Stanley Nelson’s syncopated voyage through the history of funk music, from early roots to 1970s urban funk and beyond.

The post Independent Lens:WE WANT THE FUNK! appeared first on WPR.

A soil advisor and a watershed planner explain new research underway to better maintain agricultural systems in Wisconsin.

The post New research digs into agricultural sustainability underneath Wisconsin appeared first on WPR.

“The sooner this can conclude, the sooner that the entire strategy plays out and we end up with whatever the result will be, the better,” Johnson told WPR's "Wisconsin Today."

The post Sen. Ron Johnson concerned about Trump tariffs but supportive of more targeted efforts toward China appeared first on WPR.

After announcing a major workforce reduction at the beginning of the year, Air Wisconsin is planning another round of layoffs affecting more than 100 people.

The post Air Wisconsin Airlines planning another round of layoffs affecting over 100 people appeared first on WPR.

Republican-ordered audits released Friday found that Wisconsin state agencies and the Universities of Wisconsin have failed to track the millions of dollars they spent on diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, making it difficult to fully assess the initiatives.

The post Wisconsin audits find university, state agencies failed to track DEI spending appeared first on WPR.

A section of the U.S.-Mexico border wall near El Paso, Texas, on June 6, 2024. (Photo by Ariana Figueroa/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump late Friday signed a memorandum directing several agencies to start militarizing a stretch of the southern border, an escalation of the administration’s use of the U.S. military amid its immigration crackdown.

The move, which The Washington Post first reported last month, could potentially put U.S. military members in direct contact with migrants, a possible violation of federal law.

The memo directs the Interior Department to allow the Defense Department to have jurisdiction over portions of federal land known as the Roosevelt Reservation, excluding any Native American reservations.

By creating a military buffer zone that stretches across the U.S.-Mexico border in Arizona, California and New Mexico, it means any migrant crossing into the United States would be trespassing on a military base, therefore allowing active-duty troops to hold them until U.S. Border Patrol agents arrive.

National and military experts have raised concerns that giving control over the land to the military could violate the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 law that generally prohibits the military from being used in domestic law enforcement.

The Friday memo instructs its “phased” implementation within 45 days, and says it could be expanded over time.

The memo is directed at the secretaries of the departments of Defense, Interior, Agriculture and Homeland Security.

“The complexity of the current situation requires that our military take a more direct role in securing our southern border than in the recent past,” according to the memo.

Friday’s announcement comes ahead of a report that is due to Trump by April 20 from the secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security with recommendations on whether or not to use the Insurrection Act of 1807 to aid in mass deportations.

The memo states: “At any time, the Secretary of Defense may extend activities under this memorandum to additional Federal lands along the southern border in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Assistant to the President and Homeland Security Advisor, and other executive departments and agencies as appropriate.”

The memo also says that it’s part of an executive order Trump earlier this year signed, “Clarifying the Military’s Role in Protecting the Territorial Integrity of the United States.”

That executive order is one of five that lay out the use of military forces within the U.S. borders and extend other executive powers to speed up the president’s immigration crackdown. 

Minister of Justice and Public Security Héctor Villatoro, right, accompanies Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, center, during a tour of the Terrorist Confinement Center, or CECOT on March 26, 2025 in Tecoluca, El Salvador. (Photo by Alex Brandon-Pool/Getty Images)

GREENBELT, MARYLAND — A federal judge Friday demanded daily reports from the Trump administration on how it is working to return an erroneously deported Maryland man from an El Salvador prison, despite objections from a Department of Justice lawyer who insisted the Trump administration could not immediately obey a U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

The Maryland judge’s order came after the high court Thursday night ruled the Trump administration must try to “facilitate” the return of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, of Beltsville, but stopped short of requiring he be brought back from the notorious mega-prison.

The unsigned order from the Supreme Court said the district court also needs to clarify what it meant by saying the administration must “effectuate” the return of Abrego Garcia and the scope of that term is “unclear” and may exceed the district court’s authority.

Immigration officials admitted to an “administrative error” in the March 15 deportation of Abrego Garcia to El Salvador, despite protections from removal to his home country placed in 2019 by an immigration judge.

U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis of the District of Maryland grilled DOJ attorney Drew Ensign on where Abrego Garcia was currently and what steps President Donald Trump’s administration had taken to return him to the United States.

Ensign said he could not answer those questions and instead requested more time because the administration is currently “vetting what we can say” in court. 

He also objected to the requirement to submit daily updates.

Xinis, who earlier set a deadline, now expired, for the government to bring back Abrego Garcia, was critical of that response.

“The record as it stands is, despite this court’s directive … your clients have done nothing to facilitate the return of Mr. Abrego Garcia,” she said.

Xinis said she would schedule a hearing for early next week.

“We’re not going to slow walk this,” she said.

She continued to ask Ensign where Abrego Garcia was located.

Ensign said he had no information.

“It’s quite basic,” she said. “I’m not asking for state secrets.”

CECOT prison

Administration officials have said Abrego Garcia is in the custody of El Salvador’s government at the notorious prison known as Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, or CECOT.  The Beltsville man was apprehended by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement while driving his 5-year-old son home.

El Salvador’s president, Nayib Bukele, is visiting the White House Monday to meet with President Donald Trump.

The attorney representing Abrego Garcia’s family, Simon Y. Sandoval-Moshenberg, said he would welcome daily updates on what the Trump administration is doing to facilitate his client’s return.

