Federal agents patrol the halls of immigration court in New York City in October. While arrests at federal immigration courts have received widespread attention, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement have also arrested individuals at state courthouses, prompting some Democratic states to impose restrictions. (Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

A day after President Donald Trump took office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement issued a new directive to its agents: Arrests at courthouses, restricted under the Biden administration, were again permissible.

In Connecticut, a group of observers who keep watch on ICE activity in and around Stamford Superior Court have since witnessed a series of arrests. In one high-profile case in August, federal agents pursued two men into a bathroom.

“Is it an activity you want to be interfering with, people fulfilling their duty when they’re called to court and going to court? For me, it’s insanity,” said David Michel, a Democratic former state representative in Connecticut who helps observe courthouse activity.

Fueled by the Stamford uproar, Connecticut lawmakers last week approved restrictions on civil arrests and mask-wearing by federal law enforcement at state courthouses. And on Monday, a federal judge tossed a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Department of Justice that had sought to block similar restrictions in New York.

They are the latest examples of a growing number of Democratic states, and some judges, pushing back against ICE arrests in and around state courthouses. State lawmakers and other officials worry the raids risk keeping people from testifying in criminal trials, fighting evictions or seeking restraining orders against domestic abusers.

The courthouse arrests mark an intensifying clash between the Trump administration and Democratic states that pits federal authority against state sovereignty. Sitting at the core of the fight are questions about how much power states have to control what happens in their own courts and the physical grounds they sit on.

In Illinois, lawmakers approved a ban on civil immigration arrests at courthouses in October. In Rhode Island, lawmakers plan to again push for a ban after an earlier measure didn’t advance in March. Connecticut lawmakers were codifying limits imposed by the state Supreme Court chief justice in September. Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont is expected to sign the bill.

States that are clamping down on ICE continue to allow the agency to make criminal arrests, as opposed to noncriminal civil arrests. Many people arrested and subsequently deported are taken on noncriminal, administrative warrants. As of Sept. 21, 71.5% of ICE detainees had no criminal convictions, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a data research organization.

Some states, such as New York, already have limits on immigration enforcement in courthouses that date back to the first Trump administration, when ICE agents also engaged in courthouse arrests. New York’s Protect Our Courts Act, in place since 2020, prohibits civil arrests of people at state and local courthouses without a judicial warrant. The law also applies to people traveling to and from court, extending protections beyond courthouse grounds.

“One of the cornerstones of our democracy is open access to the courts. When that access is denied or chilled, all of us are made less safe and less free,” said Oren Sellstrom, litigation director at Lawyers for Civil Rights, a Boston-based group that works to provide legal support to immigrants, people of color and low-income individuals.

But in addition to challenging the New York law, the Justice Department is prosecuting a Wisconsin state judge, alleging she illegally helped a migrant avoid ICE agents.

“We aren’t some medieval kingdom; there are no legal sanctuaries where you can hide and avoid the consequences for breaking the law,” U.S. Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement to Stateline. “Nothing in the constitution prohibits arresting a lawbreaker where you find them.”

Some Republican lawmakers oppose efforts to limit ICE arrests in and near courthouses, arguing state officials should stay out of the way of federal law enforcement. The Ohio Senate in June passed a bill that would prohibit public officials from interfering in immigration arrests or prohibiting cooperation with ICE; the move came after judges in Franklin County, which includes Columbus, imposed restrictions on civil arrests in courthouses.

“The United States is a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of law and order. To have a civilized society, laws must be respected, this includes immigration laws,” Ohio Republican state Sen. Kristina Roegner, the bill’s sponsor, said in a news release at the time.

Roegner didn’t respond to Stateline’s interview request. The legislation remains in a House committee.

Knowing where a target will be

Courthouses offer an attractive location for ICE to make immigration arrests, according to both ICE and advocates for migrants.

Court records and hearing schedules often indicate who is expected in the building on any given day. Administrative warrants don’t allow ICE to enter private homes without permission, but the same protections don’t apply in public areas, such as courthouses. And many people have a strong incentive to show up for court, knowing that warrants can potentially be issued for their arrest if they don’t.

“So in some respects, it’s easy pickings,” said Steven Brown, executive director of the ACLU of Rhode Island.

In June, ICE arrested Pablo Grave de la Cruz at Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal in Cranston. A 36-year-old Rhode Island resident, he had come from Guatemala illegally as a teenager.

“They pulled up on him like he was a murderer or a rapist,” friend Brittany Donohue told the Rhode Island Current, which chronicled de la Cruz’s case. “He was leaving traffic court.”

An immigration judge has since granted de la Cruz permission to self-deport.

McLaughlin, the Homeland Security assistant secretary, said in her statement that allowing law enforcement to make arrests “of criminal illegal aliens in courthouses is common sense” — conserving law enforcement resources because officers know where a target will be. The department said the practice is safer for officers and the community, noting that individuals have gone through courthouse security.

Still, ICE’s directive on courthouse arrests sets some limits on the agency’s activity.

Agents “should, to the extent practicable” conduct civil immigration arrests in non-public areas of the courthouse and avoid public entrances. Actions should be taken “discreetly” to minimize disruption to court proceedings, and agents should generally avoid areas wholly dedicated to non-criminal proceedings, such as family court, the directive says.

Crucially, the directive says ICE can conduct civil immigration arrests “where such action is not precluded by laws imposed by the jurisdiction.” In other words, the agency’s guidance directs agents to respect state and local bans on noncriminal arrests.

Trump administration court actions

But the Trump administration has also gone to court to try to overcome state-level restrictions.

The Justice Department sued in June over New York’s Protect Our Courts Act, arguing that it “purposefully shields dangerous aliens” from lawful detention. The department says the law violates the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause, under which federal law supersedes state law.

New York Democratic Attorney General Letitia James argued the state law doesn’t conflict with federal law and sought the lawsuit’s dismissal.

U.S. District Court Judge Mae D’Agostino, an appointee of President Barack Obama, on Monday granted James’ motion. The judge wrote that the “entire purpose” of the lawsuit was to allow the federal government to commandeer New York’s resources — such as court schedules and court security screening measures — to aid immigration enforcement, even though states cannot generally be required to help the federal government enforce federal law.

“Compelling New York to allow federal immigration authorities to reap the benefits of the work of state employees is no different than permitting the federal government to commandeer state officials directly in furtherance of federal objectives,” the judge wrote.

The Justice Department didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

The department is also prosecuting Wisconsin Judge Hannah Dugan, who prosecutors allege helped a person living in the country illegally avoid ICE agents in April inside a Milwaukee courthouse by letting him exit a courtroom through a side door. (Agents apprehended the individual near the courthouse.) A federal grand jury indicted Dugan on a count of concealing an individual and a count of obstructing a proceeding.

In court documents, Dugan’s lawyers have called the prosecution “virtually unprecedented and entirely unconstitutional.”

Dugan has pleaded not guilty, and a trial is set for December.

Lawmakers seek ‘order’ in courthouses

Rhode Island Democratic state Sen. Meghan Kallman is championing legislation that would generally ban civil arrests at courthouses. The measure received a hearing, but a legislative committee recommended further study.

Kallman hopes the bill will go further next year. The sense of urgency has intensified, she said, and more people now understand the consequences of what is happening.

“In order to create a system of law that is functioning and that encourages trust, we have to make those [courthouse] spaces safe,” she said.

Back in Connecticut, Democratic state Rep. Steven Stafstrom said his day job as a commercial litigator brings him into courthouses across the state weekly. Based on his conversations with court staff, other lawyers and senior administration within the judicial branch, he said “there’s a genuine fear, not just for safety, but for disruptions of orderly court processes in our courthouses.”

Some Connecticut Republicans have questioned whether a law that only pertains to civil arrests would prove effective. State Rep. Craig Fishbein, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, noted during floor debate that entering the United States without permission is a criminal offense — a misdemeanor for first-time offenders and a felony for repeat offenders. Because of that, he suggested the measure wouldn’t stop many courthouse arrests.

“The advocates think they’re getting no arrests in courthouses, but they’ve been sold a bill of goods,” he said.

Stafstrom, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, said in response that he believed the legislation protects many people who are in the country illegally because that crime is often not prosecuted.

“All we’re asking is for ICE to recognize the need for order in our courthouses,” Stafstrom said.

Stateline reporter Jonathan Shorman can be reached at jshorman@stateline.org.

The Lyndon Baines Johnson Department of Education Building in Washington, D.C., pictured on Nov. 25, 2024. (Photo by Shauneen Miranda/States Newsroom)

This report has been updated.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s administration took major steps Tuesday in trying to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education, announcing six interagency agreements signed with other departments that will transfer several of its responsibilities to those agencies. 

The announcement was immediately met with intense backlash from Democratic members of Congress, who questioned its legality, and labor unions. 

The agreements — with the departments of Labor, Interior, Health and Human Services and State — come as Trump has sought to take an axe to the 46-year-old department in his quest to return education “back to the states.” 

The move further fulfills a pledge Trump heavily campaigned on and later tapped Education Secretary Linda McMahon to carry out. 

“The announcement really follows the plan that President Trump has had since Day One, and that is returning education to the states — he fully believes, as do I, the best education is that that’s closest to the child and not run from a bureaucracy in Washington, D.C.,” McMahon told Fox News on Tuesday following the announcement. 

The secretary likened the initiative to a “test run” and said her department wants to see “if what we think to be true is that they will function much more in a streamlined fashion and much more efficiently if we relocate those programs into other agencies.” 

McMahon added that the agency would “move it,” “see how it works” and deliver the “outcomes” to Congress. 

She said her department hopes Congress would then vote to codify the permanent move of those programs to those agencies. 

But any effort would face a difficult path in the Senate, which requires at least 60 senators to advance most legislation. Republicans hold just 53 Senate seats.

The announcement also came as the U.S. Supreme Court in July allowed the Trump administration to temporarily proceed with mass layoffs and a plan to dramatically downsize the Education Department ordered earlier this year.

That plan — outlined in a March executive order Trump signed — called on McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure” of her own department. 

How Education agreements will work 

The Education Department clarified in fact sheets it would “maintain all statutory responsibilities and will continue its oversight of these programs” regarding all six interagency agreements.

A senior department official could not yet say how many Education Department employees would be transitioning to these other agencies, and noted that there will be “a bit of a lag” between the signing and when the agreements are fully executed. 

The official said the department is “still exploring the best plan” for the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office for Civil Rights and Federal Student Aid.

The Department of Labor will take on a “growing role” in administering elementary and secondary education programs currently managed under the Education Department’s Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, per a fact sheet. 

The Education Department said that “with proper oversight by ED, DOL will manage competitions, provide technical assistance, and integrate ED’s programs with the suite of employment and training programs DOL already administers.”

In another agreement, the Labor Department will also take on a greater role in managing the Education Department’s higher education grant programs, such as TRIO and the Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs, or GEAR UP.

This also includes the Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund, the Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need program and the Strengthening Historically Black Graduate Institutions program, among others. 

The Interior Department will also take on a “growing role” in administering the Education Department’s Indian Education programs, per a fact sheet. 

Under an agreement with HHS, that agency will oversee the National Committee on Foreign Medical Education and Accreditation’s work. 

HHS will also “manage existing competitions, provide technical assistance, and integrate” the Education Department’s Child Care Access Means Parents in School Program, the department said. 

That program, according to the Education Department, “supports the participation of low-income parents in postsecondary education through the provision of campus-based child care services.” 

The Education Department’s agreement with the State Department will let that agency “oversee all foreign education programs,” per a fact sheet. 

‘Outright illegal effort’

Sen. Patty Murray of Washington state, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, blasted the move as an “outright illegal effort to continue dismantling the Department of Education.” 

Murray said “it is students and families who will suffer the consequences as key programs that help students learn to read or that strengthen ties between schools and families are spun off to agencies with little to no relevant expertise and are gravely weakened — or even completely broken — in the process.” 

Rep. Rosa DeLauro, ranking member of the House Appropriations panel, said  “any attempt to unilaterally remove programs from the Department of Education will fundamentally alter their purpose,” in a Tuesday statement.

