spokesperson assured the Examiner that they weren’t “trying to play ‘hide the ball.’”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Zabi Sahibzada, refugee resettlement director for Jewish Social Services (JSS) in Madison, Wisconsin, has lived through war, displacement, the collapse of Afghanistan and the cataclysmic consequences of shifting U.S. policies abroad and at home.

Today, even as our country plunges into a new war in the Middle East, the Trump administration has pulled back from its commitments to people who helped the U.S. during the long, brutal war in Afghanistan. 

Sahibzada talks to his family every day as they cope with the hardships of living under Taliban rule. He had hoped to bring his family to the U.S. as part of a family reunification program for people who helped our country in Afghanistan. But that program was suspended by President Donald Trump. Now his family is in limbo. He is particularly concerned about his two daughters, ages 18 and 11, who can no longer go to school because of the ban on education for girls. 

Meanwhile, Sahibzada is managing a program that has been severely disrupted by the Trump administration, which set a record-low refugee admissions ceiling of only 7,500 people for Fiscal Year 2026 — down from 125,000 the previous year — with most slots reserved for white South Africans. JSS is no longer resettling hundreds of refugees from around the world in South Central Wisconsin. Instead, the group is focused on continuing to serve the people it has already resettled here. Part of that work involves fielding panicked calls from people who are losing their status as the Trump administration strips protections from those who fled to the U.S. seeking a safe haven from persecution.

Because of funding cuts, JSS, which traces its roots to the Madison Welfare Fund, created in 1940 to help resettle Jewish refugees fleeing the Holocaust, has had to let go of most of its staff. “Currently we have three full-time case managers that are working with a huge population that’s already here, and we cannot afford more,” Sahibzada said.

JSS works with about 450 people, most of them in Dane County. Among the services the group provides are help with finding employment, health care, housing, language instruction and financial assistance for up to five years. The organization is scrambling to raise money privately to make up for the loss of federal funds. 

Sahibzada estimates that staff salaries cost JSS about $300,000 per year, with another $250,000 going to cover direct assistance for clients — but that amount rises and falls depending on need. This year, he expects need to rise significantly because of Trump administration policies, including the cancellation of Temporary Protected Status for people from Afghanistan and Haiti. 

“Those people, they’re not having documents anymore to work,” he said. “They’re losing their job, they’re losing their driving license, they cannot renew it. And then those will be knocking on our doors that they may need a lot of help … they’ll not be able to pay their rents, they’ll not be able to receive any other benefits from the government. And by the next few months, there will be cuts to health insurance. They’ll be cut from the food assistance or the cash assistance that a lot of people were depending on. So they will be coming and knocking on our doors, and that’s the gap that we may need to fill with the help from the communities.”

The gap, he estimates, will likely be between $300,000 and $400,000.

“I would say it’s a very chaotic moment for all the refugees and immigrants in the country,” Sahibzada said during a recent interview in his office on the west side of Madison.

Confronting chaos is, unfortunately, a familiar experience for Sahibzada.

A perilous escape from Afghanistan

Before he came to the United States from Afghanistan in 2022 on a special immigrant visa, Sahibzada worked for USAID in Afghanistan for more than a decade. As a software engineer, he helped create a text-messaging system that allowed farmers to get timely information about agricultural markets, and he was the main point of contact for people in rural areas in his region who wanted to get in touch with USAID-funded projects. “My name was the contact person on billboards and brochures and reference cards,” he said. “Everyone in the community knew my name. They knew my face.” 

That was a dangerous position to be in as the Taliban came back into power. Even before the U.S. withdrawal and the Taliban’s resurgence, Sahibzada began receiving threatening calls and social media warnings. He was approved for a special immigrant visa for Afghans who worked with the U.S. government — a program President Donald Trump suspended this year — but he had no idea how he would get out of the country, he said. The U.S. government offered to help him relocate to Doha, Qatar. 

“That was a time where it was not easy to go through the custom borders in Afghanistan, like, through the airport,” he said.  “I was afraid, like … how can I just go and will they allow me, or will they just keep me in prison, or will they just, I don’t know what will happen to me.”

“Thankfully, I made it to the airplane,” he said. He attributes his escape in part to the fact that he used an unfamiliar, formal name on his passport. “When I was working with USAID, my name was Sunny, which is like my nickname,” he explained. But on his passport, “I just put my last name as Sahibzada, which is our family name. So that helped me. When I was going to the airport, I was like, OK, whatever they’re having on their list will be not similar as what I have on my passport.” As a result, he thinks, he was able to slip past the Taliban and fly to Doha and from there, after a month-long process of vetting and background checks, to Wisconsin, where he has been living and working since December 2022. 

After resettling in Madison, Sahibzada got a job with the Milwaukee transit system, and commuted to work for a couple of months. He started at JSS in 2023 as a program manager and was promoted this year to direct the resettlement program.

During the time he has worked at JSS, much has changed.

A lot of clients call JSS with legal questions, worried that they might be deported. “We are connecting them with legal service providers,” Sahibzada said, “because we cannot answer.”

The group is planning “know your rights” and emergency preparedness training sessions for April, and working on creating a hotline for ICE sightings, staffed by volunteers speaking multiple languages, coordinated statewide with Wisconsin’s eight refugee services agencies.

Meanwhile, Sahibzada calls home every morning and evening to talk with his family, including his parents, his wife and his two daughters and three sons. “It’s really hard just staying home, not going out, and not going to school,” he said of his daughters. When he talks to them, “They’re always asking me, ‘What’s gonna happen?’ And I’m just giving them sometimes, like some false hopes that it will get better, which I don’t think it will in the very near future, but this is the hope that I’m giving.”

His family, seeking to join him in the U.S., traveled to Pakistan during the Biden administration and waited for months to have their papers processed by the U.S. embassy there. But their visas expired and they were forced to return to Afghanistan. Now, with the new U.S. immigration restrictions, things have gotten even more difficult. Sahibzada continues to hold out hope that things will eventually improve.

 “I’m hopeful that it gets changed, either with this administration or any other administration in the future,” he said. “I’m hopeful that this will change and people will be turning back to their normal life.”

More information about making a donation or volunteering is available on the JSS website

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

In a press call Thursday, Wisconsin Sen. Tammy Baldwin called the U.S. war with Iran “yet another broken promise from this president who pledged to end foreign conflicts, not start them.”