“It’s quite clear that the government is playing a game with their own lawyers,” he said, noting that this is the second time he has faced a DOJ attorney who claimed he had little information for Xinis.

Attorney General Pam Bondi said the attorney that originally argued on behalf of the government, Erez Reuveni, was placed on administrative leave for not “vigorously” defending the Trump administration.

Reuveni was candid with Xinis about how the Trump administration gave him no information as to why Abrego Garcia could not be returned, despite admitting to his deportation as a mistake.

Administration official rejects district court authority

Meanwhile, Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff for policy and homeland security adviser, rejected the judge’s authority to require the return of Abrego Garcio in a social media post after the high court decision.

“SCOTUS rejected the lower court and made clear that a district court judge cannot exercise Article II foreign affairs powers. The illegal alien terrorist is in the custody and control of a sovereign foreign nation,” Miller wrote.

While the Trump administration has labeled Abrego Garcia as a member of the MS-13 gang, he has no criminal record in the U.S. or any country.

Before Friday’s hearing, the Department of Justice had sought a delay until Wednesday, which Xinis rejected in a searing order.

“First, the Defendants’ act of sending Abrego Garcia to El Salvador was wholly illegal from the moment it happened, and Defendants have been on notice of the same,” she wrote. “Second, the Defendants’ suggestion that they need time to meaningfully review a four-page (Supreme Court) Order that reaffirms this basic principle blinks at reality.”

She said the Department of Justice should have been making efforts to return Abrego Garcia after her decision last week ordering them to do so.

During the hearing she asked Ensign what progress the Trump administration made before the Supreme Court stayed the deadline she had set — so from April 4 until April 7.

Ensign said that the Trump administration was “not yet prepared to share that information.”

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem walks past reporters after doing a TV interview outside of the White House on March 10, 2025. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images) 

WASHINGTON — Millions of immigrants in the country without legal authorization are required as of Friday to register with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security after a federal judge rejected advocacy groups’ request to pause the requirement.

They’ll also have to carry documents proving their registration.

The Thursday decision from U.S. District Court Judge Trevor Neil McFadden of the District of Columbia allows the Trump administration to issue hefty fines and potential prison sentences if those subject to the registration requirement do not comply.

McFadden, who was appointed by President Donald Trump in 2017, said in his ruling that the advocacy groups lacked legal standing – meaning they had not shown how they would be harmed by the requirement – to bring the suit.

“As organizations, many of their harms are too speculative, and they have failed to show that the Rule will erode their core missions,” McFadden wrote in his order.

In a statement, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem cheered the order.

“President Trump and I have a clear message for those in our country illegally: leave now. If you leave now, you may have the opportunity to return and enjoy our freedom and live the American dream,” Noem said.

The Migration Policy Institute, an immigration think tank, estimates that between 2.2 million and 3.2 million immigrants will have to register. The registration requirement could be a powerful tool in the Trump administration’s efforts to carry out mass deportations.

Registration requirements

DHS announced the new requirement in February. Under the rule, immigrants aged 14 and older who are required to register will need to carry registration documents at all times or risk potential prison terms or fines of up to $5,000.

Immigrants covered by the requirement must submit fingerprints and other biometric and personal information through an online application handled by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Once an application is approved, the agency will provide documentation that immigrants must carry at all times.

The suit, brought by immigration advocacy groups, argued the Trump administration violated proper rulemaking procedures in creating the application. The groups also warned in court documents that use of the application “will lead to racial profiling and the mistaken targeting of U.S. citizens.”

The registration requirement is authorized under a wartime act known as the Alien Registration Act of 1940 that was first used in World War II.

The requirement was rarely used until the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. During that time, any noncitizen males older than 16 who hailed from 25 Muslim-majority countries had to register with the U.S. government.

The program, the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System, led to no terrorism convictions and was dissolved in 2016.

Under the requirement in place Friday, those who are required to register include immigrants who entered the U.S. without legal authority and Canadian visitors in the U.S. for more than 30 days.

Those who do not have to register include lawful permanent residents, immigrants with work visas or certain other visas and those in removal proceedings.  

In a new survey of Wisconsin child care providers, 25% said they could close without renewed state support. Corrine Hendrickson, shown here at a 2023 event to support the child care sector, said her New Glarus family care will likely have to raise fees. (Photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner)

One in four Wisconsin child care providers could close their doors if the state’s ongoing support isn’t replaced after it ends in June, according to a state-commissioned report released Thursday.

More than one in three providers expect to reduce their capacity for children or the hours they operate, or both, according to the report, based on a survey of most of the state’s licensed child care providers.

The report was commissioned by the state Department of Children and Families (DCF) and produced by the Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

It was released by the office of Gov. Tony Evers to support $480 million for child care providers in his 2025-27 proposed budget — a successor to the state’s Child Care Counts program that was funded with federal pandemic relief money. 

“It underscores what those of us in the field have known for a long time — that is, the need for public investment in order to stave off closures and rate increases,” said Ruth Schmidt, executive director of the Wisconsin Early Childhood Association.

The association supports Evers’ $480 million budget proposal and is holding an advocacy day at the state Capitol on April 16, with plans to meet lawmakers.

In a statement announcing the survey findings, Evers underscored his proposal.

“The cost of child care is too darn high, wait lists are too long, and providers are already struggling to keep the lights on, their doors open, and meet demand for child care across our state,” Evers said.

“The results of this survey are crystal clear: if we don’t make needed investments to support our child care providers and industry, programs will close, wait lists will get even longer, providers will be forced to raise prices, and parents and loved ones who can’t afford for [their] costs to get any higher may have to leave our workforce.”

