A group of 15 young people in Wisconsin is challenging state laws that they say worsen the climate crisis and violate their constitutional rights following a landmark climate ruling in Montana.
The post Wisconsin youth sue state to strike down laws they say worsen climate crisis, violate rights appeared first on WPR.
The threatened funding helps Wisconsin organizations pay for advocacy and therapy costs for victims of sexual assault and child abuse, among other crimes.
The post Wisconsin victim service providers hopeful AG lawsuit protects federal funding appeared first on WPR.
A Bayfield County man who faced almost 60 charges for keeping horses in “atrocious” conditions will spend 30 days in jail and receive one year of probation.
The post Bayfield County man gets jail time, probation after keeping horses in ‘atrocious’ conditions appeared first on WPR.
An electric car charging station. The National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program to build out the capacity for charging electric vehicles has been restarted after being suspended by the Trump administration early this year. (Photo by Sean Gallup/Getty Images)
A suspended federally funded program to expand the nation’s electric vehicle charging capacity has been jolted back to life.
Prospective developers seeking to build stations in Wisconsin and share in the state’s federal grant have until Sept. 5 to submit their proposals, according to the Wisconsin Department of Transportation.
Wisconsin was one of the first states to take part in the $5 billion National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) project, part of the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law.
“Our state DOT was incredibly proactive” in participating in the program, Amy Barilleaux, communications director for Clean Wisconsin, told the Wisconsin Examiner.
The state’s allotment was $78 million and 53 projects were awarded with the funds in May 2024, a state DOT spokesperson said. The department signed 39 agreements accounting for $16 million before the program was frozen earlier this year; eight projects have been completed and five are under construction.
Countermanding the push to reduce reliance on fossil fuels that have been associated with worsening climate change, President Donald Trump issued executive orders promoting fossil fuels and attempting to block measures to promote renewable energy that were enacted during former President Joe Biden’s administration.
One of Trump’s first such orders, on the day he took office, froze NEVI funding that had not been committed to projects by then.
“It should have never been paused in the first place,” Barrilleaux said. “This was money that was allocated by Congress that was ours to spend under this program.”
Wisconsin along with more than a dozen other states and the District of Columbia sued to restore the NEVI grants. A federal judge in June blocked the Trump administration from freezing the grants or withholding the money from the 14 states and D.C. that joined the lawsuit.
Barrilleaux noted that by joining the lawsuit, Wisconsin was able to benefit from the ruling that released the money.
U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy issued new guidance for the grants Aug. 11. The new guidance eliminates various provisions in the original federal program, including specifications that emphasized using renewable energy, required consumer protections and required engagement with rural, underserved and disadvantaged communities.
“While I don’t agree with subsidizing green energy, we will respect Congress’ will and make sure this program uses federal resources efficiently,” Duffy wrote in a statement.
“It’s good that we’re getting back to building out this infrastructure,” said Ben Behlke, clean technology programs manager for Renew Wisconsin. “This is a great opportunity for us to solve ‘the chicken or the egg’ issue as it relates to making charging available as adoption of electric vehicles becomes more prevalent. Beyond making this technology more accessible, electrifying our transportation is a necessary part of our effort to create a clean energy economy.”
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
A child pornography case in Eau Claire County is testing a recently enacted state law, because the images that brought six felony charges were created entirely by AI. The defendant's attorney has vowed to challenge the constitutionality of Wisconsin's virtual child porn law.
The post Felony AI-generated child porn case in Eau Claire County is a test of new Wisconsin law appeared first on WPR.
As ATV/UTV crashes are on the rise, the policy-making board for the state Department of Natural Resources on Wednesday discussed loopholes in the law that are affecting safety.
The post As ATV, UTV crashes rise, loopholes in Wisconsin law pose safety concerns appeared first on WPR.
Some American companies have agreed to comply with new, voluntary AI standards from European Union regulators, in advance of new regulations set for 2027, but others have decried them as overreach. (Photo by Santiago Urquijo/Getty Images)
American companies are split between support and criticism of a new voluntary European AI code of practice, meant to help tech companies align themselves with upcoming regulations from the European Union’s landmark AI Act.
The voluntary code, called the General Purpose AI Code of Practice, which rolled out in July, is meant to help companies jump-start their compliance. Even non-European companies will be required to meet certain standards of transparency, safety, security and copyright compliance to operate in Europe come August 2027.
Many tech giants have already signed the code of practice, including Amazon, Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, IBM, Microsoft, Mistral AI, Cohere and Fastweb. But others have refused.
In July, Meta’s Chief Global Affairs Officer Joel Kaplan said in a statement on Linkedin that the company would not commit.
“Europe is heading down the wrong path on AI. We have carefully reviewed the European Commission’s Code of Practice for general-purpose AI (GPAI) models and Meta won’t be signing it,” he wrote. “This Code introduces a number of legal uncertainties for model developers, as well as measures which go far beyond the scope of the AI Act.”
Though Google’s President of Global Affairs Kent Walker was critical of the code of practice in a company statement, Google has signed it, he said.
“We remain concerned that the AI Act and Code risk slowing Europe’s development and deployment of AI,” Walker wrote. “In particular, departures from EU copyright law, steps that slow approvals, or requirements that expose trade secrets could chill European model development and deployment, harming Europe’s competitiveness.”
The divergent approach of U.S. and European regulators has showcased a clear difference in attitude about AI protections and development between the two markets, said Vivien Peaden, a tech and privacy attorney with Baker Donelson.
She compared the approaches to cars — Americans are known for fast, powerful vehicles, while European cars are stylish and eco-friendly.
“Some people will say, I’m really worried that this engine is too powerful. You could drive the car off a cliff, and there’s not much you can do but to press the brake and stop it, so I like the European way,” Peaden said. “My response is, ‘Europeans make their car their way, right? You can actually tell the difference. Why? Because it was designed with a different mindset.”
While the United States federal government has recently enacted some AI legislation through the Take It Down Act, which prohibits AI-generated nonconsensual depictions of individuals, it has not passed any comprehensive laws on how AI may operate. The Trump administration’s recent AI Action Plan paves a clear way for AI companies to continue to grow rapidly and unregulated.
But under the EU’s AI Act, tech giants like Amazon, Google and Meta will need to be more transparent about how their models are trained and operated, and follow rules for managing systemic risks if they’d like to operate in Europe.
“Currently, it’s still voluntary,” Peaden said. “But I do believe it’s going to be one of the most influential standards in AI’s industry.”
The EU AI Act was passed last year to mitigate risk created by AI models, and the law creates “strict obligations” for models that are considered “high risk.” High risk AI models are those that can pose serious risks to health, safety or fundamental rights when used for employment, education, biometric identification and law enforcement, the act said.
Some AI practices, including AI-based manipulation and deception, predictions of criminal offenses, social scoring, emotion recognition in workplaces and educational institutions and real-time biometric identification for law enforcement, are considered “unacceptable risk” and are banned from use in the EU altogether.
Some of these practices, like social scoring — using an algorithm to determine access to certain privileges or opportunities like mortgages or jail time — are widely used, and often unregulated in the United States.
While AI models that will be released after Aug. 2 already have to comply with the EU AI Act’s standards, large language models (LLMs) — the technical foundation of AI models — released before that date have through August 2027 to fully comply. The code of practice released last month offers a voluntary way for companies to get into compliance early, and with more leniency than when the 2027 deadline hits, it says.
The three chapters in the code of practice are transparency, copyright and safety, and security. The copyright requirements are likely where American and European companies are highly split, said Yelena Ambartsumian, founder of tech consultancy firm Ambart Law.
In order to train LLMs, you need a broad, high-quality dataset with good grammar, Ambartsumian said. Many American LLMs turn to pirated collections of books.
“So [American companies] made a bet that, instead of paying for this content, licensing it, which would cost billions of dollars, the bet was okay, ‘we’re going to develop these LLMs, and then we’ll deal with the fallout, the lawsuits later,” Ambartsumain said. “But at that point, we’ll be in a position where, because of our war chest, or because of our revenue, we’ll be able to deal with the fallout of this fair use litigation.”