“President Trump may have forgotten the lessons we learned in Iraq and Afghanistan, but Wisconsinites have not,” Baldwin told reporters. “They remember the cost of war started without good reasons and without a plan to get us out.”

Objecting to the fact that Congress, which has the power to declare war, was not consulted before the Trump administration began bombing, Baldwin added, “This is a war of choice. But it shouldn’t be the president’s choice.”

The Trump administration, she said, has offered multiple, conflicting reasons for starting the war, which as of Thursday had so far claimed the lives of seven U.S. service members and injured 140 others, as well as leading to the deaths of more than 1,000 civilians, including 175 students and teachers at a girls’ school.

“All signs point to this president getting us into this war haphazardly, and it’s deeply concerning because it’s Wisconsinites who are going to pay the price,” Baldwin said. “Wisconsinites need some answers. They should know why this administration is spending billions of dollars on a war with Iran instead of investing in our schools or lowering the cost of groceries, health care or rent.”

She pledged to use her leverage as a U.S. Senator to demand public hearings at which Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and other members of the administration would answer questions about the rationale for the war and plans to bring it to an end, and said she had not yet heard back from Senate Majority Leader John Thune about holding such a hearing.

Baldwin has also signed onto a war powers resolution with five Senate colleagues aimed at blocking further U.S. military action without congressional approval.

“If Leader Thune refuses to hold public hearings and the Trump administration continues to hide in darkness, I’m prepared to force every single senator to go on record and tell the American people whether or not they support another endless foreign war,” she said.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Gov. Tony Evers said he would resist any efforts by the FBI and President Donald Trump to seize voting documents in Wisconsin as part of their review of the 2020 presidential election. 

Already this year, FBI officials have seized voting data in Georgia and Arizona, two swing states that Trump lost in 2020. Like Wisconsin, both states have been the regular focus of 2020 election conspiracy theories spread by Trump. 

If the FBI seized absentee ballots cast in Milwaukee County, those documents could reveal how individuals voted because of a state law that includes information that could tie each individual ballot to the voter’s signature in the official poll book. 

Federal officials have already worked to collect voter registration data in states across the country. The effort to collect that data from Wisconsin has been slowed by the state elections commission and the Wisconsin Department of Justice. 

Federal law enforcement has so far not signaled it’s going to expand its 2020 election investigation to include Wisconsin, but local officials have warned Milwaukee could be a target. Evers told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel earlier this week that he’d fight any such effort. 

“The idea that the state should somehow turn over sensitive voter information and documents that could enable the federal government to know how Wisconsinites voted and who they voted for is wrong, and we’ll continue fighting to protect Wisconsinites’ right to vote by secret ballot,” Evers said. “We want to keep our elections safe and secure, and caving to the Trump administration’s demand will do the exact opposite. That’s something we’re going to fight all the way.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The U.S. House Agriculture Committee advanced a sweeping farm bill early this month, attempting to revive Congress’ stalled effort to rewrite the nation’s agriculture law the same way it’s been done for decades.

But the vote also exposed the fragile coalition that will determine whether the legislation can ever move forward. 

Those who watch the process closely told States Newsroom they are not sure a new farm bill will be enacted, given the rupture in the traditional alliance that has in the past successfully brought together agriculture interests and anti-hunger advocates to support farm bills across party lines.

Historically, farm bills have brought together a diverse coalition of advocates and lawmakers across party lines. The arrangement dates back to the 1973 farm bill, when Congress first combined nutrition programs with farm subsidies to build a coalition strong enough to pass the legislation. The sweeping legislation now includes food and nutrition programs, energy, conservation, and rural development, as well as farm support and crop insurance. 

Now, cuts and changes in the nation’s biggest nutrition program, which could impose major new financial burdens on states, have been made by Republicans completely outside the usual farm bill process. This added to changes Democrats made in 2022, when they skipped the farm bill and used budget reconciliation to increase funding for climate-friendly farm conservation programs — though it is the food aid cuts that have most roiled the current debate.

These recent shifts could fundamentally change how the farm bill moves through Congress, said Christopher Neubert, deputy director of the Swette Center for Sustainable Food Systems at Arizona State University. He is also a former Democratic staffer on both the Senate Agriculture and Budget committees.

“It’s a careful balance …. but the farm bill was one thing that felt kind of certain,” Neubert said in an interview. “Now we’re entering a new period that I think does make a lot of people uneasy.”

“Unless there’s a real push to take a look at some of the serious challenges that exist and meaningfully address them, it might be very difficult to get a five-year farm bill across the finish line,” Neubert said.

Policy and funding together

The Agriculture Committee approved its version of the farm bill in a 34–17 vote March 5, following a markup that stretched more than 20 hours and featured sharp partisan disputes, particularly over the previous cuts to nutrition programs.

The legislation would set policy and funding levels for major food, agriculture and conservation programs for the next five years. The text and a title-by-title summary of the 802-page bill can be found here. 

The farm bill’s five-year timeline in the past gave some certainty and planning ability to farmers and ranchers, while bringing lawmakers and stakeholders back to the table periodically to reexamine the programs.

Congress last passed a farm bill in 2018, which expired in 2023. Since then, lawmakers have kept many programs running through temporary extensions, as negotiations over new versions fell through.

In the meantime, Congress made some of the largest changes to farm bill programs outside the normal reauthorization process – a major shift that has disrupted the usual process.

Last year’s GOP spending and tax cuts package, known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” reshaped nutrition funding, cutting the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, formerly known as food stamps. 

SNAP, administered by states, is the nation’s largest anti-hunger program. It provides monthly, income-based benefits to help low-income individuals and families purchase groceries. Democrats have widely criticized the changes to the program.

Some Democrats do sign on 

Even so, the House Agriculture Committee vote showed some bipartisan support. 

Seven Democrats joined Republicans in backing the legislation: Reps. Jim Costa of California, Sharice Davids of Kansas, Don Davis of North Carolina, Gabe Vasquez of New Mexico, Adam Gray of California, Kristen McDonald Rivet of Michigan and Josh Riley of New York. 

That was slightly more bipartisan than when the committee advanced a farm bill two years ago. Only four Democrats supported a measure that included some SNAP cuts within the farm bill.

