WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s threats to destroy power plants and bridges in Iran before saying he was prepared for a “whole civilization” to die have renewed questions about what constitutes an illegal order and what, if any, repercussions officials could face for committing war crimes.  

The issue originally surged to the forefront last year when the Trump administration repeatedly struck boats in the Caribbean officials alleged were carrying illegal drugs. Democratic lawmakers with backgrounds in the military and intelligence community then published a video reminding troops they “can” and “must refuse illegal orders.”

“No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution. We know this is hard and that it’s a difficult time to be a public servant,” they said. “But whether you’re serving in the CIA, in the Army, or Navy, or the Air Force, your vigilance is critical.”

The issue of legal versus illegal military orders surfaced again this week when Trump escalated his threats against Iran, leading to bipartisan condemnation from members of Congress before he gave that country’s leaders two more weeks to negotiate.

But what exactly violates international law or rises to the level of a war crime is often murky, as is who would be willing to prosecute U.S. troops, according to experts interviewed by States Newsroom. 

Rachel E. VanLandingham, professor of law at Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles and a former judge advocate in the U.S. Air Force, said that “at the end of the day, the law of war does allow for a great deal of violence and a great deal of civilian suffering.” 

But several of the threats Trump has made, including to destroy power plants and bridges in Iran, would likely violate the law if the military were to carry them out, she said. 

“Under no stretch of interpretation would that be lawful, right? Because that just fails to distinguish whatsoever the civilian objects versus lawful military objectives, even if we stretch the definition of what’s a lawful military objective,” VanLandingham said. 

The boat strikes in the Caribbean, including the decision to order a second strike on two survivors, could also have been illegal, she said. 

VanLandingham doesn’t expect the Trump administration will hold anyone accountable for actions the military has already taken or may take. But she noted there is no statute of limitations on the charges that would likely apply under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for military members or the War Crimes Act for anyone not subject to the military justice system.

“The next administration could come in and investigate our service members for alleged war crimes. And they should, to demonstrate renewed fidelity to U.S. law, to the law of war,” she said. 

Congress doesn’t have the authority to prosecute anyone for violating the law, but could hold oversight hearings with Defense Department officials, a scenario that would become more likely if one or both chambers return to Democratic control following the November midterm elections. 

“They can have public, open hearings and drag in every single military member that was involved in the chain of command of orders for striking Iran, if they wanted to,” VanLandingham. “That’s not a criminal prosecution, but it’s transparency.”

Lawmakers could also provide more funding and require the Pentagon to reinstitute the Civilian Harm Mitigation Program, which she said “the Trump administration has gutted.”

Geneva Conventions

Leila Sadat, the James Carr Professor of International Criminal Law at WashU Law School in St. Louis, Missouri, said that in a situation where the president directs the military to violate the laws of war, it’s highly unlikely military commanders or the Department of Justice would then turn around and prosecute those actions. 

Even if a prosecutor were to try, Trump would likely be insulated from any domestic prosecution for “official acts.” And as president he could issue preemptive pardons for any military members he believes could face future prosecution, either in the military or civilian justice system.

Trump has a history of absolving military members accused of violating military law, including in 2019, when he pardoned two officers in the Army for actions in Afghanistan and restored the rank of a Navy SEAL who had been demoted for his conduct in Iraq. Trump later pardoned four contractors for killing more than a dozen Iraqi civilians in 2007.

But those protections only apply within the United States. 

The Geneva Conventions’ provision on universal jurisdiction would apply internationally and any country could choose to prosecute. 

“Now you still have to catch them, you have to get the evidence, but every state in the world is a party to the Geneva Conventions,” Sadat said. “So committing violations of the Geneva Conventions by attacking civilian objects, by attacking marketplaces, or hospitals, or schools, or electrical infrastructure, those kind of crimes can be prosecuted by every country in the world. So people should think about it before they do it.”

France, Germany and Sweden have all used the principle of universal jurisdiction to prosecute Syrians for crimes they committed during the war in their home country, she said. 

“The one debate is, do you have to have the person on your territory before you can go forward? Or can you do an investigation even if the person is not on your territory?” Sadat said. “And many have argued that you can do the investigation even if the individual is not on your territory. Different countries have different rules on whether they accept trials in absentia.”

Sadat said that gets a bit more complicated when the Status of Forces Agreements that give the U.S. jurisdiction over alleged wrongdoing by U.S. troops in dozens of countries come into play. 