“This is not about efficiency — it is about creating so many needless bureaucratic hurdles that the Department of Education is rendered useless — a death by a thousand cuts. Imposing massive, chaotic, and abrupt changes on a whim will waste millions of dollars in duplicative administrative costs and impose wasteful burdens on the American education system,” the Connecticut Democrat said. 

Rep. Bobby Scott, ranking member of the House Committee on Education and Workforce, decried the move in a Tuesday statement and called on congressional Republicans to “work with Democrats to stop this assault.”

The Virginia Democrat said “the mass transfer of these programs is not only extremely inefficient and wasteful, but it will result in inconsistent enforcement of federal education policy.” 

He added that “instead of protecting the civil rights of students of color, students with disabilities, English as a Second Language (ESL) students, and low-income students, and closing achievement gaps, the Secretary of Education has spent her tenure dismantling ED.” 

Unions slam move

Rachel Gittleman, president of American Federation of Government Employees Local 252, which represents Education Department workers, said “this latest ploy by the Trump Administration to dismantle the Congressionally created U.S. Department of Education is not only unlawful — it’s an insult to the tens of millions of students who rely on the agency to protect their access to a quality education.” 

She added that “students, educators and families depend on the Department’s comprehensive support for schools, from early learning through graduate programs” and “that national mission is weakened when its core functions are scattered across other federal or state agencies that are not equipped or positioned to provide the same support and services as ED staff.” 

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, one of the largest teachers unions in the country, said “spreading services across multiple departments will create more confusion, more mistakes and more barriers for people who are just trying to access the support they need.” 

Weingarten added that “it’s a deliberate diversion of funding streams that have helped generations of kids achieve their American dream” and “will undermine public schools as places where diverse voices come together and where pluralism, the bedrock of our democracy, is strengthened.”

“We are now watching the federal government shirk its responsibility to all kids. That is unacceptable,” she said, adding that “Congress must reclaim its authority over education during upcoming federal funding battles.” 

Telephones inside the Women’s Eastern Reception, Diagnostic and Correctional Center in Vandalia, Mo., where incarcerated people pay per-minute rates to call loved ones. (Photo by Amanda Watford/Stateline)

The Federal Communications Commission voted to roll back limits on how much companies can charge incarcerated people and their families for phone and video calls.

The 2-1 vote in late October reverses rate caps the FCC adopted last year under a 2023 law that allows the agency to set limits on prison phone and video call rates. Critics say the rates are kept high by limited competition among major providers such as Securus Technologies and ViaPath.

Under the new interim rules, phone calls will cost up to $0.11 per minute in large prisons and $0.18 per minute in the smallest jails. Video calls will cost up to $0.23 per minute in large facilities and as much as $0.41 in small ones.

Only three states — Florida, Kentucky and Oklahoma — currently have rates above the new rates, meaning most prison systems across the country are already below the previously adopted 2024 rate caps.

The new 2025 rates will take effect 120 days after being published in the Federal Register.

In June, the FCC had abruptly announced a two-year delay in implementing the 2024 rate caps after receiving complaints from local sheriffs and prison telecom companies. Republican attorneys general from 14 states also filed a lawsuit last year challenging the commission’s authority to limit how much prisons and jails can charge for phone calls, arguing that the rules deprived correctional facilities of needed funding.

Republican Commissioners Brendan Carr and Olivia Trusty, both appointed by President Donald Trump, supported the rollback. Carr argued the previous caps limited facilities’ ability to recover safety and security costs, such as monitoring calls, leading some to scale back or eliminate calling services altogether. Trusty said the 2024 rules “did not always strike the right balance,” and cited “unintended consequences” like service disruptions in some facilities.

At least one small jail — in Baxter County, Arkansas — ended phone services earlier this year in protest of the lower rate caps.

Democratic Commissioner Anna Gomez, appointed by President Joe Biden, voted against the order and called it “indefensible.” She said the decision gives monopoly telecom providers “the authority to increase the costs for families to maintain critical connections with their loved ones in prison.”

Advocates for incarcerated people condemned the vote.

“These changes are a betrayal of the families who entrusted the FCC to protect them from the notoriously predatory correctional telecom industry,” Bianca Tylek, the executive director of Worth Rises, said in a news release. Worth Rises is a nonprofit advocacy organization dedicated to dismantling the prison industry.

Some research suggests that incarcerated people who maintain consistent contact with loved ones are significantly more likely to succeed upon release and are less likely to reoffend.

The FCC’s latest decision comes months after New York joined California, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Minnesota in offering free phone calls in state prisons. Colorado’s policy won’t take full effect until 2026.

At least two states — Maryland and Missouri — considered legislation this year to make prison and jail calls more affordable. Maryland’s proposal to make calls free in state prisons did not pass, but Missouri enacted a law in August capping phone call rates at no more than 12 cents per minute in correctional centers.

Stateline reporter Amanda Watford can be reached at ahernandez@stateline.org.

A sign in a convenience store in Hyattsville, Maryland, advertises that it accepts SNAP benefits. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

According to Gov. Tony Evers’ administration, over 330,000 Wisconsin households were paid their November Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits by Friday morning. 

The release of the funds comes as the federal government shutdown entered day 38 on Friday; it’s the longest shutdown in American history.

The lapse in federal funding for SNAP, known as FoodShare in Wisconsin, took effect on Nov. 1 — leaving nearly 700,000 Wisconsinites, including 270,000 kids, without access to food assistance. Two court orders last week directed the Trump administration to pay SNAP benefits by a Wednesday deadline.

This week food banks across the state, including in Milwaukee, have seen a spike in need.

Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr., a federal judge in Rhode Island, ordered the Trump administration Thursday to pay the full month of food assistance benefits for November. McConnell said the Trump administration missed its chance to make partial payments after it failed to release funds by the deadline.

Shortly after the court decision was released, the Evers administration announced it was taking steps to get the funds out the door as soon as possible.

“My administration worked quickly to ensure these benefits could be released as soon as possible so that our kids, families, and seniors have access to basic food and groceries without one more day of delay,” Evers said in a statement Thursday evening. “But let’s be clear — it never should’ve come to this. Wisconsinites should’ve never been without food assistance, period, and they wouldn’t have been if President Trump and the Trump Administration had listened to me and so many who urged them to use all legal funds and levers to prevent millions of Americans from losing access to food and groceries.” 

The Evers administration said Friday morning that it used the same process it typically uses to process benefits, submitting information to its SNAP payment vendor, which processes payments to QUEST cards, a few hours after the court decision to ensure payments would go out as soon as possible. 

The funds became available to households at midnight. According to the administration, a total of about $104.4 million was issued for 337,137 households. It said the payments went out before the Trump administration requested that a federal appeals court block the order from McConnell on Friday morning. The emergency stay has not been granted as of Friday afternoon. 

The administration received notification from the federal Food and Nutrition Service on Friday morning that it was working to implement November benefits in accordance with the Thursday court order.

The Evers administration said it is still monitoring the situation for any issues that may arise related to processing last night’s payments. 

Evers said the actions of the Trump administration are “contemptible” and called on federal Republicans to work with Democrats to end the government shutdown. Last week, Evers had also declared a state of emergency due to the lapse in funding for food assistance, directing state agencies to do everything they could to support Wisconsinites.

“Wisconsinites simply cannot afford another month of Republican dysfunction in Washington,” Evers said. “It’s time for Republicans to get back to work and do the right thing by working across the aisle to end the federal government shutdown to ensure Wisconsinites continue to have access to basic needs, including affordable healthcare and food assistance, moving forward.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Wisconsin voters line up outside of a Milwaukee polling place on Nov. 5, 2024. Wisconsin (Andy Manis | Getty Images)

Democrats are euphoric about Tuesday’s elections, in which voters across the country delivered a resounding rebuke to Republicans and President Donald Trump. “The Democratic Party is back!” Ken Martin, Democratic National Committee chair, declared in a post-election press call with other national party leaders. 

Democratic wins in governors’ races in Virginia and New Jersey, the mayoral race in New York City, state Supreme Court races in Pennsylvania, even a historic victory that broke the Republican supermajority in the Mississippi legislature, along with a bevy of downballot victories in historically Republican districts, showed voters have had enough of the misery inflicted by the MAGA right.

In a scene familiar to Wisconsinites, Pennsylvania voters beat back an effort by a MAGA billionaire to buy their state supreme court. “People don’t want corporate control of the courts,” Pennsylvania Democratic Party Chair Eugene DePasquale said of the millions wasted on that race by TikTok billionaire Jeff Yass — a repeat of Elon Musk’s failed bid to buy a friendly majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. 

The results are a concrete sign that there is a political price associated with the chaos Trump and his GOP enablers have unleashed, sending federal agents to terrorize American cities, driving up health care costs and inflicting unnecessary suffering and hunger on Americans during the longest government shutdown in history.

Young men, Black and Latino voters, working-class people — all the demographic groups that abandoned Democrats in 2024 returned in droves on Tuesday. As the Democrats celebrated their wins, they also seemed to concede that they were benefitting from the mess Republicans have made of governing. People are hurting, their outlook is grim, and they are in the mood to throw out the party in power after just six months.

Democrats need to form an aggressive, unified opposition to champion the will of those voters and not just take their support for granted. And Republicans had better re-examine their unwavering loyalty to Trump.

So far, in Wisconsin, Republican members of Congress have not signaled that they care about the catastrophic effects of Trump’s policies on their constituents.

In an interview with “UpFront” on WISN 12 News on Sunday, Republican U.S. Rep. Derrick Van Orden wouldn’t say if he supports extending Affordable Care Act subsidies, even as Wisconsinites are receiving the news that without the subsidies their premiums are set to skyrocket by 45% to 800% depending on where in the state they live.

Van Orden, who supports a full repeal of the Affordable Care Act, repeatedly declared on “UpFront” that he “won’t be held hostage” by Democrats who have made preventing a huge spike in health care costs for people who buy insurance on the ACA marketplace — more than 310,000 of them in Wisconsin — a condition of their votes to reopen the government. Nor has he been willing to say whether he supports or opposes the Trump administration’s decision to withhold food assistance from 700,000 Wisconsinites during the shutdown.

U.S. Rep Tom Tiffany, who is running for governor, also supports repealing the Affordable Care Act and this month called on Republicans to “hold firm” against extending ACA tax credits, repeating the lie that Democrats are shutting down the government because they want to give health care to “illegal aliens.”

U.S. Rep Bryan Steil told “UpFront” that the Trump administration is in “a very difficult position” as it makes the decision to fire thousands of federal workers during the shutdown. He also claimed he might support extending ACA subsidies, but only after the shutdown ends, and if there are “significant changes to that program to root out waste, fraud and abuse.” 

Republican U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, took the opportunity, as health care subsidies lapse and insurance premiums spike, to hold a hearing Thursday on the “harms” caused by extending health care coverage to millions of Americans through the Affordable Care Act.

Is it any wonder that voters are not thrilled with how the party that holds complete control in Washington is governing?

What’s significant about Tuesday’s election is that it puts everyone on notice that voters will push back.

Over and over, during the Democrats’ Wednesday press conference, various national leaders eagerly declared that theirs is the party of “affordability.” But Martin acknowledged that his party had lost touch with working class voters worried about making ends meet. He said Democrats “didn’t focus on that anxiety enough over the years.” and that they have to “give working class people the sense that we’re fighting for them.”

It doesn’t take a political genius to see the vulnerability in the wretched excesses of the Trump administration, which is forcing children to go hungry while throwing a lavish “Great Gatsby” party at Mar-a-Lago and building a massive, gilded ballroom at the White House.

If nothing else, Democrats are the populist alternative by default. But there also seems to be a sincere effort underway to build a democratic resistance that will fight for most Americans against the MAGA oligarchs who are liquidating civil society and sucking up the common wealth of the nation to enrich themselves.

Martin and the other Dems on the Wednesday call trumpeted the importance of state-level politics. “The path back to building Democratic power runs through state legislatures,” declared Heather Williams, president of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, adding, “the center of gravity has moved to the states.” 