And those bets largely worked out. In two recent lawsuits, Bartz v. Anthropic and Kadrey v. Meta, judges ruled in favor of the AI developers based on the “fair use” doctrine, which allows people to use copyrighted material without permission in certain journalistic or creative contexts. In AI developer Anthropic’s case, Judge William Alsup likened the training process to how a human might read, process, and later draw on a book’s themes to create new content.
But the EU’s copyright policy bans developers from training AI on pirated content and says companies must also comply with content owners’ requests to not use their works in their datasets. It also outlines rules about transparency with web crawlers, or how AI models rake through the internet for information. AI companies will also have to routinely update documentation about their AI tools and services for privacy and security.
Those subject to the requirements of the EU’s AI Act are general purpose AI models, nearly all of which are large American corporations, Ambartsumain said. Even if a smaller AI model comes along, it’s often quickly purchased by one of the tech giants, or they develop their own versions of the tool.
“I would also say that in the last year and a half, we’ve seen a big shift where no one right now is trying to develop a large language model that isn’t one of these large companies,” Ambartsumain said.
There’s a “chasm” between the huge American tech companies and European startups, said Jeff Le, founder and managing partner of tech policy consultancy 100 Mile Strategies LLC. There’s a sense that Europe is trying to catch up with the Americans who have had unencumbered freedom to grow their models for years.
But Le said he thinks it’s interesting that Meta has categorized the code of practice as overreach.
“I think it’s an interesting comment at a time where Europeans understandably have privacy and data stewardship questions,” Le said. “And that’s not just in Europe. It’s in the United States too, where I think Gallup polls and other polls have revealed bipartisan support for consumer protection.”
As the code of practice says, signing now will reduce companies’ administrative burden when the AI Act goes into full enforcement in August 2027. Le said that relationships between companies that sign could garner them more understanding and familiarity when the regulatory burdens are in place.
But some may feel the transparency or copyright requirements could cost them a competitive edge, he said.
“I can see why Meta, which would be an open model, they’re really worried about (the copyright) because this is a big part of their strategy and catching up with OpenAI and (Anthropic),” Le said. “So there’s that natural tension that will come from that, and I think that’s something worth noting.”
Le said that the large AI companies are likely trying to anchor themselves toward a framework that they think they can work with, and maybe even influence. Right now, the U.S. is a patchwork of AI legislation. Some of the protections outlined in the EU AI Act are mirrored in state laws, but there’s no universal code for global companies.
The EU’s code of practice could end up being that standard-setter, Peaden said.
“Even though it’s not mandatory, guess what? People will start following,” she said. “Frankly, I would say the future of building the best model lies in a few other players. And I do think that … if four out of five of the primary AI providers are following the general purpose AI code of practice, the others will follow.”
Editor’s note: This item has been modified to revise comments from Jeff Le.
A federal judge has ruled in favor of more than 50 homeowners and the town of Lac du Flambeau in a longstanding dispute with the Lac du Flambeau tribe about access to roads crossing tribal lands.
The post Federal judge rules in favor of homeowners, town of Lac du Flambeau in roads dispute appeared first on WPR.
U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany speaks to voters on Jan. 27 at a listening session on the campus of UW-Eau Claire Barron County. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)
U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany painted a rosy picture of how the budget reconciliation law recently signed by President Donald Trump will affect Wisconsinites and pushed for state and federal policies that encourage the growth of extractive industries in the state during a telephone town hall hosted by the right-wing organization Americans for Prosperity on Tuesday evening.
Tuesday’s event struck a far different tone from the in-person town hall hosted by U.S. Rep. Bryan Steil last week and the tour of in-person listening sessions Tiffany made across his northern Wisconsin district in the early weeks of the second Trump administration in January.
At Steil’s event, in the much more politically mixed 1st Congressional District in southern Wisconsin, he faced a hostile crowd. And at one of Tiffany’s events in January, the crowd was made up of a mix of supporters and opponents worried about what the first weeks of Trump’s term meant for the country’s direction.
But on Tuesday, all six questions Tiffany took came from people who expressed broad support for the Trump administration and the policies in the “One Big Beautiful Bill” passed by congressional Republicans and signed by Trump.
Tiffany has been flirting with running for governor next year. He recently told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel he’d make a decision about entering the Republican primary by the end of September.
During the phone call, the moderator, Americans for Prosperity-Wisconsin’s Megan Novak, noted that she was “seeing a lot of questions” in the queue about Medicaid but instead of letting a constituent ask the question, Novak asked if Tiffany could “clear up some of the information about what the bill actually does related to Medicaid to help protect it for the most vulnerable members of our society.”
The Medicaid provisions in the law are among the most controversial. In an effort to cut federal spending and partially fund the cost of expanding the tax cuts passed by Republicans in 2017 during Trump’s first term, the law imposes strict work requirements on people seeking to qualify for Medicaid coverage. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the law will cause 10 million people to lose health care coverage.
Tiffany said he doesn’t believe the estimates and added that only people without legal documentation to be in the U.S. and lazy people will lose coverage.
“Let’s say there’s a 30-year-old young man sitting on his couch each day collecting $50,000 in benefits from you, the taxpayer,” Tiffany said. “Should you pay for their health care? I say no, and I think most people agree with that, that we should not, as taxpayers, be paying for someone’s health care when they’re able bodied and they can work.”
There is no evidence that a large subset of 30-year-old Americans who are not working are enrolled in Medicaid. Research has shown that many Medicaid enrolled adults work for low wages at small companies and in industries with low rates of employer-provided insurance coverage.
In his opening remarks, Tiffany said that the provisions of the Republican reconciliation package that will most benefit Wisconsinites are those that increase spending on air traffic controllers, codify a number of Trump’s executive orders and increase mineral drilling and logging in Wisconsin and across the country.
Throughout his career as a state legislator and member of Congress, Tiffany has been a major supporter of extractive industries. Several times during the town hall, he said the country and Wisconsin had to do more to use natural resources while deriding energy from sources such as solar and wind.
In an answer about passing policies to bring energy costs down, Tiffany said Wisconsin had to stop “sidelining baseload power” from sources such as coal and oil. He said that the country has devoted too much effort trying to move to intermittent power sources like solar and wind and complained that China is selling wind turbines to Americans while continuing to build coal plants.
China has continued to build coal-burning power plants and remains the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, however it is also the biggest installer of green energy technology. Last month, the country installed 100 solar panels every second, the Guardian reported.
“I believe you have to be able to utilize your natural resources to be prosperous,” he said. “You know, whether it’s forestry, mining, oil, gas, and, of course, agriculture. And I would say to you, tourism, also … and if we get rid of that red tape, we are going to be able to see more businesses created, especially in these regions where we get to utilize our natural resources.”
With the largely friendly lines of questioning, tight controls that prevented constituents from speaking and the relatively short 40-minute duration, Tiffany was under far less pressure than other Republicans at recent town halls, giving him room to promise that “we’re going to do more stuff around these lines” as the budget reconciliation package and to compare its provisions to those passed under President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s.
“I think much like the 1980s when we saw the seminal changes that President Reagan led with the Reagan Revolution, I think you’re going to see the same thing as a result of the ‘One Big, Beautiful bill,'” Tiffany said. “This is going to kick off a decade, a decade of prosperity if we continue to move in the direction of free markets and free people.”
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
Disabled people and their caregivers could face several simultaneous obstacles from different federal actions, according to the Wisconsin Board for People with Developmental Disabilities.
The post Wisconsin advocate says federal actions could compound harm to people with disabilities appeared first on WPR.
This month, for the first time in 30 years, the Wisconsin Supreme Court is without Justice Ann Walsh Bradley. It is also without one of its most consistent advocates for transparency in government.
Bradley served three 10-year terms on the court, the last of which expired July 31. During this time, she wrote nearly 600 opinions, including quite a few that contained important interpretations of Wisconsin’s open records and meetings laws.
In a 1996 opinion, Bradley rejected the argument that open records and meetings lawsuits had to be preceded by 120 days notice. Bradley, writing for a unanimous court, said the laws require “timely access to the affairs of government.”