Among those crossing party lines this year was Rivet, a freshman lawmaker and member of the moderate New Democrat Coalition.

Rivet hosted a press event on March 10 at a Saginaw County farm to promote the bill, highlighting the balancing act some moderate Democrats may face if the legislation reaches the House floor in an election year. 

“Farmers need solutions and certainty,” Rivet said, noting that she backed the bill because of provisions related to disaster relief, crop insurance and specialty crop support.

Still, she acknowledged the legislation will need changes as it moves forward.

“I was excited to be able to vote ‘yes’ on this farm bill,” Rivet said. “But I need to say that the bill is not perfect. We do need to reverse the devastating cuts to SNAP for hungry kids and families.”

Restoration of SNAP funding resisted

The debate over SNAP and other nutrition programs loomed over much of the committee’s work and will continue to be a major factor as the legislation moves forward. 

“The historic cuts to SNAP jeopardize the path forward for this bill and future farm bills,” Davids said during the committee debate.

Democrats offered multiple amendments to restore SNAP funding, but Republicans did not support any.

Scott Faber, senior vice president for government affairs at the liberal-leaning Environmental Working Group and a longtime farm policy advocate, said the longstanding alliance between those who back SNAP and farm supporters helped Congress pass farm bills for decades even as fewer Americans lived in rural communities. 

But he argues that the recent policy decisions have effectively dismantled that agreement. The cuts to nutrition programs in last year’s budget reconciliation bill helped offset new investment in farm subsidies, which Faber and other advocates contend go disproportionately to large farmers and do little to support smaller farms.

“Republicans chose to blow up the farm bill coalition in the one big, beautiful bill …so if Congress fails to pass another farm bill ever again, it will be Republicans who rightfully will bear the blame,” Faber said in an interview.

Faber called the political shift around the farm bill “a historic once-in-a-generation miscalculation by the farm lobby that will, in the long run, undermine public support for the farm safety net.”

Full effects of SNAP cuts still to come

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the SNAP changes would reduce federal SNAP spending by roughly 20% through 2034 while imposing stricter work requirements and shifting some program costs to states.

Some provisions will not take effect until 2027 and 2028, meaning the full effects have yet to be felt.

The changes have drawn criticism from hunger advocates and state officials who warn the shift could strain state budgets and make it harder for families to access food assistance.

In a recent letter, the National Governors Association and other state and local organizations told Congress that the policy changes could throw hundreds of millions of dollars in costs onto states and risk destabilizing the program if lawmakers do not intervene.

During debate on an amendment from Rep. Jahana Hayes, D-Conn., that would have reversed the SNAP cuts, a proposal that ultimately failed, the committee’s top Democrat, Rep. Angie Craig of Minnesota, warned the longstanding farm bill coalition could be unraveling.

“We could be driving the last nail in the coffin of this coalition today,” Craig said. “For some of us, this is your first farm bill markup. For all of us, it could likely be our last, because by decimating the nutrition title in the farm bill, by splitting the food and farm programs apart as Republicans have done in this process, you have destroyed the farm bill coalition.”

Craig said a path forward for this committee’s bill would be fraught, calling it a “shell of a farm bill” that is “absolutely flawed” and “a missed opportunity” to address the economic pressures facing agriculture.

“It is going to have challenges getting broad bipartisan support on the House floor if it even makes it there,” Craig said during the markup. “My sincere hope is that this is just ‘act one’ of several acts.”

‘There is more work to be done’

The House Agriculture Committee’s farm bill proposal, titled the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, closely resembles the legislation the panel advanced two years ago. 

That earlier bill never received a vote on the House floor, and the Senate Agriculture Committee has yet to advance its own farm bill framework.

Throughout the markup, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson, R-Pa., urged lawmakers to support the measure. He repeatedly encouraged members to “not let the perfect be the enemy of the good” as they debated amendments to the bill’s 12 titles covering farm supports, conservation, trade, rural development and nutrition.

“I am proud of this bill and the work we have done to further improve it. There is more work to be done,” Thompson said at the conclusion of the markup, which he called a “long slog.” 

Thompson has said he has met with House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., about bringing the measure to the House floor. 

But the legislation will likely need some Democratic support, particularly to move through the Senate, where votes to advance legislation like the farm bill typically require a 60-vote supermajority.

Senators, farm interests

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., the top Democrat on the Senate Agriculture Committee, said during a hearing March 10 that she hopes lawmakers can craft a bipartisan farm bill that addresses the needs of both farmers and families who rely on SNAP.

“I am hoping we can get to a better place. I hope as we look at a farm bill, that we include some corrections to what happened last summer,” Klobuchar said, referencing the “big beautiful” law.

For his part, U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Chairman John Boozman, R-Ark., said he appreciated the House effort to advance the farm bill and indicated he may want to go in a similar direction.

“This builds off the historic investments we made in the Working Families Tax Cuts to strengthen the farm safety net and provide producers with greater certainty while demonstrating unwavering support for strengthening rural communities and safeguarding our food supply,” Boozman said in a statement. 

Farm groups are watching closely, hoping a five-year farm bill will provide some certainty farmers have lacked in recent years.

American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall called on Congress to “finish the job and deliver a modern farm bill” and urged farmers to contact lawmakers and encourage them to advance the legislation. The Farm Bureau has 5 million members.

The National Farmers Union, which represents about 220,000 family farmers and ranchers, said it is grateful for progress on the farm bill but offered a more cautious response.

“We remain concerned that this proposal does not yet meet the scale of the crisis facing family farmers and ranchers,” NFU President Rob Larew said in a statement. “The path from committee to a final, signed farm bill is long. NFU will continue working with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to strengthen this legislation.”

WASHINGTON — Members of a U.S. Senate panel expressed bipartisan consensus Thursday that the country should be cautious of “malign” foreign dollars flowing to American colleges and universities, with some Democrats also arguing recent funding cuts undermine the country’s lead in global research.

The hearing in the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions on “malign foreign influence in higher education” came as President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans have pushed for increased transparency requirements when it comes to foreign gifts and contracts entering these schools.

Higher education institutions receiving federal financial assistance are required to disclose any foreign gifts or contracts valued at or above $250,000 annually. The requirement has been in place since 1986, when the Higher Education Act of 1965 was amended to include the reporting provision, known as Section 117. 