Child Care Counts has provided monthly payments to state child care providers since 2021. From November 2021 to January 2024, it was funded from Wisconsin’s share of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), the federal pandemic relief legislation enacted in 2021. The program paid out more than $479 million to providers. After that money ran out, Evers directed another $170 million additional pandemic relief funds to carry the program through June 2025.

Child Care Counts paid out $20 million a month until mid-2023, when it was cut to $10 million a month, with providers getting half of what they had previously received.

The Republican majority in the state Legislature rejected Evers’ proposal to put up to $360 million in the 2023-25 budget to continue the subsidy program at its earlier monthly amount.

Providers have credited the Child Care Counts program with making it possible for them to increase pay for child care workers in the face of competition from other employers without being forced to raise the fees they charge parents.  

About 80% of the state’s more than 4,500 child care providers received and took part in the survey, which was included in providers’ November application for Child Care Counts payments.

The survey included questions about providers’ experiences before and after the Child Care Counts reduction. It also asked about their expectations after the program ends in June, as well as the potential impact of a continued program.

Two-thirds of providers surveyed reported that after the payments were reduced, they raised fees.

Responding to questions about the impact of state support ending in June, 25% or more of providers in the survey said they would be somewhat or more likely to close. Fully 10% of providers said closing their program “was very or extremely likely,” the report found.

“That’s an incredibly concerning statistic,” said Schmidt. “That’s a lot of child care programs that could be pulling up stakes. It’s going to hit rural communities super hard, but across the state we’re going to see significant closures.”

More than one-third of providers — 37% — said they were “at least somewhat likely” to close some of their classrooms or reduce the number of children they serve. Almost that many, 36%, said they were likely to reduce the number of hours they provide care.

By 59%, providers also expect their waiting lists to grow without continued state support.

Providers also expect to have a harder time hiring and keeping employees, with 66% saying that it was “at least somewhat likely” they will have to cut compensation, including their own. Fully half of providers “said this was very or extremely likely,” the report states.

More than half of providers — 56% — said it was at least somewhat likely that more employees would quit, and 46% said staff cuts were somewhat or more likely.

Of providers in the survey, 69% said “that it was at least somewhat likely” they would have a harder time hiring qualified employees.

About half of providers surveyed — 51% — said they thought it would be “at least somewhat likely” that they would find it harder to provide high quality care.

Between one-fourth and nearly half of providers said they expected to have more trouble being able to meet some parents’ specific needs. Those include providing care earlier or later in the day, serving families in the state’s Wisconsin Shares subsidy child care program for low-income families, caring for infants and toddlers or caring for children with special needs.

“With families already struggling to afford child care, respondents repeatedly described how continued funding — whether at the original or at current levels—would help prevent further tuition rate increases,” the survey report notes. Some providers said it would allow them to hold rates at their current level or reduce them, while others said it would keep the rate of tuition increases down.

Corrine Hendrickson, a New Glarus child care provider and organizer of an advocacy group for providers and families, Wisconsin Early Childhood Action Needed (WECAN), said the survey points out “the disastrous results for children and families after the initial [Child Care Counts] funding wasn’t replaced in the state budget.”

Rural areas, where families are younger and have lower incomes, may be hit the most dramatically if the child care sector contracts, Hendrickson said.

Hendrickson said she is likely to have to raise the rates she charges for her family child care center, which has a capacity of eight children. A $30 increase “will put me out of reach for too many families,” Hendrickson said. “If I lose two children and can’t replace them within a month or two, I will have to close.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Chad Sobieck testifies in opposition to a bill introduced in the Wisconsin Assembly that would place new limitations on the process to establish if a person is eligible for Medicaid. (Wisconsin Examiner photo)

State legislation that would require the Wisconsin health department to verify that all Medicaid recipients are eligible twice a year was met with resounding opposition at a public hearing Thursday.

The bill, AB 163, also would add restrictions on the verification process. With a few differences, the legislation echoed a bill that failed to pass two years ago.

Only one witness testified in favor of the measure: its Assembly author, state Rep. William Penterman (R-Columbus).  

“It will create a balance, an important balance, in preserving a strong safety net for our most vulnerable residents while curbing inappropriate long-term reliance on public assistance,” Penterman said.

The legislation would prohibit the Wisconsin Department of Health Services (DHS) from renewing Medicaid recipients automatically and require DHS to reconsider a person’s eligibility every six months instead of annually, the federal standard.

It would cut off eligibility for six months for Medicaid recipients who don’t report a change, such as higher income, that would make them ineligible for the program. It also prescribes additional requirements for checking databases of other agencies to confirm information about a Medicaid recipient’s qualifications.

Over the course of a 2-1/2-hour hearing, witnesses said the bill would impose significant administrative burdens on Medicaid recipients and likely lead some to be kicked off the rolls, not because they were not eligible but because of mistakes, whether made by the recipient in the process of trying to requalify or by state officials processing their paperwork.

“Its reason seems to be purposely causing difficulty for people whose lives are already a monumental struggle in an attempt to make it too difficult for them to access the services they are entitled to,” said Karel Oliveras, who has two grandchildren with Angelman syndrome, a genetic disorder that causes developmental delays and other problems.

Referring to Oliveras’ comments about the process of establishing eligibility for the program, Rep. Ryan Clancy (D-Milwaukee) asked, “Would you characterize it as too easy?”