In 2007, Bradley’s majority opinion in Buswell v. Tomah Area School District strengthened the public notice requirements of the state’s open meetings law. That case required meeting notices to be more specific about the subject matter of topics to be discussed, to better inform the public.
In another majority opinion in 2008, Bradley provided some clarity as to when “quasi-governmental corporations” are subject to the open meetings law. In that case, the Beaver Dam city economic development office had closed, then was immediately replaced by a private corporation that continued to use city offices and receive tax dollars. Bradley’s opinion concluded that because the corporation still resembled the government in function, purpose and effect, it had to follow the laws.
Not every opinion written by Bradley was for the majority. In 2017, she dissented from a decision to exempt from disclosure unredacted immigration detainer forms sent by the Milwaukee County jail to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Her opinion methodically rejected the county’s arguments in favor of redaction, arguing that “continuous ‘chipping away’ has substantially gutted Wisconsin’s commitment to open government.”
Just one year later, Bradley dissented again, this time from an opinion that denied a public union’s request for certification forms. “The unfounded speculation that the records might be used for improper purposes,” she wrote, “does not outweigh the strong public interest in opening the records to inspection.”
Regardless of whether Bradley wrote a majority, dissenting or concurring opinion, she always emphasized the strong public policy in favor of open government set forth in Wisconsin’s open records and open meetings laws. And she condemned decisions that paid only “lip service” to these principles, calling them “all hat and no cattle.”
Bradley even had occasion to apply open government principles to the Wisconsin Supreme Court itself. In 2012, she opposed its 4-3 decision to close some of the court’s rules and operations conferences to the public. As reported by Wisconsin Watch at the time, Bradley questioned the change, asking, “What is the good public policy reason to exclude the public from this process? I can’t think of any.”
In 2017, Bradley was one of two justices who voted against closing all such conferences. (Fortunately, in 2023, a newly constituted court decided to reopen its conferences, with Bradley in the majority.)
Bradley told Wisconsin Lawyer magazine that she intends to stay engaged with organizations that support law and civics education. Her dedication to open government in these endeavors should serve her well, as it has the citizens of Wisconsin for three decades.
Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (wisfoic.org), a nonprofit, nonpartisan group dedicated to open government. Christa Westerberg is the council’s vice president and a partner at the Pines Bach law firm in Madison. Heather Kuebel contributed research to this column.
Your Right to Know: Ann Walsh Bradley and the cause of openness is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.
In June, a jury found the 34-year-old Milwaukee man guilty on all counts.
The post Maxwell Anderson gets life sentence for murder of Sade Robinson appeared first on WPR.
A Green Bay-area landlord is facing a federal lawsuit after he allegedly sexually harassed a young mother who rented one of his apartments and retaliated against her when she tried to stand up for herself.
The post US DOJ sues Green Bay-area landlord alleging sexual harassment, fair housing violations appeared first on WPR.
The seven members of the Wisconsin Supreme Court hear oral arguments. (Henry Redman/Wisconsin Examiner)
In a 4-3 decision, Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the state’s 1849 law banning abortion had been “impliedly repealed” by the Legislature when it passed laws over the past half century “regulating in detail the ‘who, what, where, when, and how’” of abortion.
The Court’s majority opinion, authored by Justice Rebecca Dallet and joined by Justices Ann Walsh Bradley, Jill Karofsky and Janet Protasiewicz, finds that the Legislature could not have passed laws regulating abortion access if the 1849 statute was believed to remain in effect.
“This case is about giving effect to 50 years’ worth of laws passed by the Legislature about virtually every aspect of abortion including where, when, and how health-care providers may lawfully perform abortions,” Dallet wrote. “The Legislature, as the peoples’ representatives, remains free to change the laws with respect to abortion in the future. But the only way to give effect to what the Legislature has actually done over the last 50 years is to conclude that it impliedly repealed the 19th century near-total ban on abortion, and that [the statute] therefore does not prohibit abortion in the State of Wisconsin.”
Dallet wrote that when the Legislature passed laws restricting abortion under narrower circumstances, guiding “where, when and how” health care providers could perform an abortion and outlining how public money could fund abortion providers, it was repealing the 1849 law.
The ruling comes three years after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the landmark Court ruling that found there was a constitutional right to abortion access and marks the conclusion of a legal dispute that helped Protasiewicz win election to the Court in 2023 and Susan Crawford win election this April.
In response, the Court’s three conservative justices filed dissents, accusing the majority of “propaganda,” “smoke-and-mirrors legalese” and “pure policymaking.”
“The majority’s smoke-and-mirrors legalese is nothing more than ‘painting a mule to resemble a zebra, and then going zebra hunting. But paint does not change the mule into a zebra,’” Justice Annette Ziegler wrote. “Those in the majority know better, but they do so anyway because they like the result and promised to deliver it.”
In his dissent, Justice Brian Hagedorn wrote that the majority failed to show when the law was presumably repealed by the Legislature, saying that the opinion doesn’t properly address the Legislature’s actions in 2011 and 2015 amending the 1849 law.
“The majority does not say when over those 40 years the Legislature once and for all repealed [the statute],” he wrote. “Was it when the Legislature passed a postviability ban? A partial-birth abortion ban? A twenty-week ban? A waiting period? A physician licensing requirement? The majority fails to say.”
Following the ruling’s release, the state’s Democratic elected officials and abortion access activists celebrated the decision as a “win” for reproductive health care in the state.
“Thanks to our lawsuit, today’s decision affirms that access to reproductive healthcare will continue to be available, helping ensure Wisconsin women today are not forced to face firsthand what it’s like to live in a state that bans nearly all abortions, even in cases of rape and incest,” Gov. Tony Evers said in a statement. “Today is a win for women and families, a win for healthcare professionals who want to provide medically accurate care to their patients, and a win for basic freedoms in Wisconsin, but our work is not over. I will continue to fight any effort that takes away Wisconsinites’ reproductive freedom or makes reproductive healthcare, whether birth control, abortion, IVF, or fertility treatments, any less accessible in Wisconsin than it is today. That is a promise.”
Attorney General Josh Kaul, who brought the lawsuit against the law, said at a Wednesday morning news conference that the decision was an important step toward ensuring all Wisconsinites have the freedom to access abortion care, but that the Legislature should step up and further clarify the law.
“I thought we were right on the law. The arguments we made have now been vindicated,” Kaul said. “But at a time when the rights of Wisconsinites and Americans are under threat, this case is a stark reminder of how important it is that we fight for our rights, that we advocate for what is in the best interest of the people of our state, and that we stand on the side of freedom. Here today, we were able to achieve a significant victory for the freedom of Wisconsinites.”
Wisconsin’s state and federal Democratic lawmakers responded to the ruling by saying it wasn’t enough, promising to continue working to codify abortion access in law.
U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin said she will continue to work to enact her proposal to ensure women across the country have access to abortion care.
“Today’s ruling tells women across Wisconsin that we will not go back,” Baldwin said. “Today’s ruling tells women that our government trusts you to make decisions about your own body and your future. Today’s ruling tells women in our state that they are not second-class citizens. But, this fight is not over. Every woman, in every zip code, in every state deserves the same rights and freedoms. I will not stop fighting until we make that a reality and pass my bill to restore the right to abortion nationwide and allow women to make their own health care decisions without interference from judges or politicians.”
State Sen. Lisa Subeck (D-Madison) said the Legislature must now pass a bill guaranteeing the right to an abortion.
“Now that the courts have made it clear that Wisconsin does not have a total abortion ban, we must go further,” Subeck said. “It’s time to protect reproductive rights not just in practice, but in law. We must pass the Abortion Rights Restoration Act to guarantee the right to abortion and eliminate the medically unjustified, politically motivated restrictions that still exist in our state statutes. The people of Wisconsin deserve nothing less than full access to safe and legal reproductive health care without unnecessary barriers and free from judgement.”
In a concurring opinion, Karofsky wrote that interpreting the 1849 law as banning abortion gives the state the authority to “exert total control” over women and “strips women and pregnant people of the dignity and authority to make intimate and personal choices by exposing medical professionals who perform abortions to 15-year prison terms.”