Sen. Bill Cassidy, a Louisiana Republican and chair of the panel, said college is ultimately “about setting students up for success and they should be our priority, but that priority can be undermined when foreign adversaries attempt to exercise influence on college campuses … inherently threatening national security.” 

A bill that would broaden Section 117 disclosure requirements and lower the reporting threshold from $250,000 to $50,000 passed the House in March 2025. Rep. Michael Baumgartner, a Washington state Republican, sponsored the measure. 

Cassidy, who is co-leading a Senate companion bill with North Carolina GOP Sen. Thom Tillis, called for protecting college campuses through “transparency,” noting that his legislation would be the next step in that effort.  

Thursday’s hearing also came as the administration continues its efforts to dismantle the 46-year-old Education Department, including through a series of interagency agreements that outsource several of its responsibilities to other departments. 

In one of those agreements, the State Department will help Education manage foreign gift and contract reporting under Section 117.  

Research cuts add vulnerabilities

Though Democrats saw a need to root out “malign” foreign influences in higher education, a handful took aim at the administration’s cuts to federal research funding and broader “attacks” on higher education. 

“While I agree that it’s important to stamp out dangerous sources of foreign influence in our higher education system, I think it’s important that we also address how cuts to research funding can increase foreign influence on the global stage and undermine U.S. competitiveness,” said Sen. Angela Alsobrooks.

The Maryland Democrat pointed to the impact of the administration’s cuts to the National Institutes of Health, the country’s premier medical research agency under the Department of Health and Human Services that is headquartered in her state. 

Sen. Tim Kaine pointed to a loss of researchers in the United States as a result of research funding cuts. 

“This administration has canceled billions of dollars in federal research, making many of our researchers vulnerable to being recruited by universities in other countries, not necessarily China, but Canada, the (United Kingdom) and universities in Europe,” the Virginia Democrat said. 

Sen. Patty Murray said she found it “absurd” that Trump and Republicans are “willing to burn billions of dollars a day” in the ongoing war with Iran, when she and many others are fighting “tooth and nail” to get the administration to “release billions of dollars that Congress appropriated to be delivered to our students.”

“It’s not happening, and states like mine are having to routinely file lawsuits,” the Washington state Democrat said, while also calling on Education Secretary Linda McMahon to testify before the panel on the ongoing dismantling efforts. 

Cassidy said the panel was in talks with the department to schedule McMahon’s testimony.

Transparency dashboard

The department’s public transparency dashboard — housed on a portal launched in January where colleges and universities are responsible for disclosing foreign gifts and contracts — also came to the forefront during Thursday’s hearing. 

The dashboard, visualizing four decades of data, offers a snapshot of the foreign funding disclosures submitted by colleges and universities.

At least 559 institutions have disclosed $72.1 billion in foreign gifts and contracts between 1986 and late January 2026, according to the dashboard.

But the current version of the dashboard’s usability is limited by an inability to filter by year.

Robert Daly, senior fellow at the Asia Society and former director of the Kissinger Institute on China and the United States at the Wilson Center, told the panel the dashboard’s cumulative nature is one of its “biggest silences.” The tool does not allow the public to see any fluctuation over the years in the amount of money in foreign gifts and contracts received by schools. 

He added that “not only do we need to see how giving from each country is moving over time, we need to be able to distinguish different kinds of giving.” 

The Wisconsin State Legislature is being sued over its use of private lawyers by progressive firm Law Forward. The lawsuit, filed on Feb. 19 in Dane County Circuit Court, takes aim at a provision in the lame duck law passed by the Republican majority and signed by outgoing Republican Gov. Scott Walker in 2018 before Democratic Gov. Tony Evers took office for his first term. The provision allows the Assembly speaker and Senate majority leader to obtain outside legal counsel.

A Milwaukee Journal Sentinel investigation published in July 2025 found that since 2017 lawmakers had spent over $26 million in taxpayer money on legal fees to private law firms, many of which had ties to the national Republican party and the state DOJ under former Republican state attorneys general.

Law Forward President and General Counsel Jeff Mandell said in a statement that Wisconsinites “deserve to know their money is being spent lawfully to advance a valid public purpose.” 

“This lawsuit challenges the tens of millions in taxpayer funds, most of which is wasted by the Republican-controlled Legislature on private legal counsel in pursuit of private interests, in clear violation of the Wisconsin Constitution’s public purpose doctrine and Wisconsin’s system of divided government,” Mandell said.

The lawsuit argues that the retention of private lawyers using public funds is unconstitutional because it is duplicative of the legal services provided through the Department of Justice that the state already pays for and has been used primarily for private, partisan or political interests. 

The Wisconsin Constitution prohibits spending public funds for purposes that aren’t public.

It asks the court to declare the use of private counsel unconstitutional and to block the state Department of Administration from processing future payments for private counsel for lawmakers. 

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of three Wisconsin taxpayers: Daniel Theno, a Brown County Board Supervisor and former state senator, Randy Scannell, a former Green Bay City Council alderman, and J. Drew Ryberg.

The defendants named in the suit include the Assembly, Senate, and the Department of Administration (DOA) as well as Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester), Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R-Oostburg), Senate President Mary Felzkowski (R-Tomahawk) and other legislative leaders. 

“The Legislature hires attorneys to defend Wisconsin’s laws because the people of Wisconsin deserve a rigorous defense of the laws on the books. Even though the Attorney General can defend our laws, we have seen that the Department of Justice is unable to put politics aside on partisan issues,” Lemahieu and Vos said in a joint statement. “Hiring outside counsel simply allows the legislature to ensure all sides are presented vigorously so the judiciary can hear all points of view to make the best decision.”

One case that the lawsuit cites is Wisconsin State Senate v. City of Green Bay.  The case, which was settled in July 2024, centered on the City of Green Bay and Mayor Eric Genrich alleging that audio recording devices installed in City Hall in 2021 violated state electronic surveillance laws. 

The Senate and its member, Sen. André Jacque (R-New Franken), initially brought the case, but the Senate was dismissed as a party after it was filed. The Law Forward suit alleges that the Senate continued paying for private counsel “with bills sometimes exceeding $150,000 in a month” and argues the Senate and Jacque “initiated and persisted in litigation for no discernable public purpose.” 