Martin agreed. “I believe this party has ignored building power at the state level for too long,” he said. “We cannot just build federal power.” 

The stars of this new strategy are Democratic governors — the most popular Democratic politicians in America, according to the panel, which made a passing mention of the importance of the 2026 Wisconsin governor’s race. Certainly Virginia Democrats, who won back both the state legislature and the governor’s mansion, gave hope to Wisconsin Dems who are hoping to do the same.

But how much the national party will engage in Wisconsin and who will emerge from a crowded field of Democratic hopefuls in the first open election for governor here in 15 years is very much up in the air. 

On Thursday, at a gubernatorial candidate forum covered by Baylor Spears, candidates were asked to name the greatest threat to Wisconsin’s economy. Few had a simple, appealing answer that connected to most voters’ most immediate concerns — skyrocketing prices, a shredding safety net and the disappearing prospect of shared prosperity. 

Tuesday’s elections showed that we still have a democracy, that voters have a say in how the government is run, and that they won’t put up with an endless cycle of abuse.

That should embolden everyone who is shocked and appalled by what is happening to our country — including those Wisconsin Republicans who have so far been afraid to criticize Trump, as well as the Democrats who need to point the way to a better future.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Food stocked on shelves within the Rooted & Rising food center in Milwaukee. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

Rooted & Rising, a food center and Hunger Task Force partner, has provided nourishment to people living in Milwaukee’s Washington Park neighborhood for over three decades. The lapse in federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, known in Wisconsin as FoodShare, that began on Saturday is increasing desperation, according to staff. Over the last week, Bill Schmitt, executive director of Rooted & Rising, told the Wisconsin Examiner, “197 households came through the food center…And that’s about a 60% increase over what we would usually see.” 

On Friday, Gov. Tony Evers declared a state of emergency in Wisconsin due to the lapse in federal SNAP funding. 

By Monday afternoon people from more than 50 local households had already arrived at Rooted & Rising to pick up canned goods and  locally grown produce. Schmitt said the numbers on Monday showed a sustained spike. 

Rooted & Rising provides food once a month, or every 30 days, from noon to 4 p.m., in a neighborhood where, according to the food center’s website, the unemployment rate exceeds 15% and 50% of households live below the poverty line. 

“We know a lot of people came out last week,” Schmitt said, referring to the over 60% spike the pantry saw just before  SNAP benefits were cut off. “We’re just trying to keep pace with the demand and make sure that people still have a dignified, respectful experience here and they’re not having to wait too long.” 

Rooted & Rising’s shelves are stocked with assorted canned goods, boxes hold ripe fruits and vegetables and freezers preserve perishables including meat. People sit in chairs while staff buzz past carrying boxes and help load bags into cars. First-time visitors must present an I.D. and a current piece of mail.

On Monday, elderly people and parents with small children visited the food center, gathering  enough food in their carts to last three days or so. “It’s families just like yours and mine really,” said Schmitt. “It is primarily working families. And people are fitting in visits to the food center with their work schedule when they can, or someone’s coming on their behalf. And we know across the state, it’s 700,000 individuals that rely upon these benefits. And the majority of those families…They’re trying to make ends meet.” 

While there was a rise in the number of families visiting the food center at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Rooted & Rising has seen a more recent uptick over the last year. In addition to the regulars, many people are either new families or people who hadn’t visited the food center in quite some time. “Our assessment of it is like wages just aren’t keeping pace with inflation,” said Schmitt. “There’s obviously been a sustained period of inflationary pressure in the economy more broadly, and subsequently we’ve seen, I mean, even before this government shutdown, our numbers were considerably higher than the year previous.”

Prior to last year, Rooted & Rising would see between 250-350 households a month. In October,  517 households came to the food center for assistance. 

“It is both the actual impact of the delayed food share benefits going out, but really it’s also like the uncertainty of it that we all know in our own lives,” Schmitt said. 

Leah Boonnam, 33, comes from one of those new families. Monday was the third time she’d come to Rooted & Rising.  She started coming to the food center back in the summer. “It’s a long story,” she said after loading groceries into her car. “I’m a widow. My husband passed a few years ago. So we don’t get FoodShare, I don’t get anything like that. We live off the survivors benefits. And so we’ve had to move a lot, like downsize.” 

A friend told Boonnam to check out the food center, which has been a big help to her family. While she works various jobs, Boonnam’s husband was her family’s main provider. “My plan is to finish paying off my debt to school so I can return and finish my degree, my masters,” she told the Wisconsin Examiner. “However, when I started my program, my husband had passed. It was right at the start of COVID and everything. So, he was the one that was the major breadwinner for our family.” Boonnam said she works hard, but “nothing compares to having two incomes in a household.” 

“I wish people didn’t feel so bad about having to come here,” she added. “This is a really beautiful thing that is available to us. I mean, this is such a help.”

”A lot of the fresh organic stuff that they get here is from the food pantries, and these are local businesses that are helping to support local people,” Boonnam said.

Another visitor, a friendly 48-year-old man who only wanted to be identified by his first name, Isaac, said he’d been coming to Rooted & Rising for about six years. “It’s very important because things are getting hectic and people don’t have no other options,” he said of SNAP.  If food assistance programs were to halt completely, Isaac said he worries  “crime might raise, or a lot of chaos.” He hopes that after the current federal shutdown is over, states will “plan ahead and think ahead,” grow food bank networks and provide “things that can assist folks who are in crisis. … We’ll make it, just a little more tender love and care.”

Bonny Walters, an older woman who has helped out at Rooted & Rising for more than 30 years, has seen the numbers of people needing the food center “increase a lot,” she said.  She hopes that even if people don’t help out at a food center, they understand that the need is real. 

With the future of SNAP still up in the air and the government shutdown continuing, Schmitt said the generosity of neighbors is more important than ever. Across Milwaukee County, food drives are being held to help provide a cushion for local residents who rely on FoodShare to survive. So far, over $74,000 has been raised — enough to provide over 222,000 meals. The Brewers Community Foundation made a $10,000 donation. Local elected leaders have criticized  the Trump administration for using hunger and food security as a political bargaining chip in Washington D.C. 

Schmitt explained that Rooted & Rising, as part of Milwaukee County’s emergency food network, is designed to meet the emergency nutritional needs of families on a monthly basis. “We do not have the capacity, or the resources, or even the physical space or stocks to fill the gap of the loss of FoodShare,” he said. 

“There’s a really visceral situation when you’re talking about people in your communities not having enough to eat and like, skipping meals, or you know, going hungry sometimes, too,” he added. “It’s crazy to think about that — in the wealthiest country in human history that this is an issue that we’re confronting right now. But, people have really been stepping up and we’re going to continue to rely upon that generosity of our community members and partners to kind of recognize that this is a unique moment, and one that requires all of us to work together and kind of meet the moment, meet the need of our fellow community members.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A sign in a convenience store along Barlowe Road in Hyattsville, Maryland, on Tuesday, Oct. 28, 2025, advertises that it accepts SNAP benefits. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

This report has been updated.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Agriculture will pay about half of November benefits for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, though benefits could take months to flow to recipients, the department said Monday in a brief to a federal court in Rhode Island.

A four-page report from the USDA answered U.S. District Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr.’s order that President Donald Trump’s administration pay at least a portion of benefits to the 42 million people who receive assistance through the program by the end of Wednesday, despite the government shutdown.

The USDA action does not address what would happen if the shutdown stretches beyond November.

Leading Democrats in Congress blasted the administration’s decision to pay only part of the month’s benefits, saying Trump was willfully denying food assistance to needy Americans.  “Providing partial benefits is not enough, is not compliant with the law, and it’s particularly cruel of Trump with the Thanksgiving season around the corner,” said Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York. 

McConnell on Saturday laid out two options for the administration: pay for partial benefits by the end of Wednesday through a contingency fund which currently has about $4.65 billion available, or pay for a full month of benefits by tapping other reserve sources such as the child nutrition program by the end of Monday. 

USDA opted to use the contingency fund, giving the department until the end of Wednesday to pay out benefits. 

But a declaration from Patrick A. Penn, USDA’s deputy under secretary for food, nutrition and consumer services, said the administrative hurdles in calculating and delivering a half-month’s portion of benefits could take “anywhere from a few weeks to up to several months.”

The department was complying with McConnell’s order by starting the process of resuming payments Monday, according to the status report signed by U.S. Justice Department officials.

USDA “will fulfill its obligation to expend the full amount of SNAP contingency funds today by generating the table required for States to calculate the benefits available for each eligible household in that State,” they said. “USDA will therefore have made the necessary funds available and have authorized the States to begin disbursements once the table is issued.”

Delayed SNAP benefits in shutdown

McConnell’s order acknowledged that calculating reduced benefits would take the government some time, which he explained was why he gave USDA until Wednesday if the department chose that path.

But Penn said Monday that was not nearly enough time, in part due to some states’ outdated systems for processing benefits.

The federal government would provide states with updated tables for benefits at the partial funding level by Monday, he said. States will then need to send updated files to the vendors that process benefits and add them to beneficiaries’ debit-like EBT cards to be spent on groceries.

Monday marked the 34th day of the federal government shutdown, which began Oct. 1 when Congress failed to appropriate money for federal programs or pass a stopgap spending bill. 

The U.S. Senate was expected to hold another procedural vote to move forward the House-passed GOP stopgap bill that would fund the government at fiscal 2025 levels until Nov. 21. 

Democrats have voted against that measure in a bid to force negotiations on expiring tax credits for people who buy health insurance on the Affordable Care Act marketplace.

On Tuesday, the funding lapse will tie for the longest shutdown in history, which took place between 2018 and 2019. 

Contingency fund dispute

Leading up to the end of October, the administration had warned it could not pay SNAP benefits for this month amid the shutdown, saying it was legally forbidden from using the contingency fund that was supposed to be for natural disasters and similar emergencies.

But two federal judges ruled Oct. 31 that USDA not only could use the fund, but was obligated to in order to keep SNAP benefits flowing.

Saturday marked the first lapse in benefit payments in the modern history of the program that dates to part of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty agenda.

Lawmakers, advocates and SNAP experts said users of the program would see a delay in November benefits as the administration worked to restart it.

The administration’s insistence it could not use its contingency fund, originally appropriated by Congress at $6 billion, was a reversal from a Sept. 30 USDA plan on how to operate in a shutdown, which explicitly called for use of the fund to keep issuing benefits.

A month of SNAP benefits costs the federal government about $9 billion.

While USDA would not use the contingency fund to pay for regular benefits, it did spend about $750 million of the original $6 billion for other uses in October, according to a Monday declaration to the court by Penn.

The department spent about $450 million for state administrative expenses and $300 million for block grants to Puerto Rico and American Samoa, Penn wrote.

The department would again allocate $450 million for administrative expenses in November, and $150 million for the block grants to territories, he added.

That left $4.65 billion available for November benefits, Penn wrote. 

No use of child nutrition funds

Penn also explained USDA’s decision not to use a fund for a child nutrition program to cover shortfall for SNAP benefits.

The administration wanted to keep that fund fully stocked, he said.

“Child Nutrition Program funds are not a contingency fund for SNAP,” he said. “Using billions of dollars from Child Nutrition for SNAP would leave an unprecedented gap in Child Nutrition funding that Congress has never had to fill with annual appropriations, and USDA cannot predict what Congress will do under these circumstances.” 

The child nutrition program funds school meals, summer meals for children and summer EBT benefits for low-income families with children. The school lunch program alone serves about 29 million children per day, Penn said.

Democrats call USDA plan ‘not acceptable’

Democrats expressed dismay that the administration opted not to fully fund November benefits.

“Just now paying the bare minimum to partially fund SNAP is not enough, and it is not acceptable,” Sen. Patty Murray of Washington state wrote in a social media post Monday.

“Trump should immediately work to fully fund benefits under the law,” added Murray, who serves as the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee. 

Rep. Rosa DeLauro, ranking member of the House Appropriations panel, said “this was entirely avoidable,” noting that Trump “chose to hold hungry children, seniors, and veterans hostage in a selfish and cruel attempt to gain political advantage.” 