In her opinion, Karofsky details the history of abortion access in the U.S. and highlights four women who died because of restrictive abortion bans, including the recent deaths of two Black women in Georgia and a Honduran immigrant in Texas as well as the death of her own great-grandmother in Boston in 1929.
“I tell the stories of Amber, Candi, Josseli, and my great-grandmother Julia to remind us that severe abortion restrictions operate like death warrants,” Karofsky wrote. “Under such restrictions women, children, and pregnant people are denied life-saving medical care while medical professionals are forced to sit idly at their bedsides, unable to do their jobs. Extreme abortion restrictions revive a time in our history driven by misogyny and racism, divorced from medical science; it is a world that must be left behind.”
In her dissent, Justice Rebecca Bradley accused Karofsky of rewriting history to achieve a desired outcome in the case.
“Not content with effacing the law, Chief Justice Jill Karofsky rewrites history, erases and insults women by referring to mothers as ‘pregnant people,’ slanders proponents of the pro-life perspective, and broadcasts dangerously false narratives about laws restricting abortion,” Bradley wrote. “Laden with emotion, steeped in myth, and light on the law, the concurrence reads as a parody of progressive politics rather than the opinion of a jurist.”
Last month, the Wisconsin town of Hazelhurst postponed discussion of a proposed ordinance due to a typo. The meeting agenda had incorrectly listed “wake board” instead of the intended “wake boat.” Said town chairman Ted Cushing, “I’m not going to violate the Open Meetings Law.”
It was the right call, one that affirms my belief that public officials in Wisconsin are, by and large, intent on complying with the state’s openness laws. But, sadly, this is not always the case.
Recent weeks have brought forth two of the most egregious violations of the public’s right to know that I have seen in more than three decades of tracking openness issues on the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council.
The first happened in the village of St. Francis, south of Milwaukee, on June 2. Megan Lee, a reporter for television station TMJ4, and photographer Dan Selan tried to attend a meeting of the St. Francis school board. The district superintendent, Deb Kerr, confronted Lee, in an exchange that Selan captured on video.
“You are not allowed to come to our meetings because you did not give us any notice or tell us why you were here,” declared Kerr, saying she had just spoken with the district’s lawyer. “Like you said, it’s an open board meeting, but you’re not filming.”
When Lee pressed for an explanation, Kerr replied, “I’m going to ask you to leave now, and if you don’t leave, I’ve already told you, I will call the police.” Thankfully, this did not occur.
For the record, no one is required to give advance notice before attending a public meeting. And the state’s Open Meetings Law, at 19.90, expressly directs all public bodies to “make a reasonable effort to accommodate any person desiring to record, film or photograph the meeting,” so long as it is not disruptive.
Kerr, a one-time candidate for state school superintendent, did apologize, sort of, saying “I wish I had handled it differently.” TMJ4 has filed a verified complaint against the school district with Milwaukee County’s corporation counsel, the first step toward possible legal action.
The second transgression involves Steven H. Gibbs, a circuit court judge in Chippewa County. Gibbs recently issued an order that not only barred the media from recording witness testimony at pretrial evidentiary hearings but also instructed that they “may not directly quote the testimony of the witnesses, and may only summarize the content of the testimony,” or else face contempt proceedings.
“Wow, this is quite the court order,” said Robert Drechsel, a UW-Madison professor emeritus of journalism and mass communication and expert on media law and the First Amendment, when I asked for his thoughts. He cited a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, which limited judges’ ability to impose constraints on media, requiring that they consider less restrictive alternatives and ponder whether the order would be effective.
That was not done here. And, in fact, requiring summation over quotation “would be more likely to introduce a risk of error and possible prejudice,” Drechsel said. “So no, I do not think the judge can prohibit the media from directly quoting what they hear during an open court proceeding. And I don’t think it’s a close call.”
Judge Gibbs, asked under what authority he was forbidding direct quotation, cited a Wisconsin Supreme Court rule that allows judges to “control the conduct of proceedings” before them. Gibbs said he believes in the First Amendment and freedom of the press but “my concern is a fair jury pool in this matter not tainted by any media reports” about evidence that may or may not be introduced. He did not explain how threatening the media for trying to be as accurate as possible would achieve this end. (Here are links to Gibbs’ and Drechsel’s full responses.)
The truth is that public officials, even if they’re well intentioned, sometimes broadly overstep. Let’s just be grateful that this is the exception and not the rule. You can quote me on that.
Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (wisfoic.org), a group dedicated to open government. Bill Lueders is the group’s president.
Your Right to Know: When transparency is disregarded is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.
Republican Sens. John Barrasso of Wyoming, John Thune of South Dakota, Mike Crapo of Idaho and Lindsey Graham of South Dakota speak to reporters after passage of their sweeping tax break and spending cut bill on Tuesday, July 1, 2025. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)
This report has been updated.
WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Republicans approved their signature tax break and spending cuts package Tuesday with a tie-breaking vote cast by Vice President JD Vance, following days of tense, closed-door negotiations that went until the few last minutes of a marathon amendment voting session.
The 51-50 mostly party-line vote sends the legislation back to the House, where GOP leaders hope to clear the bill for President Donald Trump’s signature this week. But frustrations throughout the conference over changes made in the Senate could delay or even block final approval.
Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Thom Tillis of North Carolina voted against approving the legislation over concerns it would not benefit the country’s finances or Republican voters.
Changes made in final negotiations were not immediately clear or publicly available.
Majority Leader John Thune said the passage marked “a historic day.”
“We’re very excited to be a part of something that is going to make America stronger, safer and more prosperous, and it really starts with the agenda that President Trump laid out when he was running last year.
“He talked about modernizing our military, securing our borders, restoring energy dominance in this country, bringing tax relief to working families and low income taxpayers in this country, and doing something about the runaway, spiraling spending and debt,” the South Dakota Republican said minutes after the vote.
“So this was an incredible victory for the American people, and we as a team are delighted to be a part of it.”
The bill now heads back to the House. The chamber’s Committee on Rules is expected to meet Tuesday afternoon, which will be the final stop for the bill before it reaches the House floor.
Thune said he believes Senate Republicans have given the House “a really strong product.”
“I think we took what they sent us and strengthened and improved upon it. And so I’m hopeful that now, when it gets sent over there, as they deliberate about how they want to handle it, we’ll find the votes that are necessary to pass it and want to put it on the president’s desk,” he said.
Trump praised the Senate’s passage on his Truth Social media platform, saying “Almost all of our Great Republicans in the United States Senate have passed our ‘ONE, BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL.’”
He added: “We can have all of this right now, but only if the House GOP UNITES, ignores its occasional “GRANDSTANDERS” (You know who you are!), and does the right thing, which is sending this Bill to my desk. We are on schedule — Let’s keep it going, and be done before you and your family go on a July 4th vacation.”
Several House conservatives have railed against the Senate version, including Reps. Andy Ogles of Tennessee, Ralph Norman of South Carolina and others.
House Speaker Mike Johnson issued a joint statement with House Republican leaders saying the chamber “will work quickly to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill that enacts President Trump’s full America First agenda by the Fourth of July. The American people gave us a clear mandate, and after four years of Democrat failure, we intend to deliver without delay.”
“Republicans were elected to do exactly what this bill achieves: secure the border, make tax cuts permanent, unleash American energy dominance, restore peace through strength, cut wasteful spending, and return to a government that puts Americans first,” the Louisiana Republican said in the statement that included House Majority Leader Steve Scalise of Louisiana, Majority Whip Tom Emmer of Minnesota and conference chair Lisa McClain of Michigan.
Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski , whose support had been unclear until the vote, and Majority Whip John Barrasso, of Wyoming, left the chamber to catch an elevator together just after 9:30 a.m. Eastern.
Asked if the bill was in the hands of the parliamentarian, Murkowski quipped, “I think it’s in the hands of the people that operate the coffee machine.”
Barrasso said “Yes” when asked if it would pass this morning.
Flooded by reporters after the vote, Murkowski said “we do not have a perfect bill by any stretch of the imagination.”