Another case cited is the hiring of Michael Gableman by Vos in 2021 to investigate Wisconsin’s 2020 presidential results, which Trump falsely claimed had been rigged to cause his loss. The Assembly paid Gableman over $1.3 million in public dollars for Gableman, other staff and expenses until August 2022 when Gableman was fired.

Referencing a statement made by Sen. Tim Carpenter (D-Milwaukee) after the ordeal, the lawsuit argues that “‘nothing’ actually overstates the value to the people of Wisconsin of the services rendered” and that Gableman’s efforts “led to a bevy of litigation, in multiple circuit and appellate courts.” The lawsuit also claims that afterwards the Assembly hired outside counsel to represent Gableman and sometimes the Assembly in circuit and appellate courts in litigation that was the result of the investigation.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Wisconsin lawmakers are advancing a bill through the Senate that would place policies in statute and provide funding to help the University of Wisconsin navigate changes in college sports allowing  student athletes to make money off their name, image and likeness (NIL). 

University of Wisconsin-Madison Athletic Director Chris McIntosh said at a public hearing on the bill last week that the measure is necessary to help UW maintain its athletics programs and competitiveness. 

A recent landmark antitrust settlement in a House v. NCAA lawsuit allows college athletics programs to directly provide NIL compensation to student athletes. 

According to written testimony, starting in fiscal year 2026 the settlement will add an expected $20.5 million annual expense to the UW-Madison athletics budget to cover the cost of the revenue-sharing requirements. The settlement allows schools to pay athletes up to an annual cap that starts at about $20.5 million per school in 2025-26 and increases every year potentially reaching over $32 million by 2035.

AB 1034 would provide $14.6 million annually in state funds to go towards debt service for the maintenance costs of UW-Madison’s athletic facilities. It also includes $200,000 annually in state funds for debt service for maintenance costs of the UW–Milwaukee Klotsche Center as well as $200,000 for the UW-Green Bay soccer complex. The purpose is to free up funds that the UW can use to provide students with opportunities for NIL agreements. 

“If this bill doesn’t pass and is pushed off into the future, it will continue to put tremendous financial strain on athletics and on the university. We will have our backs up against a wall financially by the time that this would come forward in 2027,” McIntosh said. UW-Madison has 23 sports teams and he said this would especially help support its Olympic and women’s programs.

Without the bill, McIntosh said UW-Madison will need to reevaluate “our expectations on the success of our sports” or “how they’re supported or how many of them exist.”

There are at least 32 states that have passed laws to regulate NIL agreements for student athletes. 

The bill seeks to codify the policies that UW-Madison and other campuses already have in state law. Some of those include prohibiting NIL contracts that conflict with school policies or  provide money in exchange for athletic performance, as well as those that require student athletes to endorse alcoholic beverages, gambling, banned athletic substances or illegal activities or substances. It also includes a requirement that student athletes disclose third-party NIL deals they enter. 

UW schools will also be able to contract with organizations that can help student athletes find NIL opportunities.

The bill is coauthored by Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R-Oostburg) and Reps. Alex Dallman (R-Markesan), Scott Krug (R-Rome) and Paul Tittl (R-Manitowoc). 

UW exempted from state open records law

Open records advocates have questioned the broad nature of an open records exemption included in the bill.

Beth Bennett, executive director of the Wisconsin Newspaper Association, said in written testimony that the language in the bill related to open records “appears to extend far beyond” its intended purpose and could “create a sweeping exemption for any financial record connected to a public university’s athletic program.”

The language included in the bill states that “to protect competitive interests and student privacy,” records related to the “generation, deployment, or allocation of revenue generated by an intercollegiate athletic program that are the subject of reasonable efforts under the circumstances to maintain the secrecy of the records, when competitive reasons require confidentiality” will not be subject to the open records law. 

Bennett said the bill “creates a subjective and potentially expansive loophole” that would “enable a public institution to shield broad categories of financial decision-making from scrutiny simply by asserting competitive harm” and undermine “Wisconsin’s long-standing commitment to open government.”

Bennett said the bill’s language should be narrowly tailored if it is seeking to protect sensitive NIL agreements involving student-athletes.

Nancy Lynch, vice chancellor for legal affairs for UW-Madison, told lawmakers at the Senate public hearing on the bill that it would put the university on a competitive footing with peer institutions in other states, and said the open records exemption is important for that purpose. 

“The need for the explicit exemption is focused on protecting competitive interests and student privacy,” Lynch said. “We seek only to codify our existing practice of denying access to student athlete NIL agreements and certain university records that are related to NIL strategy, allocation, revenue generation and use, the release of which would put us at a competitive disadvantage with our competitors. 

Lynch said the provision would just provide “certainty” for student athletes and “clarity” for records seekers, not give them “an unlimited exemption to withhold anything we wish.” She noted that UW-Madison has released NIL records that don’t implicate students or competitive interests including its temporary NIL policy and the full athletics budget.

“This legislation would not change that,” she said. 

However, she said the broad nature of the language would provide flexibility that allows the university to determine their response as requests come in.

“As the NIL landscape continues to evolve, the language as it’s been drafted helps us anticipate additional types of records that we don’t know yet may exist,” Lynch said.

A Legislative Council member told lawmakers during the hearing that the specific language in the bill “is not limited to the name, image or likeness under that specific phrasing,” but “does have to be limited to … generation, deployment or allocation of revenue related to the athletic program and it has to be when competitive reasons require the confidentiality.”

Sen. Mark Spreitzer (D-Beloit) asked whether the university would be open to an amendment that would ensure that the language applies to NIL.

Lynch said she didn’t necessarily have an objection to that but noted that the bill is not currently written that way and changes to the bill at this point could delay the legislation until the next legislative session. 

The Assembly passed the bill in a 95-1 vote with little floor debate last month. 

The state Senate will be in session in March, but the Assembly adjourned for its last regular floor session last month. Any changes to the NIL bill would need to be approved by both the Senate and the Assembly before the bill could go to Gov. Tony Evers.

The Joint Finance Committee voted 8-5 Tuesday to concur in the bill. There was no debate on the bill, though Sens. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point), Rob Stafsholt (R-New Richmond), Julian Bradley (R-New Berlin), LaTonya Johnson (D-Milwaukee) and Kelda Roys (D-Madison) all voted against it.

The Senate Government Operations, Labor and Economic Development committee also voted 3-2 via paper ballot Wednesday to approve the bill with Bradley and Sen. Chris Kapenga (R-Delafield) in opposition.