“Now, only partial benefits will be sent out late, and families will go hungry, while this administration continues to host lavish parties for their billionaire donors and political allies,” the Connecticut Democrat said.

She added that “we are in this situation because of a lack of political will on the part of the Trump administration” and urged USDA “to put politics aside and use the money they have available to ensure families do not go hungry.”

Speaker Johnson defends Trump

At a press conference Monday, U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson continued to defend Trump’s handling of the SNAP payments.

The president is “desperate for SNAP benefits to flow to the American citizens who desperately rely upon it,” Johnson said.

The Louisiana Republican echoed Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins’ Friday claim that sought to justify her agency’s refusal to tap into the contingency fund to pay for SNAP. 

“The way we always understood it was: The contingency fund could not be used legally if the underlying fund was suspended,” Johnson said. 

He blamed congressional Democrats for voting against the stopgap spending bill and noted that two judges, McConnell and Indira Talwani in Massachusetts federal court, who separately ordered payments resume, were appointed by Democratic former President Barack Obama.

Talwani ruled Friday that the USDA plan to pause SNAP was illegal — but gave the Trump administration until Monday to respond to her finding before she decides on a motion to force the benefits be paid despite the ongoing government shutdown.

Johnson also acknowledged the complex logistics of releasing the money to states. 

“So, it’s not as easy as hitting go send on a computer — you gotta go through and recalculate partial payments to the 42 million recipients of the program,” Johnson said. “That puts a huge burden on states and on the feds to try to figure that out in short order.”

A produce cooler at Willy Street Co-op in Madison, Wisconsin. FoodShare funding from the federal government will stop Nov. 1 if the federal government shutdown continues. (Photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner)

Milwaukee elected leaders gathered outside the county’s Marcia P. Coggs Health and Human Services Building on Friday, providing updates to residents and praising the community’s resilience amidst the ongoing federal government shutdown. 

“Milwaukee County is strong and resilient, but the health and wellbeing of our residents and families should never be casualties of political fights in Washington,” said Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley. “Until this federal shutdown ends, we will do what we always do: look out for our neighbors and step up to help in times of need. I’m grateful to our community partners and encourage every resident who is able to join us in caring for our community.”  

Beginning Saturday Nov. 1, people across the state who depend on the Wisconsin FoodShare assistance program will be at risk of losing that aid, due to the discontinuation of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) as a result of the government shutdown.

A Milwaukee County press release said that over 230,000 local residents will be left without food assistance “with no clear end in sight”. The release also noted that if the shutdown continues into December, then Section 8 housing benefits will also be on the chopping block. This aspect of the shutdown could lead the Milwaukee County Department of Health and Human Services to not pay federally mandated portions of rent costs, placing a strain on tenants and small-scale landlords. 

“I have been clear as day: no one wins in a shutdown,” said U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin. “Republicans and Donald Trump need to finally come to the table to end this shutdown and lower health care costs for families…Wisconsin families just want to live a comfortable life where they can put food on the table, afford their health care and monthly bills, and not have Washington politics butting into their life. While Wisconsin’s House Republicans are on day 42 of a paid vacation and President Trump is just coming home from another foreign trip, Wisconsinites are going to wake up tomorrow to find their health care premiums are skyrocketing and food assistance is being taken from them. Enough is enough.”

 

Food drive donations are being accepted at locations across the county including:

• Milwaukee City Hall (200 E. Wells St)
• Milwaukee County Courthouse (901 N. 9th St)
• Zeidler Municipal Building (841 N. Broadway)
• Marcia P. Coggs Health & Human Services Center (1230 W. Cherry St)
• Hillview (1615 S. 22nd Street)
• Fiserv Forum (1111 Vel R. Phillips Avenue)
• All Milwaukee public schools 
• All Milwaukee library branches
• The Mason Temple Church (6058 N. 35th St)
  

Residents can also donate to NourishMKE or Feeding America if they’d like to provide financial assistance to programs. While republicans blame the shutdown on democrats wanting to protect people living in the country without legal documentation, democrats say they’re attempting to preserve Affordable Healthcare Act health insurance subsidies which, if allowed to expire, would lead to inflated health costs for people across the country, including some 310,000 Wisconsinites, many of whom would see their insurance payments rise between 45 and 800%.

“This hunger crisis did not need to happen,” said Congresswoman Gwen Moore in a statement. “The Trump Administration is purposefully withholding $5 billion in contingency funding, so they can inflict maximum pain and hardship on the American people…Unlike what Republicans claim, this won’t only hurt my district, but their constituents throughout Wisconsin, including rural areas. SNAP is a lifeline, not a political weapon.” 

Milwaukee Mayor Cavalier Johnson said he was grateful that neighbors were uniting “so that hunger does not rule the day.” Johnson said, however that, “donations and food drives are a temporary fix. We need resolution to this shutdown so that the federal government can resume the important work we ask of it.”

As the government shutdown continues, federal employees who work in Milwaukee County are also feeling the pressure. Many have been furloughed from their jobs, or are working without pay. At Mitchell International Airport, federal air traffic and security workers are not getting paid, as are Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) workers. The Veteran Affairs Regional Benefits Office in Milwaukee is closed due to furloughed employees. 

 

State Street in Wauwatosa flooded out. (Photo courtesy of Baiba Rozite)

U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Milwaukee) is raising an alarm after Wisconsin was denied flood mitigation funds by the Trump administration. The assistance, which was denied by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), would have  helped the state prepare for situations like the record-breaking floods that swept through southeastern Wisconsin in August. 

“The risks of severe flooding will only increase due to climate change, and our community needs to be prepared,” Moore said in a statement Thursday. “FEMA’s ill-conceived decision denies our state the opportunity to take proactive efforts to prevent future flooding and damage, which saves homeowners and taxpayers dollars in the long run.”

Research shows that severe storms and flooding will increase in Wisconsin due to climate change. Shortly after the August floods, which inundated parks and left over 1,800 homes damaged or  destroyed, Wisconsin Policy Forum noted a “dramatic increase” in extreme rain and flooding events, resulting in higher payouts for flood insurance. 

Although the Trump administration  approved a first round of disaster funds to assist individual homes and small businesses, additional support to help repair public infrastructure was also denied in late October. Counties in areas represented by both Democrats and Republicans were denied additional assistance.

“State and local governments cannot do it alone,” said Moore. “I expect Gov. Evers will rightly appeal this denial, and I hope that request will get bipartisan support in our congressional delegation. As our communities continue to recover, it is clear there is a need to build our communities back stronger and more resilient. I will continue advocating for Wisconsin’s needs at the federal level and push back against these ill-advised decisions.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A protester holds a photo of Kilmar Abrego Garcia as demonstrators gather to protest against the deportation of immigrants to El Salvador outside the Permanent Mission of El Salvador to the United Nations on April 24, 2025 in New York City.  (Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A federal judge in Maryland on Friday approved the transfer of Kilmar Abrego Garcia from immigration detention in Pennsylvania to Nashville, Tennessee, for a multi-day hearing in his criminal case brought by the Trump administration after an erroneous deportation to El Salvador. 

The Trump administration previously planned as soon as Friday to again deport Abrego Garcia, this time to the West African country of Liberia. Abrego Garcia has protections from deportation to his home country of El Salvador after an immigration judge in 2019 feared he would face violence if removed there. 

Maryland District Judge Paula Xinis will allow for the transfer for his multi-day hearing on Nov. 4 and 5, according to court documents. 

Xinis, who was nominated by former President Barack Obama, is overseeing Abrego Garcia’s challenge to his detention, which is separate from the criminal case. His attorneys argue the Trump administration is keeping Abrego Garcia in detention to punish him, rather than seeking deportation. 

Abrego Garcia has agreed to be removed to Costa Rica, which has offered to accept him as a refugee. The Trump administration also has floated several other African countries as deportation destinations for Abrego Garcia: Ghana, Eswatini and Uganda.

Deportation, criminal charges

The Trump administration in March erroneously deported Abrego Garcia, a longtime Maryland resident, to a notorious mega-prison in El Salvador — a move that thrust a spotlight on the realities of the president’s immigration crackdown. 

Facing mounting pressures from various courts that ordered Abrego Garcia’s return, the Trump administration brought him back in June to face criminal charges lodged against him by the Justice Department that stemmed from a traffic stop in 2022. 

Those charges, to which Abrego Garcia has pleaded not guilty, accuse him of smuggling migrants across the country. 

The federal judge overseeing Abrego Garcia’s criminal trial in Nashville, U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw, this week filed an order warning Trump administration officials, including Attorney General Pam Bondi and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, they could face sanctions if they continue to make inflammatory remarks about Abrego Garcia. 

Members of the Trump administration, including President Donald Trump, have without evidence repeatedly labeled Abrego Garcia as an MS-13 gang member. 

Tennessee hearing

The multi-day hearing for Abrego Garcia in Tennessee comes after Crenshaw earlier this month found there was a “likelihood” that the DOJ indictment against Abrego Garcia was vindictive. Obama also nominated Crenshaw.

Abrego Garcia was living in Maryland with his wife and their three children when he was arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents earlier this year and notified that there had been a change in his status. Because of the deportation protections, Abrego Garcia was required to check in with ICE each year.

The USDA has announced it will stop providing nutrition assistance on Nov. 1. Milwaukee officials and nonprofits are organizing a food drive to try to meet residents' needs. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Local officials and community organizations are uniting to provide families with food and basic necessities during the government shutdown. City and county governments together with  the Milwaukee Public School District, the Milwaukee Bucks and faith groups are organizing a food drive with Feeding America Western Wisconsin and Nourish MKE. The drive will begin immediately and continue until FoodShare benefits are restored. 

On Nov. 1, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits are expected to end amidst a government shutdown in Washington D.C.. Across the nation, there are over 42 million Americans who depend on the federal food assistance program. 

“The federal government shutdown needs to end,” said Mayor Cavalier Johnson. “This is not an abstract issue. It’s about whether families can afford to eat. While Washington debates, Milwaukee is stepping up. We’re coming together to keep each other fed, safe and cared for. That’s who we are as a city.” 

Food drive  donations will be accepted locations across the city including:

• Milwaukee City Hall (200 E. Wells St)
• Milwaukee County Courthouse (901 N. 9th St)
• Zeidler Municipal Building (841 N. Broadway)
• Marcia P. Coggs Health & Human Services Center (1230 W. Cherry St)
• Hillview (1615 S. 22nd Street)
• Fiserv Forum (1111 Vel R. Phillips Avenue)
• All Milwaukee public schools 
• All Milwaukee library branches
• The Mason Temple Church (6058 N. 35th St)

“Food insecurity affects physical health, mental health and stability to entire households,” said Shakita LaGrant-McClain, director of the Milwaukee County Department of Health and Human Services. “I encourage everyone to consider donating to your local food pantry. This is a time where the community really needs to come together.”

Democrats have insisted that any resolution to continue funding the federal government must include renewing Affordable Care Act health insurance subsidies which are set to expire soon, causing health costs to skyrocket across the country, including for 310,000 Wisconsinites, many of whom will see their insurance payments rise by between 45 and 800%.  Milwaukee and surrounding counties  are also still reeling from the denial of FEMA disaster assistance to help repair damage left behind by the historic floods in August. 

“Milwaukee County is strong and resilient, but the health and wellbeing of our residents and families should never be casualties of political fights in Washington,” said Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley. “Until this federal shutdown ends, we will do what we always do: look out for our neighbors and step up to help in times of need. I’m grateful to all our community partners to encourage every resident who is able to join us in caring for our community.” 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

State and local government officials in Wisconsin objected Friday to the Trump administration’s decision to deny additional  disaster assistance to rebuild infrastructure in  Door, Grant, Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Washington and Waukesha counties after the historic floods in August. 

Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley said the decision left him feeling “extremely disappointed.” Crowley spoke from his office at the Milwaukee County Courthouse Friday, saying that the funds would go towards repairing parks, government buildings, and other public infrastructure damaged by the so-called flooding which swept communities two months ago. 