“My hope is that the House is gonna look at this and recognize that we’re not there yet, and I would hope that we would be able to actually do what we used to do around here, which is work back and forth in the two bodies to get a measure that’s gonna be better for the people in this country and more particularly, for the people in Alaska,” she said.
“This is probably the most difficult and agonizing legislative 24-hour period that I have encountered, and I’ve been here quite a while, and you all know I’ve got a few battle scars underneath me,” Murkowski added. “But I think I held my head up and made sure that the people of Alaska are not forgotten in this, but I think that there is more that needs to be done, and I’m not done.”
“I am gonna take a nap, though,” she said.
When asked about Murkowski’s decision to vote for the bill, Thune said, “She, as you know, is a very independent thinker and somebody who studies the issues really, really hard and well. And I’m just grateful that at the end of the day, she included what the rest of us did, or at least most of the rest of us did, and that is that this was the right direction for the future of our country.”
Senate Democrats walking off the floor seemed somber, a sentiment that Senate Leader Chuck Schumer said also extended to Republicans after the bill’s passage.
“On the Republican side, when the bill passed, there was a bit of somberness that I don’t think was expected, and that’s because they knew deep in their hearts how bad this bill is for them, their states and the Republican Party,” Schumer said.
“When people start losing their Medicaid, when they start losing their jobs, when their electric bills go up, when their premiums go up, when kids and parents lose SNAP funding, the people of America will remember this vote,” the New York Democrat continued.
Criticism poured in from others as well, including the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which likened the Senate’s bill passage to jumping “off a budget cliff.”
“The level of blatant disregard we just witnessed for our nation’s fiscal condition and budget process is a failure of responsible governing. These are the very same lawmakers who for years have bemoaned the nation’s massive debt, voting to put another $4 trillion on the credit card,” the organization’s president Maya MacGuineas said in a statement.
CRFB estimates the Senate version of the bill would add $600 billion to the national deficit just in 2027.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a calculation Sunday showing the bill would add $3.25 trillion to deficits over 10 years.
Trump told reporters on Tuesday morning before leaving for a Florida visit to the “Alligator Alcatraz” immigrant detention site that “it’s very complicated stuff” when asked about Senate Republicans’ debate over spending cuts.
“We’re going to have to see the final version. I don’t want to go too crazy with cuts. I don’t like cuts. There are certain things that have been cut, which is good. I think we’re doing well,” Trump said. “We’re going to have to see, it’s some very complicated stuff. Great enthusiasm as you know. And I think in the end we’re going to have it.”
The heart of the nearly 1,000-page legislation extends and expands the 2017 tax law to keep individual income tax rates at the same level and makes permanent some tax breaks on business investments and research and development costs.
The bill would also put in motion some of Trump’s campaign promises, including no tax on qualifying tips, overtime or car loan interest, but only for a few years.
And it slashes spending on the Medicaid program for low-income people and some people with disabilities as well as shifting significant costs of the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, to states for the first time. It also overhauls federal education aid.
It would also bolster spending on border security and defense by hundreds of billions of dollars, including line items for the “golden dome” missile defense system and additional barriers along the southern border.
The measure would provide a substantial funding increase for federal immigration enforcement for detention and removal of people without permanent legal status, aiding the president in carrying out his campaign promise of mass deportations.
The Senate version of the bill also would revive the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act fund, a bipartisan measure championed by Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri. The fund provides money to victims of certain types of cancer and surviving family members in several states affected by the United States atomic bomb testing program and radioactive waste left behind.
Uranium miners would also be eligible under the measure. While reviving the fund has received wide bipartisan approval in the Senate, the House has not shown the same support.
The Senate bill would raise the debt limit by $5 trillion, a figure designed to get Congress past next year’s midterm elections before the country would once again bump up against the borrowing limit.
House approval is far from guaranteed.
Johnson can only lose four Republicans if all lawmakers in that chamber attend the vote. Several GOP members have voiced frustration with how the Senate has reworked the legislation, signaling an uphill climb for the bill.
House Ways and Means Chair Jason Smith said as he left the Senate cloakroom just after 9:20 a.m. Eastern that lawmakers are “getting closer to a bill signing on July Fourth.”
“If you followed this journey over the last six months, over and over, people said that we could not accomplish a budget (reconciliation bill). We did. They said we would never pass it out of the House. We did. The Senate is going to pass it. The House is going to pass it, and the president’s going to sign it into law,” the Missouri Republican said.
The Senate had adopted three amendments to the bill following an all-night amendment voting session, known as a vote-a-rama.
Tennessee Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn was able to remove language from the package that would have blocked state and local governments from regulating artificial intelligence for five years if they wanted access to a $500 million fund. That vote was 99-1 with only North Carolina’s Tillis voting to keep the language in the package.
Blackburn said the change was necessary because lawmakers in Congress have “proven that they cannot legislate on emerging technology.”
Senators approved an amendment from Iowa GOP Sen. Joni Ernst by voice vote that would disqualify “anyone making a million dollars or more from being eligible for unemployment income support.”
Louisiana Republican Sen. John Kennedy was able to get an amendment adopted by a voice vote that would move up the date when Medicaid administrators must begin checking the Social Security Administration’s death master file to determine if a new enrollee is alive before adding them to the health program. It was set to begin on Jan. 1, 2028, but will now begin one year earlier.
Senators rejected dozens of amendments offered by both Democrats and Republicans, some of which deadlocked on 50-50 votes. Maine’s Collins and Alaska’s Murkowski broke with their party several times to vote with Democrats.
Hawaii Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono tried to eliminate a sweeping private school voucher program that’s baked into the reconciliation package, but that vote failed 50-50. Collins, Nebraska Republican Sen. Deb Fischer and Murkowski voted in support.
The original proposal called for $4 billion a year in tax credits beginning in 2027 for people donating to organizations that provide private and religious school scholarships.
But the parliamentarian last week deemed the program to not comply with the “Byrd Bath,” a Senate process named for the late Sen. Robert Byrd, forcing senators to rework the program.
Details on the finalized version of the program remain unknown as the final bill text has not been released.
Virginia Democratic Sen. Mark Warner tried to add language to the bill that would have increased safety funding for airports near Washington, D.C., and established a memorial for the victims who died in a crash this January. The vote failed on a tied 50-50 vote, with Collins, Kansas GOP Sen. Jerry Moran and Murkowski voting with Democrats in support.
“Colleagues, we all know that on January 29 of this year, 67 individuals lost their lives when a military helicopter and a passenger jet collided near Reagan National Airport. This tragedy underscores the need for more safety improvements at National Airport,” Warner said. “The reconciliation bill increases, actually doubles, the amount of rent that National and Dulles pay the government but doesn’t use any of that money to make those airports and the people who use them any safer.”
He argued there was “no good rationale for increasing those rents and not using them for aviation safety.”
Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz spoke against Warner’s amendment, saying the rents for the two airports in Virginia near the nation’s capital haven’t been updated in decades.
“The federal government originally calculated the rent in 1987 at $7.5 million dollars, massively below market rates,” Cruz said. “This bill increases that to $15 million, still dramatically below market rates.”
Cruz — chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation — said the legislation includes $12.5 billion for the Federal Aviation Administration to “transform the air traffic control system” and said his panel is looking into the collision in order to prevent something similar from happening again.
Maryland Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen also got within one vote of having an amendment adopted when he tried to remove a section from the bill that would increase funding for the White House budget office by $100 million.
“This is at a time when (Federal Emergency Management Agency) grants to many of our states have been canceled, grants for law enforcement have been frozen, grants for victims of crimes are on hold,” Van Hollen said. “That is not efficiency. That is creating chaos and uncertainty. And I ask my colleagues, why in the world would we want to send another $100 million to OMB?”
Wisconsin Republican Sen. Ron Johnson opposed the efforts, saying “the Office of Management and Budget needs to identify budgeting and accounting efficiencies in the executive branch. They need the resources to do it.”
The amendment was not added to the bill following another tied 50-50 vote with Collins, Murkowski and Paul voting with Democrats in favor.
Had GOP leadership wanted either of those proposals added to the package, they could have had Vance break the tie, but they did not.