With four Republicans opposing, the bill will likely need Democratic support to pass in the Senate.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

An ally of the man whose son was killed by Kenosha police two decades ago is raising new questions about a thwarted attempt to reopen the investigation of the 2004 fatal shooting.

In 2023, the state Crime Victims Rights Board rejected an attempt by Michael M. Bell to hold the Wisconsin Department of Justice responsible for ignoring his pleas to examine what happened the night his son was killed.

In new legal papers filed this week, Russell Beckman, a retired Kenosha police detective, charges that the Wisconsin DOJ improperly worked with the Crime Victims Rights Board during its review of Bell’s claim.

Beckman contends that conversations involving a top-ranking DOJ official, an attorney working for the victims rights board and the board’s director were “illicit” and deprived Bell of a fair hearing into his complaint.

The DOJ declined comment on Beckman’s filing.

Bell’s son, Michael E. Bell, was shot and killed on Nov. 9, 2004, after a police encounter. In the years since, the elder Bell has repeatedly sought to draw attention to discrepancies in the Kenosha Police Department’s account of the incident. He argues those discrepancies call into question the police department’s narrative — including the reason that his son was shot.

The official police department account asserts that Albert Gonzales, the Kenosha police officer who shot Michael E. Bell, acted in self-defense after another officer shouted that Bell had grabbed his service weapon during an ongoing struggle.

What really happened the night Michael Bell’s son died?

Bell’s father has consistently argued that eyewitness testimony and physical evidence show that his son could not have grabbed the second officer’s gun. He has said that while he believes the second officer was genuinely mistaken, Gonzales was in a position to know otherwise but shot Bell in haste.

The second officer later took his own life. Gonzales, who has self-published an account of the case using fictional names for some of the people involved — including the Bells — has denied the elder Bell’s claims and stood by the Kenosha Police Department’s scenario of the incident.

For more than 15 years Michael M. Bell has urged authorities to reexamine the details of his son’s death, to no avail. Beckman has been working with Bell as a volunteer for more than a decade on those efforts.

Bell says since 2018 he has several times sought meetings with Attorney General Josh Kaul and requested information from the Wisconsin Department of Justice.

After receiving no response, Beckman, acting on Bell’s behalf, filed a complaint to the Crime Victims Rights Board in 2022, charging that by ignoring Bell’s requests Kaul had violated his rights as a crime victim. The board dismissed the complaint in 2023.

The board ruled that the alleged conduct by Kaul and the DOJ wouldn’t be considered “crimes that confer victim status” on Bell. The ruling added: “The alleged conduct is against the government and its administration, not against individual persons.”

After that ruling, Beckman obtained billing records and other materials related to Bell’s complaint before the victims rights board through open records requests. In an affidavit he filed this week, Beckman said those records showed that DOJ lawyers, the Crime Victims Rights Board’s operations director and a private attorney the board hired to provide legal counsel regarding Bell’s complaint, had conducted telephone conferences about the case in February 2023.

Another open records request turned up an email message from Mel Barnes, the chief legal counsel for Gov. Tony Evers, telling the lawyer advising the CVRB that  Deputy Attorney General Eric Wilson “can provide some background” about the Bell complaint and can “connect you with the board.”

The Wisconsin law that empowers the Crime Victims Rights Board states that “actions of the board are not subject to approval or review by the attorney general.”

In his affidavit Beckman contends those conferences could be considered “illicit” in light of that law. “Wisconsin law and CVRB organization rules create a specific separation of the authority between the CVRB and the Attorney General/WI DOJ,” the affidavit states.

Beckman also charges that those conferences could constitute “improper ex parte influence from a named adverse party” — the DOJ. 

Beckman says in the affidavit that because of earlier email messages he sent to DOJ in his and Bell’s effort to persuade Kaul to look into the 2004 fatal shooting and their allegations of a Kenosha police coverup, it would be “a conflict of interest” for the DOJ lawyer to confer with the CVRB lawyer.

Beckman filed the affidavit and a related document in Brown County circuit court as part of his petition for a judicial review of the Crime Victims Rights Board ruling that dismissed Bell’s complaint.

The circuit judge dismissed Beckman’s judicial review petition on the grounds that Beckman missed a filing deadline. Beckman has appealed the judge’s action, arguing that he did not miss the deadline based on the wording of the state’s online form. His appeal is in the Wisconsin Appeals Court 3rd District, where it has been for more than a year.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia now reject at least some federal vaccine guidance as the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention continues to de-emphasize the importance of childhood vaccinations under U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., according to research by KFF, a nonprofit health policy organization based in California and Washington, D.C. 

The tally as of March 10 reflects states that have announced they will go their own way on childhood vaccines since last May, when Kennedy began to make changes to the vaccine schedule. Those changes culminated with a reduction in recommended routine childhood vaccinations, from 13 to 7, as of January. 

New state-by-state recommendations reflect a partisan divide, as all states with Democratic governors have rejected federal childhood vaccine guidance while many Republican states have not. 

Virginia announced in February that it would not follow CDC guidelines, a change after the inauguration of Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger, who took over after a Republican predecessor. Spanberger had campaigned on the issue, saying she would not support a rollback of childhood vaccinations.

In Florida, the state Senate passed a bill March 9 making it easier for parents to let their children go unvaccinated, though state House leaders have said they will not consider a similar bill despite support for it from Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis. 

In Louisiana, the state has adopted a policy of not promoting vaccines or holding clinics. Republican U.S. Sen. Bill Cassidy, a physician who reluctantly agreed to Kennedy’s confirmation despite objecting to his views on vaccines, is facing a primary fight. 

Fifteen Democrat-led states sued Kennedy in federal court in February, seeking a reversal of the new vaccine guidelines. A preliminary hearing is scheduled May 29.

Some states have created formal alliances to share health information. The Northeast Public Health Collaborative, composed of Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York state, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and New York City, said in January it will continue following guidance from the American Academy of Pediatrics instead of the federal government.

The American Academy of Pediatrics released its immunization schedule for 2026, which kept in place the schedule as it was before HHS’s overhaul. Twelve medical professional organizations endorsed the academy’s schedule. 