When the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) initially sent disaster relief after the floods, Crowley said he “commended the Trump administration,” and that “I thought that we were putting politics behind us in making sure that communities can recover.” Crowley said that by Friday over $123 million in financial assistance has been distributed to county residents for home repairs. 

But it’s not just local businesses and homes that were damaged. The rainfall, which fell in a torrential downpour on the weekend of Aug. 9, left Hart Park in Wauwatosa underwater. Downed trees and other debris were strewn along roadways. Cars, swept away by the overnight flooding, were abandoned in the street for days. 

Over 1,800 homes were left damaged or destroyed, with an estimated $34 million in damage to public infrastructure. “The preliminary damage assessments show that the damage that we saw throughout all six counties is more than significant,” said Crowley. “Roads and bridges that our residents rely on sustained substantial damage. Public buildings and facilities were not only washed away, but in some cases had significant mold contamination that will also impact the public health and safety of our residents. Our parks and our trails, they were damaged, which will harm our quality of life in the short term, as well as the long term, and the list goes on.”

Crowley pointed to Hart Park as a prime example of an area with lingering damage additional funds could remedy. As the disaster relief is denied, Milwaukee County is also in the middle of crafting a budget which will not be padded by COVID-era federal funds. County supervisors are currently debating amendments to Crowley’s proposed $1.4 billion budget, which carries cuts to transit services and eviction legal defense programs and increases property taxes by 4.1%.

“We’re already making challenging decisions about funding not only programs and services, but future infrastructure spending, and capital projects that are needed not only now, but in the years ahead. Today’s action by the Trump administration will send us back even further. It will delay progress in our recovery efforts from this natural disaster, and it will place a financial burden solely on local taxpayers who have already had to sacrifice so much as a result of these floods.” 

Gov. Tony Evers issued a statement Friday saying he filed an appeal asking the Trump administration to release more than $26.5 million in public assistance for infrastructure repair  it has denied. “Denying federal assistance doesn’t just delay recovery, it sends a message to our communities that they are on their own, and that the Trump administration doesn’t think over $26 million in damages to public infrastructure is worthy of their help,” Evers said in a press statement. “I couldn’t disagree more. The federal government should not expect our communities to go through this alone, and we are going to fight tooth and nail to ensure they get every possible resource to rebuild and recover. We are hopeful that the Trump administration will reconsider this decision, so we can make sure folks have the resources and support they need.”

The denial comes during a federal government shutdown that has lasted nearly a month. In a letter to Evers, FEMA said that while the flood damage was significant, assessments determined that “the public assistance program is not warranted.” 

The storm and flooding was dubbed a “thousand year storm” and dumped record-breaking amounts of rain essentially overnight. Wisconsin now has 30 days to send an appeal. 

“Turning your back on families facing washed-out roads, damaged schools, and flooded homes because they’re not seen as political allies is unconscionable,” said Kerry Schumann, executive director of Wisconsin Conservation Voters in a statement. “These communities didn’t cause this crisis, but they’re living through it. They deserve leadership that helps them recover and protects them from the next flood, not one that deepens the damage.” 

“By denying federal assistance, the Trump Administration is leaving Wisconsin communities to fend for themselves,” said U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin. “No community can pick up these pieces alone, and Wisconsinites need support so they can rebuild and be on the road to recovery. I hope my Republican colleagues will join me in calling on the Trump administration to step up to the plate and be here for Wisconsin communities left in the lurch.

U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore, Democrat of Milwaukee, also expressed  frustration. “Our state was forced to wait nearly two months for the Trump administration’s ill-advised and disappointing decision,” Moore said in a statement. “Communities in Milwaukee, which are still recovering, are counting on federal assistance to help fund critical repairs to public roadways, buildings, vehicles, and equipment that were severely damaged.” Nevertheless, Moore said, “Wisconsinites do not give up.” 

Rep. Kalan Haywood (D-Milwaukee) also issued a statement condemning the denial. Haywood said that the Trump administration “is sending a clear message to the people of Wisconsin – ‘we do not care about you’.” Haywood added that, “these funds are so badly needed to repair infrastructure, businesses, and schools. These are all essential to reverse the trend of President Trump’s faltering economy. Our residents pay millions in federal taxes and they should not face these hardships alone.” 

Haywood added  that Wisconsin’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) “is on the verge of drying up.” while  “communities are left to rebuild major infrastructure on their own, it is disappointing that the White House is choosing a $300 million ballroom ego-project over the well-being of the people of our state. It is my hope that FEMA reconsiders this decision to ensure that Wisconsin residents have a chance to recover and prosper. Wisconsinites deserve better and should demand better.”

Two bills related to disaster relief (AB-580 and AB-581) have been introduced to the Wisconsin Legislature as communities process the news. One bill would require the Department of Military Affairs to create a program to award grants to individuals and businesses severely impacted by disasters related to a state of emergency declared by the governor. Grants of no more than $25,000 could be awarded under the bill to an individual to help repair a residence, and grants of no more than $50,000 would go to businesses. The other bill would also work through the Department of Military Affairs, and would appropriate $10 million in  disaster assistance grants for individuals, and $20 million in grants for businesses in the 2025-26 fiscal year. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The roof of the Hotel Verdant in Downtown Racine is topped with a green roof planted with sedum and covered with solar panels. (Wisconsin Examiner photo)

The news that $130 million in already-committed clean-energy funding for Wisconsin is on the chopping block is not abstract politics. It pulls real tools out of Wisconsin homes, schools, farms, and shop floors — right as our state is building momentum. The result is simple: higher bills, fewer choices, and lost jobs.

In a purple state like ours, climate action has succeeded because it’s kitchen-table common sense. It lowers costs, creates good local jobs, and protects the air and water families depend on. Our playbook is pragmatic — align smart policy with market innovation, center justice, and let businesses, workers, tribes and frontline communities lead together. Clawing back funds mid-stream breaks that compact and injects uncertainty just when we need reliability and speed.

What’s at stake here and now

Across Wisconsin, 82 clean-energy projects are moving forward: EV-charging corridors that support tourism and commerce from Superior to Kenosha; solar on schools and farms that cuts operating costs and keeps dollars local; grid upgrades that reduce outages for households and manufacturers. Clean energy already supports more than 71,000 Wisconsin jobs, with manufacturers, contractors and building trades poised to add tens of thousands more if the rules stay steady.

This is not coastal hype — it’s Menomonee Valley and the Fox Valley. Companies like Ingeteam in Milwaukee build components that power wind and EV projects nationwide. Give our manufacturers clear, predictable rules and Wisconsin will keep making core parts of the transition -— batteries, solar panels, wind components, EV chargers, and smart-grid equipment -— right here at home.

Schools and local governments are also using direct-pay to put solar on rooftops, electrify buses, and cut fuel and maintenance. Green Homeowners United and similar groups are helping thousands of households -— including many lower-income homeowners of color — tap rebates that reduce bills and carbon at the same time. These are the practical tools that stretch tight budgets and improve health outcomes in neighborhoods that have carried the burden the longest.

The real cost of policy whiplash

Rolling back incentives is a hidden tax on working families — up to $400 more a year on energy without the savings tools people are using now. With AI and data centers accelerating demand, the cheapest, fastest reliability gains come from efficiency, storage, and renewables. Cut those tools and we invite more price volatility and more outage risk — exactly what Wisconsin manufacturers, hospitals and farms can’t afford.

The “Big, Broken Bill” passed in Washington goes further, weakening EPA pollution standards and letting big polluters sidestep responsibility. That doesn’t eliminate costs; it shifts them to families in the form of asthma, missed school days and medical bills. It’s not fiscal conservatism to socialize pollution costs while privatizing short-term profits.

And for farmers, whose energy and conservation projects were finally penciling out with IRA tools, canceling support mid-contract leaves family farms holding the bag after planning in good faith. That’s not how you build durable rural economies.

Momentum that continues even if funds are cut

Here’s the other half of the story: Wisconsin’s transition won’t stop because some programs are attacked. Market forces, including  the declining cost of renewables and storage, efficiency that pays for itself and corporate and municipal sustainability commitments, continue to drive projects. Public-private partnerships, rural co-ops, tribal governments, school districts and village halls are working together to reduce risk, share data, and scale what works. That coalition will keep moving.

But let’s be clear: Clawbacks and moving goalposts slow us down and raise costs. They strand planning, freeze hiring and deter investment — especially in manufacturing corridors that depend on multi-year production schedules. If Congress wants to improve programs, fine. Just don’t pull the rug out mid-project.

Purple-state practicality: Results over rhetoric

Wisconsin’s approach is neither red nor blue; it’s results-based:

• Lower bills and stronger reliability through weatherization, heat pumps, rooftop and community solar and batteries that keep homes and Main Street businesses running during heat waves and deep freezes.
• Good local jobs in design, construction, electrical, HVAC, machining and advanced manufacturing.
• Cleaner air from electrified school buses and efficient buildings, health benefits that show up in fewer sick days and lower costs.
• Fairness by ensuring benefits land first where burdens have been heaviest.

We’ve also learned to say no when it matters and yes to better options. When a $2 billion methane gas plant was proposed, business and civic leaders asked basic questions: Is this the least-cost, least-risk path for ratepayers? Would it lock us into volatile fuel prices just as renewables, storage, demand response and efficiency are scaling? Pushing for a cleaner, more affordable portfolio wasn’t ideology. It was risk management.

A constructive path forward

• Keep the tools that help Wisconsin build here, hire here, and save here. Don’t rip away commitments families, schools, farms and manufacturers are already using.
• Provide certainty so manufacturers can invest in people and equipment. Certainty is economic development.
• Target affordability and reliability: Expand programs that lower bills, reduce outages, and prioritize investments in communities that have waited the longest for cleaner air and safer housing.
• Let locals lead: Support direct-pay and streamlined approvals for schools, municipalities, tribes and rural co-ops to deploy projects faster and cheaper.

Wisconsin has the talent, the supply chains — more than 350 in-state clean-energy companies — and the tradition of stewardship to lead the clean-energy economy. If we stay focused on trust, collaboration and measurable results, Wisconsin’s green momentum will outpace politics.

Don’t make Wisconsinites pay more to get less. Let’s build it here, power it here and prosper here.

John Imes is co-founder and executive director of the Wisconsin Environmental Initiative and village president of Shorewood Hills. He will speak Oct. 22 on the American Sustainable Business Network national panel “Purple State, Green Momentum” — how Wisconsin’s pragmatic climate playbook lowers bills, creates good local jobs, and protects our air and water.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A man closes the entrance to Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine on Oct. 3 in Baltimore because of the federal government shutdown. States are currently covering costs of some federal programs, but it’s unclear whether they will be repaid once the government reopens. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

States are doing what they generally do during a federal government shutdown: continuing to operate programs serving some of the neediest people.

That means schools are still serving federally subsidized meals and states are distributing funding for the federal food stamp program. For now.

If the shutdown drags on and federal dollars run out, states can only keep programs going for so long. States may choose to pay for some services themselves so residents keep their benefits.

But this time, state leaders have new worries about getting reimbursed for federal costs once the federal spending impasse is resolved. That’s traditionally been the practice following a shutdown, but the Trump administration’s record of pulling funding and targeting Democratic-led states has some officials worried about what comes after the shutdown.

Many states already struggled to balance their own budgets this year. And some fear going without federal reimbursement for shutdown costs could force states to make painful cuts to their own budget priorities.

Nevada State Treasurer Zach Conine, a Democrat, said the administration has not made good on its word to states in recent months — freezing some congressionally approved funding and cutting already awarded grants. So it’s likewise unclear whether the federal government will follow previous practice and reimburse states for covering shutdown costs of crucial federal programs such as food assistance.

“I think everything is a risk with this administration. … We in the states are kind of left holding the bag yet again as the federal government tries to sort out what it wants to be when it grows up,” he told Stateline.

Nevada entered the shutdown with more than $1.2 billion in reserves. Last week, Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo’s office said in a statement that state funds would be adequate to cover “a short period of time with minimal disruption to services.”

But the governor’s office said a shutdown of more than 30 days would cause more significant challenges for the state.

Lombardo’s office did not respond to Stateline’s questions. But last week, it released a three-page document on the shutdown, saying it expected the federal government to reimburse states once the budget stalemate is resolved.