Maine’s Collins tried to get an amendment added to the legislation that would have increased “funding for the rural health care provider fund to $50 billion dollars and expand the list of eligible providers to include not only rural hospitals but also community health centers, nursing homes, ambulance services, skilled nursing facilities and others.”
Collins said the additional $25 billion in funding for the fund would be paid for by “a modest increase in the top marginal tax rate, equal to the pre-2017 rate for individuals with income above $25 million and married couples with income above $50 million.”
Collins’ amendment was subject to a Senate procedural limit known as a budget point of order. She was unable to get the votes needed to waive that on a 22-78 vote.
Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden spoke against Collins’ proposal, calling it “flawed,” and introduced the budget point of order against her amendment.
“The danger Senate Republicans are causing for rural hospitals is so great, Republicans have had to create a rural hospital relief fund so they can look like they are fixing the problem they are causing,” Wyden said. “It is a Band-Aid on an amputation. It provides just a tiny fraction of the nearly $1 trillion in cuts the bill makes to Medicaid. It would be much more logical to simply not cut $1 trillion from Medicaid in the first place.”
Collins received a mix of support from Republicans, including West Virginia Shelley Moore Capito, Louisiana’s Bill Cassidy, Utah’s John Curtis, Nebraska’s Fischer, South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham, Missouri’s Josh Hawley, Ohio’s Jon Husted and Bernie Moreno, Mississippi’s Cindy Hyde-Smith and Roger Wicker, Louisiana’s Kennedy, Kansans Roger Marshall and Moran, Kentucky’s Mitch McConnell, Alaskans Dan Sullivan and Murkowski and Indiana’s Todd Young.
Also voting to waive the point of order and move forward with the amendment were Georgia’s Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock and Virginia’s Warner, all Democrats, and independent Maine Sen. Angus King.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., walks back onto the Senate floor after speaking to reporters at the U.S. Capitol Building on June 30, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans were closing in Monday on passing their version of the “big beautiful” tax break and spending cut bill that President Donald Trump wants to make law by a self-imposed July Fourth deadline.
But the chamber’s Democrats first kicked off a marathon of amendment votes, forcing their GOP colleagues to go on the record on tough issues, including cuts to health and food safety net programs. As of early evening, Democrats had not prevailed on any votes.
The tactic is used by the opposition party during massive budget reconciliation fights to draw attention to specific issues even as their amendments are likely to fail.
Democrats decried numerous measures in the mega-bill, including new work reporting requirements for Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance program for low-income people and people with disabilities.
Loud opposition has also swelled as legislative proposals shift significant costs of the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, to states for the first time.
“I say to our colleagues, ‘Vote for families over billionaires,’” Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota said on the Senate floor.
The heart of the nearly 1,000-page legislation extends and expands the 2017 tax law to keep individual income tax rates at the same level and makes permanent some tax breaks on business investments and research and development costs.
The bill would also put in motion some of Trump’s campaign promises, including no tax on qualifying tips, overtime or car loan interest, but only for a few years.
The tax cuts are estimated to cost nearly $4.5 trillion over 10 years, and a provision in the bill raises the nation’s borrowing limit to $5 trillion as the United States faces record levels of debt.
Overall, the Senate bill is projected to add $3.25 trillion to deficits during the next decade, according to the latest calculation from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
Here are some key votes so far:
Washington Democratic Sen. Patty Murray tried to remove language from the bill that would block Medicaid payments from going to Planned Parenthood for one year unless the organization stops performing abortions.
Federal law already bars funding from going toward abortions, with limited exceptions, but GOP lawmakers have proposed blocking any other funding from going to the organization, effectively blocking Medicaid patients from going to Planned Parenthood for other types of health care.
Murray said the proposal would have a detrimental impact on health care for lower-income women and called it a “long-sought goal of anti-choice extremists.”
“Republicans’ bill will cut millions of women off from birth control, cancer screenings, essential preventive health care — care that they will not be able to afford anywhere else,” Murray said. “And it will shutter some 200 health care clinics in our country.”
Mississippi Republican Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith opposed efforts to remove the policy change and raised a budget point of order, which was not waived following a 49-51 vote. Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins and Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski voted with Democrats.
“There was a time when protecting American tax dollars from supporting the abortion industry was an uncontroversial, nonpartisan effort that we could all get behind,” Hyde-Smith said.
Senators from both political parties crossed the aisle over whether the federal government should reduce how much a state is given for its Medicaid program if that state uses its own taxpayer dollars to enroll immigrants living in the country without proper documentation.
The provision was included in an earlier version of the bill, but the Senate parliamentarian ruled it didn’t comply with the complex rules for moving a budget reconciliation bill.
The vote was 56-44, but since it was on waiving a budget point of order, at least 60 senators had to agree to set aside the rules and move forward with the amendment, so the vote failed.
Democratic Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire, and Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock of Georgia voted with GOP senators. Maine’s Collins voted with most of the chamber’s Democrats against moving forward.
Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn asked for the vote, saying he believes the policy change would reduce undocumented immigration.
“Border patrol talks about push and pull factors,” Cornyn said. “One of the pull factors for illegal immigration is the knowledge that people will be able to receive various benefits once they make it into the country.”
Senate Budget Committee ranking member Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., opposed Cornyn’s attempt to get the language back in the bill, saying the policy change would financially harm states that expanded Medicaid under the 2010 health care law for simple mistakes.
“What this amendment says is that if one person, despite state law, through a bureaucratic mistake, is receiving funds, then the whole state pays the price and has their rate on expanded Medicaid changed from 90% to 80%,” Merkley said, referring to the percentage paid by the federal government.
An amendment to stop a nearly 50% reduction in funding for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was blocked by Republican Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, who chairs the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat who championed the CFPB after the 2008 financial collapse, attempted to bring the amendment to the floor saying the agency “is the financial watchdog to keep people from getting cheated on credit cards and mortgages and Venmo and payday loans and a zillion other transactions.”
“When this financial cop can’t do its job there is no one else in the federal government to pick up the slack,” Warren said.
Scott blocked her using a budget point of order, saying the reduction still provides “ample funding” for the agency. Democrats tried to waive that procedural tactic, but failed following a 47-53 vote.
An original provision to completely zero out the budget for the CFPB was not included because it did not meet the reconciliation process’ parameters.
Senators voted 48-52 to reject Delaware Democratic Sen. Lisa Blunt Rochester’s proposals to send the legislation back to committee to remove language cutting certain funding for Medicaid, which she said would negatively impact “vital hospital services, especially labor and delivery rooms.”
“Today, Medicaid is the single largest payer of maternity care in the United States, covering 40% of births nationwide and nearly half of the births in our rural communities,” Blunt Rochester said. “Obstetric units, particularly in rural hospitals, are closing at alarming rates, actually creating maternity deserts.”
No Republicans spoke in opposition to the proposal, though Maine’s Collins voted in support.
New Mexico Democratic Sen. Ben Ray Luján offered a motion to commit the bill back to committee in order to remove all changes related to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. It was rejected following a 49-51 vote, though Alaska Republican Sens. Dan Sullivan and Murkowski voted in favor.
“I’m offering my colleagues the opportunity to step away from these devastating cuts, to show our fellow Americans that in this country we care for our friends, family and neighbors who need support,” Luján said.
Senate Agriculture Chairman John Boozman, R-Ark., opposed the proposals, saying that SNAP is “on an unsustainable path wrought with mismanagement and waste.”
“This program has devolved into viewing success as enrolling more individuals to be dependent on government assistance,” Boozman said. “SNAP is long overdue for change.”
Senators voted 48-52 to reject a proposal from Delaware Democratic Sen. Chris Coons that would have sent the bill back to committee to remove language requiring Medicaid enrollees to work, participate in community service, or attend an educational program at least 80 hours a month. Alaska’s Murkowski was the only member of her party to vote in favor of the effort.
Democrats have expressed concern for weeks that some people would lose access to Medicaid if they forgot to complete paperwork proving that time commitment or didn’t understand how to show the government they met the new requirement.
“It is cruel and dishonest to bury patients, kids and seniors in paperwork and then blame them when they lose their health care, all to further rig our tax code for the very wealthiest,” Coons said.