Sadat, who was a special adviser on Crimes Against Humanity to the International Criminal Court Prosecutor from 2012 through 2021, said if the U.S. military were to carry out some or all of the threats Trump posted to social media, that could have led countries to reconsider those agreements. 

“It could create a huge security problem for the United States eventually. And that’s why I hope calmer heads are prevailing. Saying, ‘You know, there’s an entire complex web of treaties and agreements,'” she said. 

Trump would also likely pressure countries not to try U.S. military members for violating international law, but he may not always be successful, she said.  

“Eventually there’s going to be a country in which that’s not going to work,” Sadat said. “And so that’s why you really do have to think of this a little bit differently, because there are external forces and external actors that could decide we’re going to enforce the law, even if the United States is not going to enforce the law.”

Investigating US forces

Susana Sacouto, director of the War Crimes Research Office at American University’s Washington College of Law, said the Geneva Conventions require the U.S. to “investigate and … deal with alleged violations of the law of war by its own forces.”

How well that works in practice has “varied over time,” she said. 

“The problem is, we have an architecture, but those cases, particularly the criminal cases, are really exceptional, and they’re really exceptional, especially regarding senior officials,” Sacouto said. “So there’s been a lot of criticism about whether that architecture that exists is actually functioning to routinely investigate our own military actions for potential war crimes or (international humanitarian law) violations.” 

There is the possibility a future presidential administration may have defense officials or the Department of Justice look into allegations that emerge during the Trump administration. But Sacouto said, “past history with respect to accountability for U.S. officials, especially senior officials, is not very encouraging.”

Congressional investigations into the Central Intelligence Agency’s use of torture in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks is one example Sacouto pointed to of a long-term investigation that did not lead to any high-level prosecutions. 

“Even then, no senior officials were really ultimately held accountable for their role in that program,” she said. “There were lower-level Abu Ghraib prosecutions, but no senior-level folks were found accountable.”

ICE arrested Salah Sarsour for accusations of lying on his immigration forms and posing a threat to U.S. foreign policy.

The post Milwaukee Islamic Society president awaits immigration hearing in ‘extremely uncommon’ case appeared first on WPR.

An American white pelican that captured the hearts of a Lake Superior community has died after undergoing treatment for gunshot wounds.

The post Pelican that captivated a Lake Superior community has died appeared first on WPR.

Reading Time: 2 minutes

Wisconsin’s Open Records Law gives requesters the right to request records from their government. After all, as the law states, “a representative government is dependent upon an informed electorate.” 

But how to get started? Under the law, “any person” can make a request for records from any Wisconsin state or local government agency or official, verbally or in writing. You don’t have to start from square one: There are many tools available to help you make requests and ensure you get the records you want with minimal fuss. 

The Wisconsin Freedom of Information Counsel has long posted a records request template on its website, wisfoic.org. It cites Wisconsin law and uses language to target your request and help you avoid surprise fees.

Many national groups also post letter generators online that can be used to make requests to state and local governments.  

For example, the Student Press Law Center, a nonprofit organization devoted to assisting student journalists, posts a heavily used letter generator, which is available for free and can be used to make requests.

An organization called MuckRock not only has a letter generator, but also allows users to post responsive records they receive on its website at muckrock.com. Here you can search through records others have received from all over the country.

Other groups post records they have received through their own open records and U.S. Freedom of Information Act requests.  

For example, a group called Reclaim the Records posts genealogical and historical records on its website, reclaimtherecords.org. The website governmentattic.org provides a searchable collection of oddball federal government records and reports.

Of course, this is in addition to records the government proactively publishes or posts online itself. A wealth of information is already available on Wisconsin agency and local government websites, or in local libraries. 

Federal agencies are even required to follow the “Rule of 3,” or make electronically available records that have been requested three or more times. The website data.gov contains more than 400,000 datasets, from what it describes as the home of the U.S. government’s open data.

In some cases, it may be easiest just to start with a phone call to the state or local agency that has the records you want. It may be able to send you the record on the spot, or help you understand available records to target your request.  

If you’re looking to better understand the law, the Wisconsin Department of Justice Office of Open Government posts numerous resources online, including its Public Records Compliance Guide, which is helpful for requesters and records custodians alike.  

A well-drafted records request is useful for everyone: It can help requesters get the records they want, in less time, and at a lower cost. It can also help custodians find records more easily, freeing them up to respond to others’ requests and carry out other duties.

But the most important tip is to not be intimidated by the process: There are no magic words required to trigger your right to get records, and the law must be interpreted broadly in favor of access.