“It’s my daughter and her husband who do that,” Oliveras said. “But the stress of that [on them] was very, very obvious.”

Both Clancy and Rep. Christian Phelps (D-Eau Claire), the committee’s two Democrats, were skeptical about the idea that there were people in Wisconsin who were on Medicaid but didn’t qualify.

In response to lawmakers who had implied that Wisconsin’s Medicaid enrollment — about 20% of the state population — was excessive, Tamara Jackson, the legislative policy representative for the Wisconsin Board for People with Developmental Disabilities, said the percentage is similar in most states.   

According to Jackson, Wisconsin’s Medicaid staff already monitors people’s eligibility rigorously. “They are really checking every application and every renewal to make sure that people meet the income, asset, and other eligibility requirements,” she said.  

Chad Sobieck, who uses a wheelchair, said he has been on Medicaid for his entire life and it has enabled him to live in the community with the help of caregivers covered by the program. When completing paperwork, he has to enlist the help of others because he cannot write due to his physical disability, he said. 

A provision in the bill banning DHS from prepopulating forms for the renewal applicant would make that even more difficult.

If he has to qualify every six months and there’s an error that kicks him off  Medicaid for six months, “that would mean that I don’t have caregivers,” Sobiek said. “If there is a gap in those services, I will not be able to remain independent and it will become a safety and health issue for me.”

Almost all the opposition testimony focused on people with disabilities. Several Wisconsin Medicaid programs enable people with disabilities to live at home or in the community, rather than in an institution, with the program covering their needs for health care and home and personal care that they cannot manage on their own.

Wisconsin patients, families are wary as Congress prepares for Medicaid surgery

Penterman said that after “conversation and collaborating with the stakeholders” he was planning to offer an amendment that would exempt people with developmental disabilities from the legislation.

Critics of the bill, however — including those speaking on behalf of people with developmental disabilities — were largely skeptical about that announcement.

“I am a little offended about the fact that the amendment offered only covers the developmentally disabled,” said Jason Glozier, executive director of the Wisconsin Coalition of Independent Living Centers, arguing that the proposal’s limits would be onerous for people with physical disabilities, too.

“To say that doubling the administrative burden would decrease waste or decrease fraud doesn’t seem to make sense when we have a system that is overburdened and unable to meet its need effectively,” Glozier said.

“Why should somebody who’s been disabled from birth, who’s been paralyzed or acquired a disability, have to consistently re-insist that they have a disability?” he added. “It’s not going to get better.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Sen. Jeff Smith holding up a printout of President Donald Trump's post telling people to buy, which went out just hours before he paused most tariffs. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Wisconsin Democrats are resurrecting a resolution that would allow voters to weigh in on whether the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Citizens United ruling should stand — an effort that comes just a week after historic spending in Wisconsin’s state Supreme Court election.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission found that corporations and unions have a First Amendment right to speech and laws preventing them from spending were unconstitutional. The decision has enabled corporations and other outside groups to spend virtually unlimited amounts of money on elections. 

Lawmakers said the decision is the core of why spending has gotten so out of hand in the last decade and a half. According to the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, preliminary data shows that nearly $100 million was spent during the April race between Justice-elect Susan Crawford and Brad Schimel.

At a press conference, Sen. Jeff Smith (D-Brunswick) called billionaire Elon Musk — who has directed efforts in the Trump administration to slash federal programs and fire federal employees and spent millions trying to influence the outcome of the Wisconsin  Supreme Court — a “carpetbagger.” He criticized Musk for giving money to voters, saying Wisconsinites shouldn’t get accustomed to being paid to vote, but should be voting to make their voices heard.

Smith said money in elections is making voters feel like billionaires are outweighing their voices. He then called specific attention to President Donald Trump telling investors to ‘buy’ on social media — as the stock market was wavering — just hours before he announced that for 90 days he would be lowering U.S. tariffs to 10% on most countries and raising them on China to 125%. The move caused the stock market to rise and, then led to accusations of market manipulation and insider trading. 

“The man in the White House sent this message — ‘A great time to buy! A great time to buy.’ He sent his message to his rich donors and friends,” Smith said. 

“It pays off to put millions of dollars in campaigns because they’re going to make money in the end if they win,” Smith continued. “We need Congress to reevaluate this role of corporations and billionaires and their role in money and politics.”

The advisory referendum would seek an answer from voters on whether Wisconsin’s Congressional delegation should support a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision. Specifically it would ask voters the question whether “only human beings are endowed with constitutional rights — not corporations, unions, nonprofit organizations, or other artificial entities” and whether “money is not speech, and therefore limiting political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.”

Smith said voters sent a message that they won’t be bought last week by rejecting Musk’s preferred candidate.

“We don’t want that money coming in here in Wisconsin to buy our elections and our freedom,” Smith said. “Let’s put this referendum on the ballots, so voters can make their voices heard directly to Congress.

Wisconsin Democracy Campaign Operations and Policy Director Beverly Speer emphasized at the press conference that the issue goes beyond Musk, saying that spending by independent expenditures —  totaling about $51.5 million in April — are often backed by billionaires and operated in shady ways.

“Don’t be mistaken, Musk is just one of a handful of billionaires who contributed to this bipartisan arms race,” Speer said. “Things will continue to escalate… Unless we want to see a $150 million race, and then maybe a $200 million race, we need to cut off this free-for-all.”  

Speer said that voters are mostly opposed to the vast spending in campaigns. 