And governors of 14 states have formed another alliance to share public health information, including on vaccines. The updated CDC guidance “creates confusion and introduces unnecessary barriers for families who want to protect their children from serious illness,” said the Governors Public Health Alliance in a January news release. The governors are all Democrats, though the group says it is nonpartisan.

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

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration Wednesday made an emergency request to the U.S. Supreme Court to allow the revocation of legal status for more than 350,000 Haitians, opening them up to deportations. 

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer asked the justices to block a lower court’s ruling that found the Trump administration unlawfully ended Temporary Protected Status for Haiti. 

TPS is a status given to nationals who hail from a country deemed too dangerous for return. The program grants work permits and deportation protections through renewal cycles ranging from six to 18 months. 

As President Donald Trump aims to carry out mass deportations, the administration has moved to revoking legal status, such as TPS, for millions of immigrants, which means they then may be deported.  

Administration argues status is temporary

In court filings, Sauer argued that the decision from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia harms the Trump administration’s “national interest and foreign relations.” 

He added that TPS is supposed to be “temporary,” and notes that Haiti has had the designation since 2010. 

The high court asked for a response by Monday from attorneys representing the TPS holders who initially sued. 

Haiti first received TPS designation after a devastating earthquake in 2010, and had it renewed following the president’s assassination in 2021 by gangs. 

The Trump administration moved to end TPS designation by Feb. 3. But Haitian TPS holders sued, arguing that the end of the designation did not take into account the country’s current condition. Haiti is dealing with gang violence and political instability. 

Other TPS moves

The Trump administration has also asked the high court to allow for the stripping of TPS for 6,000 Syrian nationals. The Supreme Court has not ruled on that emergency appeal yet. 

The Trump administration has sought to end legal protections for immigrants with TPS status. 

So far, the administration has revoked TPS status for 13 of the 17 countries that were designated at the start of the president’s second term. 

Those 13 countries are Afghanistan, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Haiti, Honduras, Myanmar, Nepal, Nicaragua, Somalia, South Sudan, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen.  

The four remaining countries with TPS expiring this year without an extension are El Salvador, Lebanon, Sudan and Ukraine.

WASHINGTON — The Department of Defense must quickly release the results of its investigation into whether the U.S. military bombed a girls’ elementary school in Iran that left at least 168 people dead, according to a letter sent Wednesday that was signed by nearly every Senate Democrat. 

“To be clear, the war against Iran is a war of choice without Congressional authorization,” they wrote. “Nonetheless, as these military actions continue, the United States and Israel must abide by U.S. and international law, including the law of armed conflict.”

The letter from 46 senators to Secretary Pete Hegseth calls on Pentagon officials to conduct “a swift investigation into the strikes on this school and any other potential U.S. military actions causing civilian harm, and the findings must be released to the public as soon as possible, along with any measures to pursue accountability.”

A spokesperson for the Department of Defense said in a statement the “incident is under investigation.”

US responsibility probed

President Donald Trump said while leaving the White House Wednesday that he didn’t know anything about preliminary reports that the U.S. is responsible for the bombing. The New York Times reported earlier in the day that an “ongoing military investigation has determined that the United States is responsible for a deadly Tomahawk missile strike on an Iranian elementary school.”

The lawmakers’ letter requests the Pentagon answer a series of questions, including 

• Whether the U.S. military conducted the strike on Feb. 28 on the girls’ elementary school.
• If it was a U.S. strike, what the military meant to bomb and what led to the school being hit instead.
• Whether the department is “complying with rules to prevent the commission of war crimes.”
• If the DOD created a “no-strike list” before bombing began in Iran and what other steps military officials have taken to reduce or prevent harm to civilians. 
• Whether the military is using artificial intelligence tools in its operations in Iran. 
• What steps the department took to comply with the laws of war. 

Senators signing letter

The letter was signed by Arizona Sens. Ruben Gallego and Mark Kelly, California Sens. Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff, Colorado Sens. Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper, Connecticut Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, Delaware Sens. Lisa Blunt Rochester and Chris Coons, Georgia Sens. Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock, Hawaii Sens. Mazie Hirono and Brian Schatz, Illinois Sens. Tammy Duckworth and Dick Durbin, Maryland Sens. Angela Alsobrooks and Chris Van Hollen, Massachusetts Sens. Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warren, Michigan Sens. Gary Peters and Elissa Slotkin, Minnesota Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Tina Smith, Nevada Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto and Jacky Rosen, New Hampshire Sens. Maggie Hassan and Jeanne Shaheen, New Jersey Sens. Cory Booker and Andy Kim, New Mexico Sens. Martin Heinrich and Ben Ray Luján, New York Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand and Chuck Schumer, Oregon Sens. Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden, Rhode Island Sens. Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse, Vermont Sen. Peter Welch, Virginia Sens. Tim Kaine and Mark Warner, Washington Sens. Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray, and Wisconsin Sen. Tammy Baldwin. All are Democrats. 

Maine Sen. Angus King and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, both independents who caucus with the Democrats, signed the letter as well. 

Pennsylvania’s John Fetterman was the sole Democrat not to sign the letter. 

The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Wednesday heard oral arguments in a case that centers on a dispute between state Attorney General Josh Kaul, a Democrat, and the Republican-controlled Legislature about who controls money the Department of Justice is awarded as part of lawsuit settlements. 

The suit is yet another challenge to the lame duck laws Republican legislators and outgoing Gov. Scott Walker enacted in 2018 in the days before the end of Walker’s term and another instance of the Supreme Court stepping in to enforce the separation of powers between Wisconsin’s executive and legislative branches. 

Under several provisions of the lame duck laws, the Legislature sought to limit the executive branch’s authority to spend money. The Supreme Court previously struck down provisions that required the approval of legislative committees before executive agencies could act. 

The Legislature argues that under the law, the attorney general is required to put money from a financial settlement into the state’s general fund, which legislators control through the normal budget process. Kaul argues he can put the settlement funds in accounts controlled by DOJ but doesn’t have the authority to spend those funds without approval from the Legislature’s budget-writing Joint Finance Committee. 

Initially filed in Polk County Circuit Court in 2021, when a conservative majority controlled the Supreme Court, the case appeared in the 2nd District Court of Appeals in 2024 where a 2-1 decision reversed the circuit court’s ruling that Kaul could direct settlement funds into DOJ accounts. 