Kansas Republican Sen. Roger Marshall urged opposition to the proposal, saying that working helps people.
“My question is, don’t you think a job brings value, that it brings dignity?” Marshall said. “Do you not think it brings purpose and meaning to life?”
Maine’s Collins and Alaska’s Murkowski both voted for a proposal from Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Ed Markey that would have removed parts of the bill changing Medicaid.
But even with some bipartisan support, the changes were rejected on a 49-51 vote that would have technically sent the bill back to committee for three days to implement the changes.
“My Republican colleagues’ so-called Medicaid cuts replacement fund is like giving aspirin to a cancer patient,” Markey said. “It is not enough. It is pathetically inadequate to deal with the health care crisis Republicans are creating here today on the Senate floor. No billionaire tax break or Donald Trump pat-on-the-back is worth the risk of people’s lives.”
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, spoke out against the proposal, saying that rural hospitals have long had financial challenges and that it was clearly “intended to derail this very bill.”
“Unfortunately for far too long some rural hospitals have struggled to achieve financial stability, even with a wide-range of targeted payment enhances,” Crapo said. “These issues pre-date the consideration of the reforms that we are including in the legislation today.”
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., speaks to reporters as returns to his office from the Senate chamber at the U.S. Capitol Building on June 30, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate launched a marathon amendment voting session Monday during which lawmakers will debate dozens of proposals from Republicans and Democrats that could significantly reshape the “big, beautiful bill” even as a final vote nears.
The vote-a-rama is expected to last throughout Monday and potentially into Tuesday, challenging senators who aren’t accustomed to having to stay on the floor for all hours of the day and night. At the end, the Senate will vote on final passage and if the tax and spending cut bill is successful it will be taken up next in the House, possibly as soon as Wednesday morning.
The first big debate and vote Monday centered around Republicans’ decision to use current policy instead of current law to determine the bill’s fiscal impacts.
Congress has long used current law to determine how much legislation will add or subtract from annual deficits, especially when it comes to the budget reconciliation process that is being used for this bill.
But since Republicans’ 2017 tax law was set to expire at the end of the year, using the current law baseline showed significantly higher deficits than using current policy — which could prove to be a political problem.
The debate, wonky even for the Senate, could have ripple effects in the future, especially if Democrats ever get unified control of government and use the change in process that GOP lawmakers set this time around for their own policy goals.
Budget Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said during brief debate before the vote that using current policy would allow the GOP to make many of the tax levels in the 2017 law permanent, instead of having to sunset them to comply with reconciliation rules.
“What I’m trying to do, and I’m very happy about it, is to make sure the tax cuts don’t expire 10 years from now,” Graham said.
Reconciliation bills cannot increase the deficit after the 10-year budget window ends.
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York spoke out against using current policy over current law, rebuking his Republican colleagues, though his arguments were ultimately unsuccessful.
“Republicans are doing something the Senate has never done before — deploying fake math, accounting gimmicks to hide the true cost of the bill,” Schumer said. “Look, Republicans can use whatever budgetary gimmicks they want to try to make the math work on paper but you can’t paper over the real-life economic consequences of adding tens of trillions to the debt.”
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released its current law score of the bill on Sunday, showing the legislation would add $3.253 trillion to deficits during the next decade.
Senators voted 53-47 along party lines against overruling Graham’s decision to use current policy.
Senators spent the next few hours debating Democratic changes to the bill that would have addressed Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. But no Democratic proposals had been adopted as of Monday afternoon and Republicans had yet to start voting on their own amendments.
Once both sides exhaust themselves, the Senate will move on to a final passage vote. With a narrow 53-seat majority, GOP leaders can only afford to lose three members and still have the bill pass with Vice President JD Vance breaking the tie.
Two Republican senators — Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Rand Paul of Kentucky — already indicated they’ll oppose the bill when they voted against advancing it late Saturday night. Altering the bill could cause issues for other senators, making the entire process a headache for GOP leadership.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said during a floor speech that the core of the sweeping package is focused on avoiding a cliff created when Republicans approved lower tax rates during President Donald Trump’s first term.
“This is about extending that tax relief so the same people that benefited from it back in 2017 and for the last eight years don’t end up having a colossal, massive tax increase hitting them in the face come January 1,” Thune said.
Schumer sharply criticized the policy changes and spending cuts in the mega-bill, saying they would lead to fewer people being able to access safety-net programs, like Medicaid, which provides health insurance coverage for low-income people and some people with disabilities, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which provides food assistance for low-income people.
“How can any senator go home and tell their constituents, ‘I’m sorry, I took away your health care because I wanted to give tax breaks to billionaires?’” Schumer said. “And yet Republicans are dead set on walking off a cliff by passing a bill they know will be ruinous to their own constituents.”
Depending on how popular an amendment is and exactly what aspects of the legislation it seeks to change, it could increase or decrease the number of GOP senators willing to vote for the final version of the bill.
Republican leaders will want to fend off all Democratic amendments, though if some do get added, Thune can use a procedural tactic called a “wraparound amendment” at the end to cut any problematic changes by wiping out Democratic amendments with a majority vote.
In addition to providing an opportunity for senators to debate nitty gritty policy details, the vote-a-rama serves a political purpose for Democrats, who will try to get at-risk senators to take votes that can then be used during the midterm elections to try to sway voters.
Those amendments will mostly focus on Maine’s Susan Collins after North Carolina’s Tillis announced his retirement Sunday.
While Democrats have more incentive for so-called “gotcha amendments” since they’re trying to flip the Senate from red to blue, GOP leaders may also bring up amendments challenging vulnerable Democratic senators, like Georgia’s Jon Ossoff.
And since the opportunity to put up as many amendments as a senator pleases is rare, both Democrats and Republicans may have an eye on purple-state lawmakers up for reelection in 2028.
The seven members of the Wisconsin Supreme Court hear oral arguments. (Henry Redman/Wisconsin Examiner)
In a 5-2 ruling on Tuesday, the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the Department of Natural Resources’ (DNR) authority to regulate polluters who produce hazardous substances such as PFAS through the state’s toxic spills law.
The court’s ruling reverses the decisions of the circuit and appeals courts that could have threatened the DNR’s ability to force polluters to pay for the environmental damage they cause. For more than 40 years, the spills law has allowed the DNR to bring civil charges and enforce remediation measures against parties responsible for spills of “harmful substances.”
The lawsuit was brought by an Oconomowoc dry cleaner and Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC), the state’s largest business lobby, after the owner of the dry cleaner, Leather Rich Inc., found PFAS on her property.
In preparation to sell the business, Leather Rich had been participating in a voluntary DNR program to remediate contamination on its property in exchange for a certificate of liability protection from the department. During that process, the DNR determined that PFAS should be considered a “hazardous substance” under the spills law and communicated that on its website.
If PFAS were present on a site, the DNR stated, participants in the voluntary program would only be eligible for partial liability protection.
While conducting a site investigation through the program, Leather Rich determined three of four wells on the property exceeded Department of Health Services standards for PFAS concentration in surface or drinking water. The DNR requested that future reports from Leather Rich to the department include the amount of PFAS found on the property. Leather Rich responded by withdrawing from the program and filing suit.
At the circuit and appeals courts, Leather Rich was successful, with judges at each level finding that the decision by the DNR to start considering PFAS a “hazardous substance” under the spills law constituted an “unpromulgated rule” and therefore was against the law. That interpretation would have required the DNR to undergo the complicated and often yearslong process of creating an administrative rule each time it determines that a substance is harmful to people or the environment.
In the majority opinion, authored by Justice Janet Protasiewicz and joined by the Court’s three other liberal leaning justices and conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn, the Court found that the DNR spent nearly 50 years administering the spills law responding “to about 1,000 spills each year, without promulgating rules listing substances, quantities, and concentrations that it deems ‘hazardous substances.’”
Protasiewicz wrote that when the Legislature wrote the spills law, it left the definition of “hazardous substance” intentionally open-ended but required a potentially harmful substance to meet certain criteria if it would apply under the law.