“As D.C. works through its issues, our administration will continue to support Nevadans in any way we can throughout this unnecessary federal government shutdown,” Lombardo said in the statement.

While mandatory programs such as Medicaid and Social Security continue to send funds to beneficiaries during the shutdown, funding for other safety net programs such as food assistance are more uncertain. The federal government told states there were enough funds for the food stamp program to cover October benefits, though the special food program for women, infants and children may run out of money sooner.

By furloughing workers and halting federal spending, the shutdown could cost the national economy $15 billion per week, President Donald Trump’s economic advisers estimated.

The White House says a prolonged shutdown will affect the economies of every state by reducing employment, federal benefits and consumer spending. White House estimates say this could cost Michigan $361 million per week in lost economic output, for example, while Florida could lose $911 million each week.

‘Fend for themselves’

Some federal services are shuttered during a shutdown: The Environmental Protection Agency has ceased many research, permitting and enforcement efforts, and official jobs data is no longer being released. Federal funds for other programs, including food assistance, are expected to last through the end of the month. But states can elect to spend their own funds on these programs, which were previously authorized by Congress and state legislatures.

Before the shutdown, states were stockpiling reserve funding. The National Association of State Budget Officers reported most state budgets this year maintained or increased rainy day funds. At the same time, state and local governments are borrowing record amounts: As much as $600 billion in municipal bonds is projected to be issued by the end of 2025.

“So states and localities are kind of getting the message they really need to fend for themselves much more than they ever had,” said William Glasgall, public finance adviser at the Volcker Alliance, a nonprofit that works to support public sector workers.

Since January, the Trump administration has stripped states and cities of billions of dollars that Congress approved for education, infrastructure and energy projects. Glasgall said that record leaves states with legitimate concerns about getting repaid for their shutdown-related expenses — a prospect that would likely spark even more lawsuits from Democratic-led states.

“They’ve already, before the shutdown, started rolling back federal funding, and I don’t see any reason why they would stop now,” he said. “The recissions that have been announced are pretty harsh, and it’s money we’re expecting and not getting.”

The last shutdown, which lasted five weeks during Trump’s first term, delayed billions in federal spending and reduced gross domestic product — the value of all goods and services produced — by $11 billion, the Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2019. Experts say states were repaid for costs they incurred providing federal services during that shutdown.

In Minnesota, State Budget Director Ahna Minge said staff have been studying previous shutdowns. But at a news conference with Democratic Gov. Tim Walz last week, she characterized this shutdown as “unpredictable.”

“The current federal administration may not follow the historic playbook,” she said.

Walz said farmers would be among the first hit as the federal Farm Service Agency has ceased operations in the middle of the state’s harvest season. Among other duties, that agency works on disaster assistance and processes loans during harvest to protect farmers against commodity price fluctuations.

Minge said Minnesota officials think programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for Women, Infants and Children have enough existing federal funds to operate through October. But she said the state budget cannot backfill all the commitments made by federal programs.

“What we know is that the longer a shutdown lasts, the greater the impact to state programs and services,” she said.

Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont, a Democrat, has pledged to use state dollars to keep WIC afloat if needed, The Associated Press reported. And Colorado lawmakers set aside $7.5 million just before the shutdown to keep WIC running.

Already under strain

In Maryland, the shutdown is compounding the economic instability from Trump’s ongoing efforts to shrink the number of federal employees, agencies and spending.

With more than 160,000 federal employees, Maryland’s economy relies heavily on the federal workforce. The Trump administration has said it may deny back pay to hundreds of thousands of furloughed federal workers, despite a law he signed in 2019 guaranteeing such back pay.

Chief Deputy Comptroller Andrew Schaufele told lawmakers last week that a shutdown could cost the state $700,000 per day in lost tax revenue.

Democratic Gov. Wes Moore pledged to continue funding some federal programs, but said the state would not tap into its rainy day funds to do so.

“We’re going to continually evaluate how long we can go,” he said at a news conference.

As for getting repaid, Moore spokesperson David Turner told Stateline that the state had received no indication that the federal government would deviate from past practice, “but we are monitoring closely.”

This fiscal uncertainty hits states as they are already struggling to respond to the strain of federal agency layoffs and cuts in the major tax and spending law Trump signed this summer. The law slashed billions in social service funding and created costly new bureaucratic burdens for states, which administer Medicaid and food assistance programs.

“There’s no way, really at this point, to sort of assess with any level of confidence what’s going to happen when you also have these massive layoffs that were going on pre-shutdown,” said Lisa Parshall, a professor of political science at Daemen University in New York. “There’s just a real sense from states and localities — and I think rightly so — that that kind of reliability of the federal government is now in question.”

It may not be a question of whether states are reimbursed for their shutdown expenses, but which states are reimbursed, Parshall said. The Trump administration has publicly targeted funding of liberal-led states and cities over policy disagreements, raising the possibility it could do something similar with the shutdown.

“Whether it’s a good thing or a bad thing, you know, you could argue,” she said. “But it’s definitely a thing that seems to be adding to this level of uncertainty — this shutdown feels different.”

In California, officials just closed a nearly $12 billion shortfall when negotiating the budget that was approved in June. The budget deficit is expected to grow to more than $17 billion next year, said H.D. Palmer, spokesperson for the State of California Department of Finance, which advises the governor and state agencies on budget issues.

“There isn’t a long-term, open-ended line of credit available if this drags out,” he said of the federal government shutdown.

The depth of reserve funds available varies by federally funded program, he said. CalFresh, California’s name for its Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, has enough funds to cover food stamp benefits for this month, but anything beyond that is uncertain.

“If the duration of this is in the matter of days, it will be an inconvenience, but should not pose a massive problem,” he said. “However, if it does drag out for an extended period of time, then clearly it’s going to be a problem.”

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org.

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

WASHINGTON — The White House slammed a President Donald Trump-appointed federal judge Monday for blocking the deployment of National Guard troops to Oregon, as hostilities escalate between the administration and Democratic states where Trump has begun sending in troops over governors’ objections.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the Trump administration is within legal bounds and will appeal the district court’s decision, which she described as “untethered in reality and in the law.” 

“The president is using his authority as commander in chief, U.S. Code 12406, which clearly states that the president has the right to call up the National Guard in cases where he deems it’s appropriate,” Leavitt said at the press briefing, referring to a section in Title 10 of the U.S. Code that authorizes the president to send in the National Guard in cases of invasion or rebellion.

Leavitt told reporters that a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, facility in Portland where nightly protests have been occurring has been “under siege” by “anarchists.”

“They have been disrespecting law enforcement. They’ve been inciting violence,” Leavitt said.

Mainstream local media reports and statements from local officials have contradicted that claim.

​​”There is no need for military intervention in Oregon. There is no insurrection in Portland. No threat to national security,” Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek, a Democrat, said in a statement Sunday.

Federal agents used tear gas and pepper balls on nonviolent protesters Saturday evening, according to local media reports.

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker also filed a legal challenge against the administration Monday morning. A federal judge set a hearing for Thursday. Illinois and Chicago sought a temporary restraining order to stop Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth from ordering Texas and Illinois Guard troops to the country’s third-largest city.

Trump teases Insurrection Act 

Trump on Monday afternoon raised the possibility of invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807, a tool to expand the president’s legal authority for using military personnel for domestic law enforcement.

Asked by a reporter in the Oval Office the conditions under which he would invoke the law, Trump said “if it was necessary,” and speculated that he could use it to defy courts or state officials.

“So far it hasn’t been necessary,” he said. “But we have an Insurrection Act for a reason. If I had to enact it, I’d do that. If people were getting killed and courts were holding us up or governors or mayors were holding us up, sure, I’d do that. I want to make sure that people aren’t killed. We have to make sure our cities are safe.”

Court battle in Portland 

In Oregon, federal District Judge Karin Immergut broadened her order Sunday night barring the Trump administration from deploying any National Guard troops to Portland. 

The edict came after Trump and Hegseth defied a temporary restraining order that Immergut issued Saturday halting 200 Oregon National Guard troops from being sent there. 

Immergut was nominated by Trump in 2019 and confirmed by the U.S. Senate by voice vote.

The administration maintains the Guard is needed to protect federal agents, as sustained small protests pop up outside an ICE facility 2 miles south of city hall. Kotek rebuffed Trump’s claims that the city is “on fire” and said local authorities are equipped to handle the demonstrations that lately range from a dozen or so people to roughly 100.

Trump ordered 101 California National Guard troops to Portland overnight, without the knowledge of Kotek, she said Sunday. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a fellow Democrat, confirmed that Trump had ordered up to 300 of his state’s National Guard troops to Oregon. 

Just before Immergut’s Sunday night emergency hearing, an Oregon assistant attorney general filed a memo with the court showing that Hegseth had ordered 400 Texas National Guard troops to Portland and Chicago.

California joined Oregon and Portland in suing the administration.

‘A domestic militarization’

Pritzker said he has urged Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to “immediately withdraw his support for this decision and refuse to allow Texas National Guard members to be used in this way.”

“Let me be clear, Donald Trump is using our service members as political props and as pawns in his illegal effort to militarize our nation’s cities,” Pritzker said at a press conference Monday afternoon.

Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul said the deployment “is unfair to National Guardsmen, it is unfair to local law enforcement, and it is certainly unfair to the law-abiding citizens of Illinois who do not want to be subject to military occupation.”

Chicago is nearly a month into a federal immigration crackdown. Dozens of federal agents raided an apartment building in the city’s South Shore neighborhood on Sept. 30, ziptying adults and children, and detaining some U.S. citizens, according to multiple media reports. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security published a highly produced video of the raid on social media.

Trump’s federalization and deployment of National Guard troops to mostly Democratic-run states has alarmed political and constitutional experts. 

Pat Eddington, senior fellow in homeland and civil liberties at the libertarian Cato Institute, said he agrees with Pritzker’s concerns.

“I share his belief 100% that the use of the American military and all these massive employment of ICE and HSI and FBI and marshals and the rest for ostensible immigration enforcement and ostensible crime control, it’s really designed to lay the groundwork to normalize a militarization, essentially a domestic militarization of Americans, civic life,” Eddington told States Newsroom in an interview in late September.

On a Monday afternoon press call, Hima Shansi, the head of the American Civil Liberties Union’s national security program, said Trump’s use of military and federal police forces in recent months “raises serious constitutional concerns in terms of federalism, the separation of powers between the federal government and the states which generally exercise police power.”

“What that means in real-people language is that, as the states have been saying, they are fully capable of doing their jobs as needed, and there is absolutely no reason for the president to assert federal power in the way that he is forcibly doing.”

Starting in Los Angeles

Trump federalized California National Guard troops and deployed U.S. Marines to Los Angeles in June in response to protests against aggressive immigration enforcement there. 

Newsom objected to the plan and sued to stop the deployment. A federal judge initially sided with the Democratic governor and blocked the deployment, but an appeals panel reversed the decision. 

The trial court ruled again in September that Trump had overstepped the line separating military forces from law enforcement. The administration has appealed.

While that case in California was ongoing, Trump also ordered the District of Columbia National Guard to assist local police in the nation’s capital. Because the district is a federal territory, it is relatively clear that move was within the president’s legal authority, even if many Trump critics questioned its necessity. 

National Guard troops from several Republican states also deployed to the district in a more legally dubious move.

Trump also ordered Tennessee National Guard troops to Memphis last month, with the approval of the state’s Republican governor.

Ashley Murray reported from Washington, D.C. Jacob Fischler reported from Portland, Oregon.

The Rev. Michael Vanacore leads a prayer before a rally ends Oct. 6, 2025, outside U.S. District Court in Greenbelt, Maryland,  before a hearing in support of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. (Photo by William J. Ford/Maryland Matters)

GREENBELT, Md. — A federal judge on Monday ordered the Trump administration to produce evidence within 48 hours on its efforts to again deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia, this time to the southern African country of Eswatini.