That majority opinion was authored by Judge Maria Lazar, a conservative judge now running for a seat on the Supreme Court. 

“Despite the legislation expressly designed to bring all settlement funds under legislative control and despite the simple and plain language of that legislation, the Attorney General has continued to act precisely in the manner which the Legislature sought to end,” Lazar wrote.

Generally, conservative legal interpretations of the law involve strict adherence to the exact language of a statute while liberal legal interpretations take into account intent. In this case, that typical structure is flipped. The DOJ argues that it is following the exact language of the law by directing the settlement money into accounts for specific DOJ programs that fall under the umbrella of the general fund and not spending those funds without approval from JFC. DOJ also notes that historically, Wisconsin attorneys general have had broad authority to spend settlement money. 

DOJ attorney Hannah Jurss argued to the Court Wednesday that it isn’t DOJ’s fault the Legislature wasn’t precise enough when crafting the law — though the law has effectively cut off Kaul’s ability to direct the expenditure of settlement funds. 

“We now do not have discretion to expend those monies. So if the intention was to prevent the attorney general’s expenditure of settlement funds as properly understood, it did that,” Jurss said. “There are now monies sitting there that are left to the attorney general’s discretion that the attorney general cannot spend. Instead, I think what the court is seeing in the Legislature’s arguments are unsupported assertions about some sort of broader intent that, frankly, have no support whatsoever in the text of the statutes, in statutory history.” 

Jurss added that a similar structure guides the budget statutes across state government, so if the Court sided with the Legislature, much of the existing budget framework would be affected. She noted programs in the Departments of Tourism and Military Affairs that would be hit. 

“This Court should not cut the wire on the budget statute structure across Wisconsin statutes simply for the Legislature to accomplish its preferred outcome here,” she said. 

Misha Tseytlin, the attorney for the Legislature — whose former position as state solicitor general was cut by the Legislature in the lame duck laws — argued the Court should side with the Legislature to stop Kaul from finding ways around the law. 

“Because the attorney general had found his way around the Legislature’s prior attempt,” Tseytlin said. “I know there’s not a lot of sympathy for the Legislature from the courts, but imagine how frustrating it is. You’re trying to rein in the attorney general, you’re trying to get them to stop these practices, you enact this JFC provision, and they find a way around that.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Passengers at a handful of airports this week waited in hours-long security lines as the government shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security dragged on.

Though Transportation Security Administration officers are required by law to work during a lapse in funding, more than usual have been absent after receiving only a partial paycheck during the most recent pay period. TSA officers will miss an entire paycheck this weekend if the shutdown is still in effect then. 

No end to the shutdown appeared imminent Wednesday, as the U.S. Senate rejected a bill that would have funded TSA and other agencies in DHS that are not related to immigration enforcement.

In the meantime, TSA officers are not being paid. 

Most live paycheck-to-paycheck, said Johnny Jones, the secretary-treasurer of the American Federation of Government Employees Council 100, which represents TSA agents.

The lack of pay has contributed to absenteeism, Jones added. The union does not condone coordinated “sick-outs,” which are illegal. 

But individual officers miss work for one of three reasons during a shutdown, he said: pre-planned time off, legitimate illness or personal emergencies, and those calling in sick but seeking other work to pay bills.

“If you’re normally receiving a paycheck, you wouldn’t have that third group,” he said.

Some of those who are working are going without lunch or making other sacrifices, Jones added. And he said two colleagues were evicted during the most recent shutdown last fall, which lasted for 43 days.

The U.S. war against Iran, which has an estimated price in the billions of dollars in just its first two weeks, has also driven resentment among TSA workers, Jones said.

“One of the things that I’ve heard from the colleagues is that, man, we got plenty of money to go fight wars and bomb Iran, but we can’t pay our own employees,” he said.

Long lines

No exceptionally long wait times were reported Wednesday, but the previous few days saw several examples of snarled security lines.

Security lines topped three hours at Houston’s William P. Hobby International Airport on Monday and Tuesday. 

Lines at Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport were up to two hours Monday and the airport’s social media drew a direct line to the shutdown.

“Due to impacts from the federal government’s partial shutdown, there continues to be a shortage of TSA workers at the security checkpoint … which is causing longer-than-average lines,” the airport’s X account posted.

Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport also urged passengers to leave extra time to account for factors including “TSA staffing constraints.”

CBS News reported Wednesday that more than 300 TSA agents have left their jobs since the shutdown began. TSA officials did not respond to messages seeking confirmation of that figure.

Senate gridlock

The top Democrat on the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee, Washington’s Patty Murray, sought unanimous consent Wednesday for the Senate to approve a bill that would fund all of DHS other than Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection, and the secretary’s office.

Sen. Katie Britt, an Alabama Republican who chairs the subcommittee on Homeland Security funding, objected.

Murray’s bill “would effectively defund our law enforcement officers that are charged with keeping Americans safe,” Britt said.

Each party blamed the other for the impasse, which has been unbreachable since the department’s funding lapsed Feb. 14.

Following the January fatal shootings of two U.S. citizens by immigration officers in Minneapolis, Democrats are demanding changes to immigration agencies’ conduct as a condition of funding the department.

Republicans have said they are willing to negotiate the issue, but the parties disagree on what to do for the department, which also includes the Coast Guard and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, in the meantime.

Republican leaders sought to pass a short-term continuing resolution to fund the entire department, but Democrats rejected it, saying it would allow the operation of immigration agencies without adding accountability measures.

“Right now, TSA agents are going without pay because Republicans and the White House have decided they would rather shut down all of DHS than pass some very basic reforms to rein in ICE and Border Patrol,” Murray said. “We also want TSA and FEMA funded, but we are not going to be blackmailed into cutting a blank check for ICE to get it done.”

Politics cited

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, of South Dakota, said Democrats have stopped negotiating on DHS funding in a bid to keep the issue alive for the November midterm elections. 

“The American people are tired,” he said. “Lines get longer at the airports because TSA isn’t funded. The American people want us to do our jobs. Republicans are at the table. We’re ready to work toward a solution. Democrats have walked away.”

Jones, the AFGE member and TSA officer, declined to say which approach to short-term funding was preferable, but said it was Congress’ job to fund the federal government.

“We all swear the same oath to the same Constitution,” he said. “Now my job function is a little different than theirs, so they need to do theirs so I can do mine.”