The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign conducted a survey in February that found about 88% of Wisconsin voters statewide are “extremely concerned” or “very concerned” about the influence of money in politics. The survey also found that 86% of respondents said people and groups shouldn’t be able to spend “unlimited amounts of money” to support political campaigns and 83% of respondents said there should be limits on how much campaigns can spend.

“While working Wisconsinites stretch to pay rent, feed their families, and make ends meet, billionaires treat our elections like a game — pouring millions into a state that they don’t even normally live in, hoping to tip the scales in favor of their special interests,” Speer said. 

A statewide referendum would need to pass the Republican-led Legislature, and Rep. Lisa Subeck (D-Madison) acknowledged that previous attempts have been unsuccessful. She said she welcomes more conversation about the issue and proposal.

“Not once has it even gotten a hearing, and you know, why? Because politicians who are beholden to big money in politics don’t want to hear what the people have to say about it, but we are calling on… our colleagues to join us in this resolution,” Subeck said. 

Subeck said lawmakers were starting with the referendum because any changes in state law are “neutered” by the Citizens United decision. She said Democrats would be introducing more bills to address the issue in the near future, including on disclosure of money in campaigns and on public financing. However, she said pushing Congress for a constitutional amendment will be key to changing the state of money in elections. 

“We cannot fundamentally make wholesale change in this through any state law as long as Citizens United is still law of the land,” Subeck said. “We need to amend our federal Constitution and we need to send that message clear and simple.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Prisoners sit at the Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, or CECOT, a mega-prison in Tecoluca, San Vicente, El Salvador, on April 4, 2025. The Trump administration has acknowledged mistakenly deporting a Maryland resident from El Salvador with protected status to the prison but is arguing against returning him to the U.S. (Photo by Alex Peña/Getty Images)

A disgraced former Milwaukee Police Department (MPD) officer was found to be linked to a high-profile deportation by the Trump Administration. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that Charles Cross Jr. 62, signed a report that claimed Andry José Hernandez, 30, a gay Venezuelan citizen who worked as a make-up artist, was linked to the Tren de Aragua gang and cited his tattoos. Cross, now employed by the private prison company CoreCivic, left MPD under a cloud of conduct and credibility problems, which also landed him on the Brady list of untrustworthy officers maintained by the Milwaukee County district attorney’s office.

In 2012 when he held the rank of sergeant at MPD, Cross was fired after driving his car into a family’s home while he was intoxicated. Cross was allowed to resign after appealing the decision to the Fire and Police Commission (FPC). The Journal Sentinel also reports that Cross was being investigated for claiming overtime he allegedly hadn’t earned when he was fired from the department.

Prior to the crash, Cross had been placed on the Brady list after kicking in the door of an apartment shared with his girlfriend and threatening to kill himself with his service revolver. The incident, in 2007,  cost him his job, but Cross was reinstated after appealing to the FPC. Four months after he separated from MPD in 2012, Cross was hired by CoreCivic, the Journal Sentinel reported. 

According to court filings, Cross identified himself as an “investigator” in a form claiming Hernandez was part of Tren de Aragua, one of the gangs that the Trump administration says it is targeting through mass deportations and detentions of non-citizens. Hernandez had tattoos depicting crowns with the words “dad” and “mom.” Hernandez’s attorneys say the crowns are a reference to the “Three Kings” festival in his hometown of Capacho, Venezuela, and are not connected to Tren de Aragua, as Cross reportedly assumed.  

Hernandez was one of more than 200 mostly Venezuelan migrants sent to El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center. Authorities at the prison have been accused of human rights violations and torture. 

Hernandez fled Venezuela fearing persecution for being a gay man, as well as for his political views. The Journal Sentinel reports that after entering the U.S. illegally, he was apprehended by U.S. Border Patrol agents and sent to Mexico, where he made an appointment and presented himself at a port of entry in San Diego. Hernandez was asked about his tattoos by federal agents, who named him as a “suspect,” but didn’t check any of the other categories on the questionnaire such as “intelligence information received from other agencies” or “group photos.” Since he was deported to El Salvador, Hernandez has not been able to reach his lawyers. 

The developments have raised questions about the involvement of private contractors in immigration and deportation actions, as well as the ability of police officers with problematic histories to be hired by private companies like CoreCivic.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

GM had high hopes for their BrightDrop brand, but that enthusiasm waned and the vans were rolled into the Chevrolet lineup. While that move was designed to boost sales and availability, it hasn’t helped much as hundreds of unwanted vans have been piling up.

More: BrightDrop Becomes Part Of Chevrolet

Given the growing inventories, it’s no surprise that the company is temporarily halting production at CAMI Assembly in Ingersoll, Ontario. The Canadian plant started BrightDrop production in late 2022 and employs more than 1,200 people.

Temporary Layoffs and Production Shifts

According to Unifor, GM will initiate temporary layoffs on April 14 and then bring workers back for limited production in May. Production will then end again to allow for retooling for assembly of the 2026 model.

When production resumes in October, the plant will be dropped down to a single shift for the foreseeable future. The union says this will result in the “indefinite layoff of nearly 500 workers.”

Unifor National President Lana Payne described the moves as a “crushing blow” and called on the automaker to “do everything in its power to mitigate job loss during this downturn.” She also called on the government to step up and support Canadian auto workers as well as Canadian-made products.

Payne was particularly adamant about the latter as she pitched the 400 and 600 vans as a “smart choice for Canadian business, government agencies, and for our economy.” That’s a not so subtle hint that she wants the government to buy some of the electric delivery vans.