That evidence from the Trump administration is due by Wednesday to  Maryland District Court Judge Paula Xinis. She will consider an order to release Abrego Garcia as part of his habeas corpus petition, which challenges his detention at a U.S.immigration and Customs Enforcement facility. 

If the Trump administration is making no effort to remove Abrego Garcia, Xinis said the issue then becomes indefinite detainment of an individual, which runs against a Supreme Court ruling that found immigrants can’t be detained longer than six months if they are not in the process of being removed.

Abrego Garcia, the Salvadoran immigrant whom the Trump administration mistakenly deported to his home country and to a notorious mega-prison before returning him to the United States to face criminal charges, has thrown the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration crackdown into the spotlight. 

Xinis, nominated by former President Joe Biden, scheduled another hearing Friday, which will be about Abrego Garcia’s possible removal to Eswatini, formerly known as Swaziland. The African country has aided the Trump administration in accepting third-country removals.

Department of Justice attorney Jonathan D. Guynn during Monday’s hearing confirmed such a removal is planned at some point by the administration.

Xinis pressed DOJ attorneys on exactly what steps the federal government has taken to send Abrego Garcia to Eswatini.

Guynn said the federal government has not formally started a plan of removal, but said he could not confirm if removal plans were in motion. He argued that there are no imminent plans by the federal government to remove Abrego Garcia and the DOJ is trying to show that by keeping him in ICE custody.

“The government feels like it’s in the damned if it does, damned if it doesn’t, situation,” Guynn said. “The government has been trying to respond … about concerns that Mr. Abrego Garcia will be rapidly removed from the United States, notwithstanding his habeas case, and ongoing immigration proceedings, and so in an abundance of caution… the United States is not imminently planning to remove Mr. Abrego Garcia.” 

Previously the Trump administration planned to deport Abrego Garcia to either Uganda or Eswatini. 

DOJ attorneys also asked for a temporary stay in the habeas corpus petition because of the government shutdown. 

Xinis denied the stay. She pointed to the DOJ’s own shutdown contingency plan, which allows for litigation concerning habeas petitions to continue. 

Protests in support of Abrego Garcia

About an hour before Monday’s hearing, the immigrant advocacy group CASA led a rally in front of the courthouse to continue its show of support for Abrego Garcia.

About 100 people led chants shouting, “We are Kilmar!” “No More” and “When we fight, we win!” and held signs in support of Abrego Garcia and criticizing the Trump administration.

Religious leaders said prayers and a few other people spoke, such as Krystal Oriadha, who serves as vice chair of the Prince George’s County Council. Oriadha’s father was born in Kenya and immigrated to the U.S., where he met her mother in college.

“I understand the story of immigration, and it’s one that has been such a story of pride in my life because it’s filled of sacrifice, yes and struggles, but pride and love for your family and hard work,” she said. “It is what every immigrant stands for, not the propaganda that this administration is propping up calling hardworking, loving families criminals, demonizing them. So let’s be careful and mindful of the propaganda that they’re spilling today.”

Tennessee charges

The federal judge in Abrego Garcia’s criminal trial in Tennessee, in which he is accused of human smuggling of immigrants, on Friday granted Abrego Garcia an evidentiary hearing. It will determine if those charges from the Trump administration are an illegal retaliation after Abrego Garcia successfully brought a suit challenging his wrongful deportation to El Salvador. 

Separately, an immigration judge last week denied Abrego Garcia’s request to reopen his asylum case. 

Abrego Garcia first came to the U.S. without legal authorization as a teenager in 2011. He tried to open an asylum case in 2019, but was denied because he did not apply within his first year in the U.S., which is the legal deadline for such claims.

The Friday decision from that immigration judge ends one of the efforts for Abrego Garcia’s lawyers to keep him in the U.S., due to his protections from deportation to El Salvador. 

A separate immigration judge granted Abrego Garcia those protections from El Salvador in 2019, finding that Abrego Garcia would likely face violence if returned to his home country. 

At the time, the federal government didn’t search for a third country to remove Abrego Garcia. 

Six-month limit

Monday’s hearing focused on the time frame of Abrego Garcia’s detainment and whether it conflicted with a 2001 Supreme Court case, in which justices ruled immigrants who are not in the process of removal cannot be kept in ICE detention for more than six months. 

Xinis questioned the reason for Abrego Garcia’s detention since late August if the Trump administration had no evidence of its plans to remove the longtime Maryland man. 

Another DOJ attorney, Bridget K. O’Hickey, said the federal government has not formalized a removal plan for Abrego Garcia, adding that she didn’t know if there were any plans in the process. 

Xinis called a short break in the middle of Monday’s hearing to give the DOJ attorneys time to make any calls to get information if the Trump administration was removing him. 

DOJ attorney Ernesto H. Molina said he was unable to reach anyone, pointing to the possible furlough of federal workers.

“It just is remarkable to me that you’re saying you can’t find a soul who can give you, in this case, any additional information,” Xinis said. “That suggests there is none.” 

One of Abrego Garcia’s lawyers in the Maryland case, Simon Y. Sandoval-Moshenberg, argued that if the Trump administration wanted to remove Abrego Garcia, they would send him to Costa Rica, which has already agreed to accept Abrego Garicia as a refugee. 

Xinis asked why Abrego Garcia hasn’t been removed to Costa Rica. 

“We’ve received no communications, and I can’t even wrap my brain to think of a constitutionally permissible reason why they would be fighting over whether to send them across the Atlantic Ocean when they can, this afternoon, send him to Costa Rica,” Sandoval-Moshenberg said.

Xinis asked the DOJ attorneys if there has been any effort to remove Abrego Garcia to Costa Rica, but Molina and O’Hickey said they have not been informed of those efforts.

Human smuggling charges

Attorneys for Abrego Garcia’s criminal case in Nashville said in court filings that the Trump administration was trying to force him to plead guilty to  human smuggling charges by promising to remove him to Costa Rica if he does so, and threatening to deport him to Uganda if he refuses. 

Abrego Garcia has pleaded not guilty and was ordered released by the federal judge in Tennessee to await his trial there in January on charges he took part in a long-running conspiracy to smuggle immigrants without legal status across the United States. 

In late August, after Abrego Garcia was released from U.S. Marshals Service custody in Tennessee, immigration officials informed him he had to appear in Baltimore before the ICE field office for a check-in appointment. During that appointment, Abrego Garcia was detained. 

Xinis has previously ordered the Trump administration cannot remove Abrego Garcia from the U.S. while his habeas petition continues, and that he must be kept within 200 miles of the courthouse in Greenbelt, Maryland. Last month, the Trump administration transferred Abrego Garcia from a facility in Virginia to an ICE detention facility 189 miles away in Pennsylvania. 

William J. Ford contributed to this report. 

Federal police push towards a crowd of demonstrators at an ICE processing facility south of downtown Portland on Sat., Oct. 4, 2025. (Photo by Alex Baumhardt/Oregon Capital Chronicle)

Hours after a federal judge blocked the Trump administration from mobilizing 200 Oregon National Guard troops in Portland, the federal government began sending California National Guard troops to Oregon. 

Gov. Tina Kotek said Sunday that she’s aware that 101 California troops arrived in Oregon via plane overnight and that more were on their way. She received no official notice or correspondence from the federal government. 

Up to 300 soldiers from California are being sent to Oregon on Trump’s orders, California Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement Sunday.

Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, said in an email that Trump, “exercised his lawful authority to protect federal assets and personnel in Portland following violent riots and attacks on law enforcement. For once, Gavin Newscum should stand on the side of law-abiding citizens instead of violent criminals destroying Portland and cities across the country.”

Kotek said the move, “appears to (be) intentional to circumvent yesterday’s ruling by a federal judge. The facts haven’t changed. There is no need for military intervention in Oregon. There is no insurrection in Portland. No threat to national security. Oregon is our home, not a military target.”

Late Saturday afternoon, Trump-appointed federal Judge Karin Immergut approved a temporary restraining order to block the mobilization of Oregon troops until Oct. 18, with another check-in scheduled for Oct. 17. Attorneys for the federal government promptly filed a notice that they would appeal Immergut’s temporary order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

“This is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law,” Immergut wrote. “Defendants have made a range of arguments that, if accepted, risk blurring the line between civil and military federal power — to the detriment of this nation.”

Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield signaled Sunday that the state is ready to sue again to prevent the deployment of troops from California or anywhere else. 

“This president is obviously hellbent on deploying the military in American cities, absent facts or authority to do so,” Rayfield said. “It is up to us and the courts to hold him accountable. That’s what we intend to do.”

Newsom said California will also pursue legal action to stop Trump’s “breathtaking abuse of the law and power.”

“The commander-in-chief is using the U.S. military as a political weapon against American citizens,” Newsom said. “We will take this fight to court, but the public cannot stay silent in the face of such reckless and authoritarian conduct by the president of the United States.”

Protests have continued outside the Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Portland, with about 100 people on the streets Saturday night. 

At one point during the evening, federal agents used chemical irritants to push protesters a block away from the facility, further than protesters who have been out for weeks said they’ve been forced back before. A Portland Police spokesperson said local law enforcement were not aware of or assisting with the federal agents’ actions.

The ramping up of federal pressure on Portland has coincided with a similar display of force in Chicago over the past few days. During a speech to military officials last week, Trump said he wanted to use Democratic cities as “training grounds” for the military. 

Senior reporter Alex Baumhardt contributed to this article. 

Federal officers atop the ICE building in Portland on Sunday, Sept. 28, 2025. (Photo by Alex Baumhardt/Oregon Capital Chronicle)

This is a breaking news story and will be updated.

A federal judge has temporarily blocked President Donald Trump from federalizing and deploying Oregon National Guard troops to Portland following a challenge from the state and the city of Portland.

Judge Karin Immergut of the U.S. District Court in Portland granted the city and the Oregon Department of Justice a temporary restraining order Saturday afternoon, stopping for now Trump’s and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s plan to deploy 200 Oregon Guard troops to Portland to guard federal buildings.

The order expires Oct. 18, and the parties will discuss Oct. 17 whether the order should be extended for another two weeks. Federal lawyers have until Oct. 17 to argue for a preliminary injunction to block the temporary restraining order. Late Saturday, attorneys for the federal government also filed a notice that they would appeal Immergut’s temporary order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In her 30-page opinion, Immergut issued a powerful rebuke of Trump’s perception of his executive power and found he violated the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees police power within the states resides with the states. Immergut said protests in Portland were not by any definition a “rebellion” nor do they pose the “danger of a rebellion.”

“Furthermore, this country has a longstanding and foundational tradition of resistance to government overreach, especially in the form of military intrusion into civil affairs,” Immergut wrote. “This historical tradition boils down to a simple proposition: this is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law. Defendants have made a range of arguments that, if accepted, risk blurring the line between civil and military federal power — to the detriment of this nation.”

Oregon Guard members have in recent days been training at Camp Rilea in Warrenton in preparation for a potential activation to Portland. They now go back under the command of Gov. Tina Kotek, Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said in a Saturday evening news conference.

“Today’s ruling halts what appears to be the president’s attempt to normalize the United States military in our cities,” Rayfield said. “Mobilizing the United States military in our cities is not normal, it should not be normal, and we will fight to make sure that it is never normal.”

Portland’s Mayor Keith Wilson at the same news conference said the state “won through peace.”

“I’ve said from the very beginning, the number of federal troops that are needed or wanted is zero,” he said.

Kotek in a statement Saturday evening said the ruling meant “the truth has prevailed.”

“There is no insurrection in Portland,” Kotek continued. “No threat to national security. No fires, no bombs, no fatalities due to civil unrest. The only threat we face is to our democracy — and it is being led by President Donald Trump.”

Oregon’s senior U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat, said in a statement Trump was provoking, not quelling, conflict by trying to deploy federal troops.

“I will keep working with local and state officials to ensure Trump does not keep wasting millions of taxpayer dollars to make Portland the center of his perverse fantasy about conducting assaults on U.S. cities,” Wyden said.

Trump at a Tuesday speech with military leaders said “we should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds” for the U.S. military. In the same meeting he described Portland as “like World War II.”