Wisconsin’s Open Records Law, by design, makes it easy to get records, to fulfill its important objective of informing the electorate. Don’t hesitate to exercise your right to use it.

Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (wisfoic.org), a nonprofit, nonpartisan group dedicated to open government. Christa Westerberg is the group’s vice president and a partner at the law firm Pines Bach LLP.

Your Right to Know: How to jump-start your records requests is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Criminal charges were filed this week against Wisconsin state Sen. Jesse James's daughter who allegedly stole money from his campaign fund.

The post Wisconsin senator’s daughter charged with stealing his campaign funds appeared first on WPR.

WASHINGTON — U.S. Supreme Court justices seemed split Tuesday on whether the Trump administration should be allowed to turn away asylum-seekers who present themselves at ports of entry at the U.S.-Mexico border.

The question presented to the justices was whether migrants have to fully cross into the United States in order to have the right to apply for asylum and be processed, or if they can apply for asylum when they appear at a port of entry while on Mexico’s side of the border. 

The policy requiring a full crossing, known as metering, is defunct, but the Trump administration is asking the high court to make a determination in order to potentially revive the practice for future use at the southern border.

“This is an important tool in the government’s toolbox for dealing with border surges when they occur,” Vivek Suri, assistant to the U.S. solicitor general, told the court during oral arguments on the asylum case. “I can’t predict when the next border surge occurs, but I can say that when it does occur, this is a tool that (the Department of Homeland Security) would want in its toolbox. It’s not something the court should leave to future uncertainty.”

The six conservative justices seemed to agree with the Trump administration’s position, and questioned the definition of when a migrant “arrives” in the United States and can therefore seek asylum — legal protection granted to those fleeing danger or persecution in their home country.

The three liberals of the Supreme Court — Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson —  asked whether the policy violated federal law protecting refugees. 

Lower and appeals courts have repeatedly blocked the metering policy, finding it violated U.S. asylum and refugee law for those escaping persecution after the first Trump administration expanded its use in 2017. The Biden administration rescinded the policy in 2021. 

A 2020 investigation by the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General found that up to 680 migrants per day were turned around as a result of the metering policy. 

The ‘magic thing’

Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked Kelsi Corkran, an attorney who argued on behalf of the immigrant legal aid and humanitarian group Al Otro Lado, how close an asylum seeker has to be to qualify as “arriving” in the U.S.

The immigration advocacy group originally brought the challenge in 2017 after asylum seekers were turned away by border officials at U.S. ports of entry. 

“What is the magic thing, or the dispositive thing, that we’re looking for, where we say, ‘Ah, now that person we can say arrives in the United States?’” Barrett asked. 

Corkran said someone arrives in the U.S. at a port of entry “when they are at the threshold of the port’s entrance, about to step over.” 

“I think that’s consistent with ordinary meaning,” she said. “I arrive at my house, or I arrive in my yard, when I’m going through the gate. Now that process of arriving is interrupted by the border officer physically blocking them from completing the arrival.”

Barrett also asked Suri if the Trump administration plans to reinstate the metering policy. 

Suri said the Trump administration would like to, “when border conditions justify.”

Jackson noted the policy, in practice, would require an asylum seeker to violate U.S. immigration law by entering into the country without authorization, based on the Trump administration’s argument that a migrant has to be on U.S. soil before making an asylum claim. 

That would be considered entering the U.S. unlawfully.

“So imagine a polite asylum seeker who wants to do everything by the book, he approaches the border but does not cross precisely because the law says you are not supposed to enter the United States without authority,” Jackson said. “If we’re trying to think about what ‘arriving in’ means, surely Congress was contemplating that a person would be coming to the United States, would be doing so with an intent to comply with the law that says you’re not supposed to enter, and thereby asking for entry.” 

Justice Brett Kavanaugh also questioned Suri about how the policy seems to give preference to migrants to enter the U.S. without authorization, rather than those who are seeking to make an asylum claim. 

Suri said the metering policy doesn’t prevent a migrant from seeking asylum. 

“It’s saying ‘our port (of entry) is at capacity today, try again some other day,’ and that time when that person comes in, that person could come in legally,” he said. 

Refugee laws

Sotomayor questioned Suri how the metering policy didn’t violate the United Nations Refugee Convention of 1951. That act, which the U.S. signed in 1967, was created after the M.S. St. Louis ship, carrying more than 900 Jewish refugees during World War II, was prevented entry to the U.S. and turned back to Europe. 

Some passengers were able to find refuge in other countries, but 254 died in the Holocaust.