While BrightDrop’s struggles are far from new, Payne used the opportunity to attack the Trump administration. She accused the United States of creating “industry turmoil” and  said “Trump’s short-sighted tariffs and rejection of EV technology is disrupting investment and freezing future order projections.” She went on to claim this is “creating an opening for China and other foreign automakers to dominate the global EV market.”

Pricing Dilemma

As for the vans themselves, BrightDrop’s offerings start at $77,900, providing up to 614.7 cubic feet (17,406 liters) of cargo space and a combined range of up to 272 miles (438 km).

However, rival electric vans are far cheaper as the Ford E-Transit Cargo starts at $51,000 while the Mercedes eSprinter can be had for $61,180. That’s a bit of an apples to oranges comparison, but it’s not hard to see why hundreds of BrightDrop vans are sitting on dealership lots.

Despite the problems, Unifor noted the company is committed to CAMI Assembly and the 2026 vans will be getting “upgrades.” What those are remain to be seen, but hopefully a smaller battery pack is on the way to reduce pricing.

This eye-catching all-electric motorcycle is the TS Pro from Verge, and it’s just set a Guinness World Record for the furthest distance traveled by an electric motorbike. Over 16 hours, it was ridden 193 miles (310.6 km) around London and finished the trip with 7% charge still left in its battery pack.

Electric motorbikes have yet to take off in the same way as electric cars, in part because battery packs are heavy, and weight is the enemy on a two-wheeler. However, the TS Pro shows that it is possible to build a compelling electric bike with heaps of power, a usable range, and relatively manageable weight.

Read: Verge’s $87,000 Mika Häkkinen Edition Electric Super Bike Is A Hubless Wonder

Driving the TS Pro is a single hub-less electric motor at the rear with 137 hp and 738 lb-ft (1,000 Nm) of torque. Verge says it needs just 3.5 seconds to hit 100 km/h (62 mph), meaning it can keep pace with some proper sports cars. The bike tips the scales at 540 lbs (245 kg), and while that’s hefty for a bike of this size, it’s not crazy. It also has a claimed riding range of 217 miles (350 km).

To see just how far the TS Pro can travel in the real world, Verge recruited two motorcycle influencers and let them ride the bike around inner London for 16 hours at an average speed of just 12 mph (19 km/h). The bike ended its run, having traveled an impressive 193 miles (311 km), setting a new record in the process.

Admittedly, riding around at slow speeds greatly benefits an EV like this. Had Verge attempted the record while sitting at highway speeds, there’s no way the TS Pro would have been able to travel anywhere near as far as it did.

Photos Verge Motorcycles

The new-generation Outback won’t be the only Subaru making its world premiere at the New York Auto Show later this month. The automaker has just teased another model: the 2026 Trailseeker. So, what exactly is this Trailseeker? Well, Subaru has given us precisely two pieces of solid information: it’s an EV and a photo that shows part of the tailgate and cladded rear bumper. Riveting stuff, right?

Here’s what Subaru did say, though: “Get ready to meet your newest adventure-ready sidekick from Subaru: the all-new 2026 Subaru Trailseeker EV SUV. See it in person at the 2025 New York International Auto Show, coming soon.”

More: First Look At Subaru’s 2026 Outback Before It Breaks Cover In NY

Now, this doesn’t give us a lot to work with—so far, it’s just a whole lot of mystery. We haven’t caught wind of any EV prototypes from Subaru recently, so it’s all a bit speculative at the moment. However, what isn’t speculative is the fact that Subaru has already confirmed it’s working on a compact electric SUV in collaboration with Toyota. Both brands plan to sell it in Japan, Europe, and North America.

Some have speculated that the Subaru version might be a twin to Toyota’s recently revealed CH-R+, which is set to hit the US next year. But, from what we can gather, that’s not the case. Toyota and Subaru have teased separate compact EVs, and the Trailseeker is likely one of those models.

More: Subaru And Toyota Electric Compact SUV Twins Coming In 2026

Expect the two electric SUVs to be related in much the same way that Toyota’s bZ4X and Subaru’s Solterra EVs are essentially twins beyond the styling differences. The teaser image from Toyota’s version of the Trailseeker shows a more traditional SUV shape, with a sharp nose, roof rails, and a more upright rear end—think RAV4. At the very least, the two will have different front and rear designs, but Subaru’s version will likely play up the brand’s off-road image with more cladding and possibly other tweaks to match its name.

The good news? We don’t have to wait long to find out. The New York International Auto Show kicks off next week, April 17, so like they say, stay tuned.

Somebody call Jim Hall, because his wild idea of using a fan to stick a car to the road just got its ultimate validation—this time, upside down. More than half a century after the Chaparral 2J used fans to create ground-hugging downforce at any speed, the McMurtry Spéirling has shown just how far that tech can go. To put it plainly, it drove upside down, held to the surface not by gravity, but by sheer aerodynamic force.

Read: Rimac Nevera And McMurtry Spierling Show A Red Bull F1 Car What’s What

The Spéirling is a small but intensely capable electric supercar. Pretty much every time we talk about it, it’s breaking another track record. This time, though, it’s setting an all-new benchmark. It’s the first car in history to drive upside down while held to the ground by downforce alone.

999 Horses, Zero Chill

As a reminder, this tiny terror makes 999 hp (745 kW) and weighs just 2,200 lbs (1,000 kg). If those figures weren’t bonkers already, the car leverages a fan system that sucks the chassis to the ground. It can create an incredible 2,000 kg (4,400 lbs) of downforce at 0 mph (0 km/h). That’s how it just pulled off the coolest thing we’ve seen on four wheels in a while.