By Saturday morning, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker said Trump had notified him that he would soon federalize 300 National Guard troops in Illinois to guard federal property in Chicago, against Pritzker’s wishes. It’s unclear yet what bearing Immergut’s ruling in Oregon could have on any lawsuits brought against Trump in Illinois over the attempted deployment there.

Trump has claimed in posts on his social media site TruthSocial that the ICE processing facility south of downtown Portland is under attack by anti-fascists and domestic terrorists. He used the site to announce on Sept. 27 that he’d attempt to deploy troops to Portland.

The facility has drawn weekly protests of just a couple dozen people in recent months, and they have remained mostly peaceful. The local U.S. attorney has brought charges against 26 people since early June for crimes at the protest site, including arson and resisting arrest.

Protests last weekend grew to a couple hundred following Trump’s call for federal reinforcement. The protests have stayed mostly peaceful, with Portland Police arresting several men throughout the week for fighting, including a right-wing influencer, according to reporting in The Oregonian. The U.S. Justice Department said Friday it’s launching an investigation into the Portland Police Department over that influencer’s arrest.

On Saturday, as hundreds protested at the ICE facility, federal agents used chemical sprays on the crowd and several people were arrested, according to reporting from Oregon Public Broadcasting.

Later in the evening, after Immergut’s ruling, federal agents used chemical irritants to push protesters back a block from the building, farther than protesters said they had been pushed back prior. A Portland Police Bureau spokesperson said the agency did not assist or have any knowledge of their actions and that the bureau has not had any discussions about jurisdiction.

Federal forces inexplicably tried to move all protestors out a city block using chemical irritants.

— Alex Baumhardt (@alexbaumhardt.bsky.social) 2025-10-05T03:51:26.440Z

“I call on all federal law enforcement to meet the high standards set by the Portland Police Bureau,” Wilson said. “We need them to focus on transparent use of force, clear officer identification, strict limits on chemical munitions and mandatory body worn cameras. The Federal Protective Services’ core values are service, integrity, honor and vigilance. Now is the time to live up to those principles, not erode them with masks and violence.”

Oregon’s U.S. Rep. Maxine Dexter, who represents the state’s 3rd Congressional District that includes parts of Portland, said she peacefully protested in the city’s Lloyd District on Saturday, and that she is concerned about the excessive force she saw federal officers using against protestors in videos taken at the ICE facility south of downtown.

“It is absolutely antithetical to your First Amendment rights, and we know that the administration is not encouraging restraint at this moment, so please continue to stay away from the ICE facility,” she said.

In a two-hour hearing over the temporary restraining order Friday, senior assistant Oregon attorney general Scott Kennedy called the attempted federal deployment “one of most dramatic infringements on state sovereignty in Oregon’s history.”

Eric Hamilton, a lawyer for the federal government, called protestors outside the ICE facility in Portland “vicious and cruel” and said federal police, ICE agents and Department of Homeland Security agents were overworked and needed Guard reinforcement.

Rayfield requested the restraining order motion on behalf of the state and the city of Portland as part of their broader lawsuit filed against Trump, Hegseth, U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

That suit, also filed in U.S. District Court in Portland, alleges the federal leaders and their agencies by attempting to send troops to Portland are violating the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, which guarantees police power within states resides with the states. They also allege the federal government is violating the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally forbids military members from conducting domestic law enforcement. The state and Portland also allege the city is being singled out for political retaliation.

White House budget director Russ Vought, who is depicted as the Grim Reaper in a video posted by President Donald Trump during the shutdown in October 2025,  speaks with reporters inside the U.S. Capitol building on July 15, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Trump administration officials on Friday defended the decision to cancel federal projects in regions of the country that have voted for Democrats, saying the move isn’t political but an effort to reduce the size and scope of government during the shutdown.

Republican leaders in Congress also backed the White House’s decision to punish Democratic voters by unilaterally canceling funding that lawmakers approved on a bipartisan basis. Democrats, however, said it’s an unacceptable escalation that further erodes Congress’ constitutional authority over spending.

“The president and (White House budget director) Russ Vought were not given any additional authority under a shutdown, and they shouldn’t pretend they have it and they shouldn’t act like it and they certainly should not be threatening people,” Senate Appropriations Committee ranking member Patty Murray, D-Wash., said on a call with reporters.

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., gave a bit of a mixed message during a morning press conference, saying that while decisions about which projects to cancel are “tough,” President Donald Trump and other officials “are having fun with” the shutdown on social media.

“Are they taking great pleasure in that? No,” Johnson said, referring to the actual governing. “Is he trolling the Democrats? Yes, because that’s what President Trump does and people are having fun with this.”

Later in the day, Johnson opted to further delay bringing the House back into session, canceling a second week of floor votes, which means the earliest that chamber will return to Capitol Hill is Oct. 14. 

Shutdown ‘is not a joke’

Trump has posted frequently on social media during the shutdown, including a video that depicted House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries wearing a sombrero and a video that appeared to be created by artificial intelligence depicting Vought as the Grim Reaper.

Murray said on the call with reporters that Republicans posting the videos show they are treating the shutdown “as a joke.” 

“This is not a joke. This is real,” Murray said. “They need to stop the taunting. They need to stop the childish behavior. They need to stop hurting people and they need to come and work with us to solve a serious problem in front of our country.”

Jeffries, asked about the social media videos during a press conference, said it shows Republicans are on “defense” over their policies on health care and other issues. 

“Donald Trump has behaved in a deeply unserious and deeply unhinged manner and it’s evidence of the fact that Republicans have a weak argument, so they’ve resorted to deepfake videos and to lying about the nature of the policy decisions,” Jeffries said.

Projects axed in Chicago, New York, blue states

Johnson said he spoke earlier this week with Vought — one of the authors of Project 2025 who said previously he wanted “bureaucrats to be traumatically affected” — and that Vought “takes no pleasure in this.”

“Russ wants to see a smaller, more efficient, more lean, effective federal government, as we do. But he doesn’t want people to lose jobs. He doesn’t want to do that,” Johnson said. “But that’s his responsibility. So he’s very carefully, methodically, very deliberately looking through that to see which decisions can be made in the best interest of the American people. That’s his obligation and that’s his real desire.”

Typically during a government shutdown, federal employees are categorized as exempt, meaning they keep working without pay, or are placed on furlough. Both categories receive back pay once Congress votes to approve a stopgap spending bill.

But Vought has indicated he wants to use the shutdown as an excuse to lay off federal workers en masse, a step not taken during past funding lapses. He’s also taken to social media several times to announce canceled or halted projects in areas of the country that don’t regularly vote for Republicans.

Vought wrote in a post on Wednesday, shortly after the shutdown began, that $18 billion in Transportation Department funding for the Hudson Tunnel Project and the Second Ave Subway in New York City was put “on hold.” Both are in Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and Jeffries’ home state.

Vought then said the Energy Department would cancel $8 billion in climate funding that was slated to go to projects in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont and Washington.

The Washington State Standard reported some of the funding would have gone toward the Pacific Northwest Hydrogen Hub and Source New Mexico posted an article detailing a few impacted projects, including funds to the “New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology for the third phase of a project … to develop a storage hub at a commercial scale within (the) San Juan basin.”

Additionally, Vought on Friday froze $2.1 billion in Transportation Department funding for the “Red Line Extension and the Red and Purple Modernization Project” in Chicago, writing it was “put on hold to ensure funding is not flowing via race-based contracting.”

Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin represents Illinois, and the state’s governor, JB Pritzker, has been in a public back-and-forth with Trump over immigration enforcement, which the administration has heightened in Chicago. Pritzker has repeatedly rebuffed Trump’s requests to bring in the National Guard.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said during the press conference with Speaker Johnson that it makes sense the Trump administration would implement the shutdown through a political lens.

“I think they’re going to make decisions that are consistent with their priorities,” Thune said. “And yes, they’re going to have a different political view of the world than the Democrats might have.”

Hatch Act questions

The actions of Trump administration officials have raised questions about whether they could be in violation of the Hatch Act, a 1939 law that “limits certain political activities of federal employees.” 

The Office of Special Counsel writes on its website the law is meant to “ensure that federal programs are administered in a nonpartisan fashion, to protect federal employees from political coercion in the workplace, and to ensure that federal employees are advanced based on merit and not based on political affiliation.”

Any federal employee found to have violated the law can face removal from service or a fine of up to $1,000, among other possible repercussions. 

Public Citizen has filed numerous complaints against the Trump administration, alleging that banners and messages posted on government websites about the shutdown violate the Hatch Act. 

“Even for an administration that flouts ethics guidelines regularly, these messages are a particularly egregious and clear-cut sign that Trump and his cabinet see themselves as above the law,” Craig Holman, a government ethics expert with Public Citizen, wrote in a statement. 

As with many of the Trump administration’s actions, any new precedent set by the Republican administration could be used by a future Democratic president in a way that would very likely be harmful to Republican voters and regions of the country that consistently support GOP policies.

Layoffs still threatened

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said during an afternoon briefing that administration officials are trying to determine where to make additional spending cuts and layoffs during the shutdown. 

“The Office of Management and Budget is in constant communication and contact right now with our Cabinet secretaries and agencies across the board to identify, unfortunately, where layoffs have to be made and where cuts have to happen,” Leavitt said. “But again, the Democrats have an opportunity to prevent this if they vote to reopen the government.”

Leavitt declined to say whether the administration would back away from plans to lay off federal workers by the thousands or cancel funding for projects in Democratic areas if Republicans and Democrats in Congress strike a deal to reopen government. 

Leavitt said the “blueprint” for shrinking the size and scope of the federal government is whatever the president and administration officials come up with, after being asked by a Fox News reporter about Trump writing in a social media post earlier this week that Vought was “of PROJECT 2025 Fame,” after the president repeatedly distanced himself from the document on the campaign trail.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem at a Nashville press conference on July 18, 2025, to discuss arrests of immigrants during recent Immigration and Customs Enforcement sweeps. (Photo by John Partipilo/Tennessee Lookout)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court Friday again allowed the Trump administration to strip temporary protections for more than 300,000 Venezuelans, opening them up for quick deportations as the president continues with his plans for mass deportations.  

The conservative justices granted, 6-3, President Donald Trump’s request from last month to pause a federal judge’s ruling that found Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem lacked the authority to revoke Temporary Protected Status granted to hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan immigrants under the Biden administration. 

All three liberal justices sided with the lower court, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson writing a dissent with the conservative Supreme Court majority. She criticized the high court’s use of the emergency docket, also known as the shadow docket, which can allow the justices to avoid explaining their reasoning for decisions brought on an emergency basis. 

“We once again use our equitable power (but not our opinion-writing capacity) to allow this Administration to disrupt as many lives as possible, as quickly as possible,” Jackson wrote. 

The conservative justices did not explain their reasoning but said the harms faced by the Trump administration remained the same as when the case was first brought to the high court in May.

Jackson said that not only were the lower courts correct in their orders to block the removal of TPS protections to limit harm, but that the Supreme Court should have denied the emergency request from the Trump administration.

“Having opted instead to join the fray, the Court plainly misjudges the irreparable harm and balance-of-the-equities factors by privileging the bald assertion of unconstrained executive power over countless families’ pleas for the stability our Government has promised them,” Jackson wrote. 

“Because, respectfully, I cannot abide our repeated, gratuitous, and harmful interference with cases pending in the lower courts while lives hang in the balance, I dissent,” she continued. 

The suit in the Northern District of California will continue despite Friday’s emergency ruling from the high court. 

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that Noem had the authority to revoke extended protections initially granted to Venezuelans under the Biden administration. 

Former President Joe Biden granted TPS for Venezuelans who came to the U.S. in 2021 and 2023. Those TPS protections were set to last until October 2026. 

TPS is granted when a national’s home country is deemed too dangerous to return to due to violence, political instability or extreme natural disasters. It’s renewed every 18 months and protects immigrants from deportation and allows them access to work permits.

This is the second time the Trump administration has appealed to the high court to allow it to end TPS protections for Venezuelans. In late May, the Supreme Court paved the way for the Trump administration to temporarily terminate TPS for more than 300,000 Venezuelans while the case continued in lower courts.