Suri said the metering policy doesn’t send people back to their home country. 

“No, you’re just telling them to walk back,” Sotomayor said, adding that if the turn-back policy were applied to the Jewish refugees on the St. Louis, it would be the same as telling them to swim back. 

“They happened to be on a boat, but that’s what we did,” she said. “We didn’t let them dock. We didn’t consider whether they were being persecuted. And the majority of those people were shipped back or had to go back from where they came and were killed. That’s what we’re doing here, isn’t it?”

Suri said that he does “not deny the moral weight of claims made by refugees, but that is not the question before the court.”

He said the issue is whether Congress imposed the obligation “in the asylum and inspection statutes, and those refer only to aliens who arrive in the United States.”

Sotomayor pushed back and noted that if someone were to fly into LaGuardia Airport in New York, they “may not have put their foot on U.S. land, but they’ve arrived in the United States. They’re knocking on the door.” 

The justices are likely to make a decision on the case by late June. 

Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul joined a coalition of two dozen states over the EPA's decision to repeal the scientific basis for controlling pollution that’s heating up the planet.

The post Wisconsin joins states suing EPA for abandoning power to fight climate change appeared first on WPR.

Democracy in the United States is in trouble. According to the 2026 Democracy Report, produced by thousands of scholars and experts around the world for the Varieties of Democracy Institute (V-DEM), “The speed with which American democracy is currently dismantled is unprecedented in modern history.”  Civil rights, equality before the law and freedom of expression and the media in the U.S. are at their lowest level in 60 years, the report finds.

The press is under tremendous pressure from the Trump administration, which is cutting off access to journalists, suing media organizations that produce critical stories, and demanding that national news organizations toe the administration’s line.

Meanwhile, at the state and local level, news coverage is shrinking. 

In Wisconsin, which has a proud tradition of public access to government and open records, we’re experiencing a contraction in local news coverage and, recently, the temporary shutdown and uncertain future of WisconsinEye, which offers CSPAN-like video coverage of the state Legislature.

A bill banning Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAAP) that passed the Wisconsin Assembly died on Tuesday in the Wisconsin Senate, leaving media organizations vulnerable to lawsuits designed to discourage news coverage and silence free speech. Now-state Sen. Cory Tomczyk filed a SLAPP suit against the Wasau Pilot & Review back in 2021, after the news outlet reported he was overheard using an anti-gay slur. Although the news outlet prevailed, legal expenses took a heavy toll, driving the publisher to the brink of bankruptcy.

The fight to keep government open and accountable to the public is never-ending. Just this week, a bill that awards $14.6 million in taxpayer funds annually to the University of Wisconsin athletic department and sets rules for sponsorship deals by UW athletes also creates a sweeping exemption for UW athletics from the state’s open records law — shielding all revenue, spending and financial records within the UW athletic department from public view.

That kind of secrecy about the use of public funds violates public trust. So does the exemption from public records law the Legislature drafted for itself, allowing state lawmakers to delete emails to avoid turning them over to journalists and members of the public who want to know whose interests their representatives are serving.

This week is Sunshine Week, the annual collaboration among journalists and civic groups around the country to highlight the importance of public records and open government. 

Here at the Examiner, we sent out a few special newsletters this week on our reporters’ use of open records requests to investigate government activities, from Isiah Holmes’ reporting on police officers who misused surveillance technology to spy on their romantic partners to an award-winning story by Andrew Kennard and Frank Zufall about the policy of shredding mail from attorneys to their clients in Wisconsin prisons.

The Kennard-Zufall story was one of 12 by Examiner staff that the Milwaukee Press Club announced this week won top-three journalism honors, with gold, silver and bronze winners to be announced in May.

We have encountered high fees and long delays in some of our records requests, but our reporters persist. Just this week, Zufall, a Criminal Justice Project fellow, finally received a response from the Bureau of Indian Affairs to a Freedom of Information request he made in February 2025. The request was part of his reporting on a new public defender service the Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa is creating, citing unspecified complaints about the Wisconsin Public Defender. Stay tuned for more on that story.

We don’t do this work in a vacuum.

On Thursday night, journalists and engaged citizens gathered to honor this year’s recipients of the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council Openness in Government Awards.Wisconsin Watch reporter Tom Kerscher and the group Midwest Environmental Advocates were each honored for their work exposing the secrecy surrounding the development of massive data centers.