During the demonstration, if you can call it that, the Spéirling drove up a ramp onto a specially built platform. There, it engaged its “Downforce on Demand” system, sucked itself to the ground, and the the platform rolled. Only when the platform was 180 degrees from right-side-up did it stop. At that point, the driver moved the car forward while staying on the platform. Then, the entire rig finished rotating back to its original position, and the McMurtry drove off like it was another day at the office.

Behind the wheel for the stunt was Thomas Yates, Co-founder and Managing Director of McMurtry Automotive. “That was just a fantastic day in the office! Strapping in and driving inverted was a completely surreal experience,” he said. “The 2,000 kg of downforce that the fan system can generate is truly astonishing to experience, and it’s great to show the reason why our Spéirling continues to take records around the world.”

Yates added that this was just a taste of what the tech could achieve. “This demonstration was an exciting proof of concept using a small purpose-built rig, but is perhaps just the beginning of what’s possible. With a longer inverted track or a suitable tunnel, we may be able to drive even further! Huge congratulations and thanks to the entire McMurtry Automotive team, especially the engineers involved in the car and fan system’s design, they are the heroes of today.”

The Safety Implications

Perhaps the most interesting part of the stunt is what it implies for real-world performance—and more importantly, safety. Traditional race cars rely on speed to build downforce. That means during slower sections, spins, or emergency maneuvers, they lose grip when it’s needed most. McMurtry’s fan system flips that logic by providing full downforce even when the car’s barely moving.

“The amount of grip and downforce available means that application of the brakes will often see them (the driver) stop almost immediately, often while still on the tarmac,” says McMurtry. What that means for customers is a safer and more approachable experience.

Which brings us to one of the brand’s core goals: making record-breaking performance accessible to actual driving enthusiasts. And with this kind of tech, it’s not just about going faster. It’s about being able to do so with control, confidence, and—if you really want to flex—upside down.

News about recent firings by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest for the Tesla CEO. During DOGE’s fiery critique of the federal workforce in February, it was revealed that several staff members from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Office of Vehicle Automation Safety had been let go.

The tension between Musk and the NHTSA is hardly a secret. After all, the safety agency is currently investigating Tesla vehicles in eight active cases, and it is responsible for regulating self-driving technology. Musk has long promised that Tesla will deploy millions of robotaxis across the United States, a plan that would be more achievable with fewer regulatory hurdles standing in the way.

Read: Tesla Threatens Lawsuit After Canada Freezes $30M EV Rebates Over Shady Sales Claims

Speaking with The Financial Times, insiders revealed that approximately 30 people were fired from the NHTSA in February. It’s believed that those working in the NHTSA’s vehicle automation safety team were “disproportionately affected.” While it’s unclear precisely how many were fired from the specific department, DOGE cited poor performance in axing the jobs of these employees.

Despite the controversy surrounding the layoffs, it’s important to note that the NHTSA’s vehicle automation safety division was only formed in 2023. As a result, many employees were still in their probationary period, making it easier for the agency to terminate their employment. The total layoffs at NHTSA accounted for 4% of its workforce, which may seem small, but it raises concerns from some corners of the industry.

Potential Conflict of Interest

One unnamed Tesla manager expressed concern that the layoffs could weaken the NHTSA at a time when it needs more resources to tackle the challenges of autonomous vehicles. “Letting DOGE fire those in the autonomous division is sheer madness—we should be lobbying to add people to NHTSA,” the manager told the FT. “They need to be developing a national framework for autonomous vehicles, otherwise Tesla doesn’t have a prayer for scale in FSD or robotaxis.”

A former NHTSA employee also weighed in, noting, “There is a clear conflict of interest in allowing someone with a business interest influence over appointments and policy at the agency regulating them.”

Almost 18 months after the Cybertruck finally went on sale in December of 2023, Tesla has finally gotten around to launching a more affordable entry-level model. But the downgraded spec of the Cybertruck Long Range makes you wonder whether you might want to give it a miss.

Not Quite a Bargain, But Better Than Nothing

A simple, single-motor, rear-wheel-drive Cybertruck was always part of the plan. And while the 2025 Long Range’s price of $69,990 plus $2,245 destination and order fees (but before the $7,500 tax credit) is far from the $39,990 that Elon Musk promised this specific trim would cost back in 2019, it still represents a $10,000 savings compared to the existing bi-motor AWD model. It also comes in at $30,000 less than the absurdly expensive Cyberbeast.

More: Tesla Quietly Pulls Cybertruck’s $16K Range Extender After Taking $2,000 Deposits

And there are other upsides apart from that price. Losing the front motor and driveshafts helps cut the curb weight (Tesla doesn’t specify by how much), enabling the Long Range to secure a 350-mile (563 km) EPA driving range. That’s for an LR with no tonneau cover – order the optional $750 soft tonneau and the electric range climbs to 362 miles (583 km), well above the 325 miles (523 km) claimed for the AWD.

The Catch: A Lot of Equipment Compromises

But from there on things don’t look so good for the Long Range’s chances of snaring buyers. To get that price down Tesla has de-contented the Cybertruck so hard that you’ll be reminded every time you jump in it that you were too tight-fisted to go for the AWD.