“The definition of ‘hazardous substance’ is broad and open-ended in that it potentially applies to ‘any substance or combination of substances,’” Protasiewicz wrote. “But the definition is limited in that the substance or combination of substances must satisfy one of two fact-specific criteria.”
She wrote that the law considers “a substance or combination of substances is ‘hazardous’ if,” its quantity, concentration or characteristics may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness or may pose a potential hazard to human health or the environment
Leather Rich and WMC had argued that the Legislature’s failure to include chemical thresholds in the statutory text left while including the use of terms like “significantly,” “serious,” and “substantial,” meant that the law was ambiguous and therefore any DNR determinations of what counts as hazardous must be delineated in an administrative rule. They argued that under this interpretation of statute, spilling milk or beer on the ground could constitute a toxic spill.
Protasiewicz wrote if that were the case, “then scores of Wisconsin statutes on a wide range of subjects would be called into doubt,” and that their hypotheticals are undermined by the text of the statute.
“It is possible for an everyday substance like milk or beer to qualify as a ‘hazardous substance,’ but only if it first satisfies [the statute’s] fact specific criteria,” she wrote. “A mug of beer or a gallon of milk spilled into Lake Michigan may not ‘pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment,’ but a 500-gallon tank of beer or milk discharged into a trout stream might well pose a substantial present hazard to the stream’s fish and environment.”
The majority opinion also found that communications the DNR made on its website and in letters to Leather Rich counted as “guidance documents” not as rules.
Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley, who once gave a speech to WMC in which she declared to the business lobby that “I am your public servant,” wrote in a dissent joined by Chief Justice Annette Ziegler that the majority’s interpretation of the spills law left the state vulnerable to a “tyrannical” government that could both create the rules and enforce them.
“This case is about whether the People are entitled to know what the law requires of them before the government can subject them to the regulatory wringer,” she wrote. “The majority leaves the People at the mercy of unelected bureaucrats empowered not only to enforce the rules, but to make them. Americans have lived under this unconstitutional arrangement for decades, but now, the majority says, the bureaucrats can impose rules and penalties on the governed without advance notice, oversight, or deliberation. In doing so, the majority violates three first principles fundamental to preserving the rule of law — and liberty.”
After the decision’s release, Democrats and environmental groups celebrated its findings as an important step to protecting Wisconsin’s residents from the harmful effects of pollution.
“This is a historic victory for the people of Wisconsin and my administration’s fight against PFAS and other harmful contaminants that are affecting families and communities across our state,” Gov. Tony Evers said in a statement. “The Supreme Court’s decision today means that polluters will not have free rein to discharge harmful contaminants like PFAS into our land, water, and air without reporting it or taking responsibility for helping clean up those contaminants. It’s a great day for Wisconsinites and the work to protect and preserve our state’s valuable natural resources for future generations.”
But WMC said the Court’s interpretation leaves businesses guessing what substances count as hazardous under the law.
“The DNR refuses to tell the regulated community which substances must be reported under the Spills Law, yet threatens severe penalties for getting it wrong,” Scott Manley, WMC’s Executive Vice President of Government Relations, said in a statement. “Businesses and homeowners are left to guess what’s hazardous, and if they’re wrong, they face crushing fines and endless, costly litigation. This ruling blesses a regulatory approach that is fundamentally unfair, unworkable, and impossible to comply with.”
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
People protest on June 24, 2022, in front of the U.S. Supreme Court after the release of the ruling in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization that overturned Roe v Wade case and erased a federal right to an abortion. (Photo by Brandon Bell/Getty Images)
Two years ago Megan Kling and her husband were eagerly looking forward to the birth of their third child. Then at 20 weeks they got devastating news from their doctor.
The infant, upon being born, would have no chance of surviving. He lacked critical internal organs and his brain and heart were both abnormal.
“Our baby would die, either in utero or within hours after birth,” Kling told reporters Monday morning. “We were in a situation with no good outcome.”
To carry him for another four months, knowing that he would not live, “seemed inhumane,” Kling said.
The diagnosis was confirmed at 22 weeks — and by then, Kling said, her doctors were unable to help her because of an 1849 Wisconsin law that at the time was still being interpreted as a near-blanket ban on abortion.
Kling and her husband, residents of western Wisconsin, traveled to neighboring Minnesota. There, doctors at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester confirmed that, if born, their baby would not be viable. At her request, the medical team induced labor at 23 weeks. Kling gave birth and the couple’s son died in their arms an hour later.
Kling told her story Monday at a news conference held by advocates to draw attention to next week’s third anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling ending a national right to abortion.
Dr. Nike Mourikes of the Committee to Protect Health Care said from the moment the ruling was issued, “I realized how this cruel decision would cause harm to so many lives and undermine the ability of physicians and other health care providers to care for their patients.”
Abortion was a legal right throughout her medical training and practice until the 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Mourikes said.
The Court’s 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in the first 20 weeks while placing some limits on the procedure later in pregnancy. Although Mourikes had heard “the horror stories” of what women had experienced before that decision, she said, “I never imagined that we would ever, ever go back to those days again.”
As a physician, she has cared for many women who sought abortion to end a pregnancy. “Each woman had her own unique history, her own unique reasons and circumstances that led her to make this complex decision,” Mourikes said. “But that choice was her choice, not the government’s, not a politician’s. It was her body and it was her right.”
The 2022 ruling effectively reinstated Wisconsin’s 1849 law, which at the time was widely seen as a near-blanket abortion ban.
A September 2023 Dane County Circuit Court ruling reversed that assumption, with the judge holding that the law applied to feticide, but not to elective abortions. A decision on that ruling is now pending in the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Nevertheless, the law “casts a shadow over our state,” Morikes said. Republican lawmakers have been unwilling to repeal the law, and even when Roe v Wade was still in effect, enacted laws “that force doctors to practice medicine not for the good of their patients, but to satisfy anti-abortion politicians.”
Those include a requirement for “an invasive, sometimes painful and medically unnecessary ultrasound” before an abortion, she said, as well as “a medically unnecessary 24-hour waiting period” that requires women to visit a health provider two days in a row before having an abortion.
Sydney Andersen, a government relations specialist for Planned Parenthood Advocates of Wisconsin, said Planned Parenthood has succeeded in returning abortion services to Wisconsin since the Dane County ruling.
But the organization faces new challenges, she said. Those include the budget reconciliation bill that passed the U.S. House last month and is now in the Senate. A provision in the bill prevents Planned Parenthood from accepting Medicaid coverage for low-income patients.
Planned Parenthood at risk of closing hundreds of clinics, drastically limiting abortion access
If the U.S. Senate enacts the provision and it becomes law, “more than 1 million patients across the United States could lose their access to birth control, wellness exams, vaccines, STI [sexually transmitted infection] testing, and cancer screenings, including over 50,000 patients in Wisconsin alone,” Andersen said. Black women, other people of color, rural residents and other low-income families would experience “the most significant impact,” she said.
Kling, who is 34 and described herself as a working mother, said she was telling the story of her third pregnancy to make the point that “abortion restrictions can impact anyone who can become pregnant.”
In an interview, Kling told the Wisconsin Examiner that she had not been politically engaged before the experience.
“I was always pro-choice, but after going through this experience I wanted to utilize my story to help people understand that this can impact anyone,” she said.
Despite the current circuit court ruling, the current state of Wisconsin law is such that hospitals “will always create policy that is more restrictive than what the law allows,” Kling said. “There’s a lot of gray area in our law right now with the politics.”
In the news conference, Kling described the emotions that washed over the couple in the hour that she and her husband held their dying infant.
“Our son only knew love,” she said. “But as parents, those were the most helpless and traumatic moments that we have ever had to endure.”
Kling said she tried to contact her Republican state lawmakers in hopes of raising their awareness about the effect of the current state of abortion restrictions. Her state representative has not responded to her calls or email messages, and her state senator’s aide said he was “too busy to schedule a 10-minute meeting to hear my story,” she said.
“Are they unwilling to understand what real women are going through or do they simply not care?” Kling said. “Is this the reality you want the women of Wisconsin to face? Forcing us to flee our state for care?”
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
Login