Out go the vegan leather seats in favor of simple cloth versions that are still heated, but no longer ventilated, and you’re downgraded to puny 18-inch wheels unless you splash for the optional 20s fitted as standard on the AWD. But the $3,500 cost of doing that really eats into the price differential. Other kit to go includes the height-adjustable air suspension, which is replaced by simple steel springs, and the hi-fi’s speaker count is halved to seven.

Slower and Less Capable

And even if you’re the kind of driver that never gets into the right pedal hard enough to notice or care that the zero to 60 mph (97 km/h) time has grown from 4.1 to 6.2 seconds, you probably are going to care that the tow rating has been decimated. AWD Cybertrucks can haul 11,000 lbs (4,990 kg) but the Long Range is only good for 7,500 lbs (3,402 kg), and there’s a 265 lb (120 kg) payload reduction to factor in, too.

Throw in the loss of the bed’s electrical outlets and the fact that you have to pay extra for a soft tonneau when the AWD gets a retractable one as standard, and the Long Range’s appeal really does start to wane. Tesla would argue that what matters here is that the LR is competitive with mid-ranking Ford F-150 Lightnings, which accelerate slightly faster but don’t go as far on a charge. What do you think? Was the entry-level Cybertruck worth the wait?

Cybertruck Long Range now available

– $62,490 (incl. Federal Tax Credit)
– 362 mi of range (est.) w/ Soft Tonneau
– 6' x 4' bed
– 7,500 lbs towing capacity pic.twitter.com/ZP5S5uxHiY

— Tesla (@Tesla) April 11, 2025

MG’s Cyberster electric sports car helped make a splash for the brand, but it’s never going to sell in the millions. But here’s another Cyber-branded MG that might. It’s the Cyber X, and MG has just dropped teaser images of the boxy SUV ahead of its global reveal at the Shanghai Auto Show on April 23.

A series of silhouetted and darkened pictures show the second car from MG’s Cyber family from the side, the front- and rear-three-quarter angles. The X’s fashionably square nose and upright tail say this is a car designed for a younger crowd than the one usually seen in MG showrooms.

Related: MG Cyber GTS Concept Hints At Production Cyberster Coupe

A full-width LED light bar stretches across the Cyber X’s face, with an illuminated MG octagon mounted just below it and flanked by two smaller LEDs. The fenders are flared above the wheels, door handles are sunk flush with the door skin, and a pair of roof rails underlines the go-anywhere vibe. At the rear, the waistline rises to meet the chunky D-pillar, and there’s another full-width LED bar and illuminated MG badge rounding out the show at the tail.

We’ll have to wait until the day of the show to make a final assessment on the design, but from what we can see here, the mix of tech and tough will find the Cyber X plenty of admirers. It’s eerily reminiscent of the new Smart #5, which could be handy because the newly-launched Geely SUV is likely to be one of the X’s key rivals.

Tech details are practically non-existent at this stage, but Chinese reports say that the X will be one of the first cars to benefit from SAIC’s new E3 platform, which features cell-to-body construction where the battery pack is made part of the car’s structure in an effort to cut weight.

The E3 architecture is capable of handling both electric and hybrid powertrains, though right now we don’t know whether the X will offer both or only one of those options. A closed grille suggests we’re looking at an EV. Car News China claims the X will feature semi-solid-state batteries, advanced drive assist features, and sophisticated phone-to-car integration.

We’ll be seeing more than the Cyber X from MG during this year and next. The automaker is preparing to roll out more than half a dozen new cars, including a second-generation MG4, a revised Cyberster, and four EVs, including a pair of sedans and a pair of SUVs. Not all are guaranteed to come to Europe, but our hunch is the Cyber X will find it worth the trip.

Images: MG/SAIC

Months after the EU imposed hefty tariffs on Chinese-made EVs, officials from China and the European Union are reportedly working on a deal that would allow them to avoid relying on those tariffs. Instead of sticking with tariffs, the two sides are now exploring the idea of setting minimum prices for China’s EVs as a potential solution.

Read: BMW Teams Up With Chinese EV Makers To Fight EU Tariffs In Court

A spokesperson from the European Commission confirmed that EU trade commissioner Maros Sefcovic and Chinese commerce minister Wang Wentao recently had a chat and agreed to explore the minimum price idea. At this stage, more discussions are in the works, though no specifics have been shared just yet.

What’s on the Table?

As of now, there’s no clarity on what these minimum prices might look like. Sefcovic spoke with Reuters, emphasizing that any pricing rules would need to be just as effective and enforceable as tariffs, without creating additional complications.

The European Union imposed tariffs on Chinese-made EVs last year following a lengthy investigation to see if Chinese brands received unfair subsidies from their government, allowing them to build and sell EVs for far less than most Western rivals. Newly-enforced tariff rates vary depending on how much assistance individual brands received and how cooperative they were with the EU’s probe.

For example, Chinese conglomerate SAIC received the harshest penalty: a 35.3% tariff on top of the pre-existing 10% import duty. Other companies, like BYD and Geely, were hit with tariffs of 17% and 18.8%, respectively.

The decision to impose tariffs was far from unanimous. Ten EU countries voted in favor, but 12 abstained, and five voted against. Notably, Germany opposed the tariffs, and the country is now pleased that talks are underway to find a more balanced solution.

“Regardless of current global developments, it must also be discussed here how to reduce obstacles and distortions in international trade, rather than building new hurdles,” Germany’s auto industry association, the VDA, said in a statement.

As the negotiations continue, it remains to be seen whether this minimum pricing strategy will gain traction or if it will be another attempt to sidestep deeper issues in global trade.