“The idea that tech companies whose goal is to learn everything about us are coming into the state and trying to prevent us from learning anything about them, it really has become a politically toxic issue for them,” said Michael Grief, an attorney for Midwest Environmental Advocates. MEA received  its award for lawsuits the group filed challenging the secrecy surrounding a data center project in Racine and against the state Public Service Commission, contesting the “trade secret” status of energy demand data for Meta’s proposed data center in Beaver Dam. 

Kertscher’s investigation exposed four projects in which local officials signed nondisclosure agreements with companies, much to the consternation of their constituents.

Data centers are a growing concern for the public, and we need to know about the deals to build these giant facilities.

Here at the Examiner we are proud to stand with other Wisconsin journalists and nonprofits fighting for open records and public access to government.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Wisconsin police will soon be allowed to conduct roadside saliva testing for marijuana and other illegal substances.

Supporters say the new law will help strengthen cases against suspected drugged drivers who may be flying under the radar. A Wisconsin attorney and impaired driving defense expert argues it’s “merely symbolic.”

The post Will a new law allowing roadside drug tests help fight impaired driving in Wisconsin? appeared first on WPR.

A group of taxpayers alleges the Legislature has spent millions of dollars since 2019 pursuing legal cases with public money for partisan ends.

The post Wisconsin Legislature sued over use of private lawyers appeared first on WPR.

A Wausau company must pay $250,000 for nearly two dozen alleged violations of the state’s air pollution control laws under a settlement announced Monday by Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul.

The post Wausau company to pay $250K for alleged violations of Wisconsin air pollution laws appeared first on WPR.

During its final planned day of legislative business this year, the Wisconsin Assembly passed a bill to ensure health care coverage of screenings for women at high risk of breast cancer and a bill to extend postpartum Medicaid coverage to a year.

Republican lawmakers announced Wednesday evening that they would vote on the bills, breaking gridlock on the issues which for years was held up by Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester). Vos, who announced his retirement at the beginning of the floor session Thursday, reversed his position and voted in favor of both bills.  

Each bill passed the Senate in nearly unanimous votes last year, and the Assembly concurring votes will send the bills to Gov. Tony Evers for a signature. 

Lawmakers honor Gail Zeemer as they pass breast cancer screening bill

SB 264 requires health insurance policies to provide coverage for diagnostic breast examinations and for supplemental breast screening examinations for women with dense breast tissue. The bill would require coverage to include no patient cost-sharing. 

The family of Gail Zeemer, a Neenah woman who spent time advocating for the legislation before her death from breast cancer in 2024, sat in the Assembly gallery. Zeemer, who had dense breast tissue, was diagnosed with cancer at a late stage after not receiving additional screening. She battled cancer for eight years and passed away in June 2024 at the age of 56.

Lawmakers applauded her family after voting to concur in the bill, named “Gail’s Law.” It passed in a unanimous 96-0 vote.  

Rep. Robyn Vining (D-Wauwatosa) spoke about listening to testimony from Zeemer during a hearing on the bill prior to her death in the Assembly Health committee.

“She was full of strength and determination,” Vining said. “This year, as we’ve heard testimony, her absence was felt in the room. Today is the day that she fought for, and I am so sorry that Gail is not here with us today. Gail’s law will save lives. It will prevent preventable deaths.”

“You didn’t give up. You didn’t take no for an answer,” Vining said of Zeemer’s family and other advocates for the bills.

Several lawmakers, including Rep. Nate Gustafson (R-Omro) and Rep. Amanda Nedweski (R-Pleasant Prairie), teared up as they spoke of their support for the legislation.

“It’s about families,” Nedweski said of the bill. “Too many husbands have lost their wives to breast cancer, too many parents have had to say goodbye to a daughter too soon, and too many children have seen their mother’s hair fall out and have had to cry themselves to sleep while their mothers went through chemo, surgery and radiation, sometimes only to be told the cancer is back, and there are no other options.” 

Nedweski said the bill takes an important step to “help children keep their moms.” 

“Mammography simply does not work for everyone,” she added. 

Nedweski said the bill is a “wise investment,” noting that it is why Texas and Florida have adopted similar policies. “Gail’s law is not only life-saving, it is cost-saving. Detecting cancer early not only drastically increases survival rates, it means that treatment costs will be lower for patients and for families.” 

Women with dense breast tissue have a higher risk of breast cancer and it can make it harder for radiologists to see cancer on mammograms, according to the American Cancer Society. 

Insurance policies in Wisconsin are already required to provide coverage for two mammograms for women between the ages of 45 and 49 and annual screenings for women over the age of 50, but insurance companies are not required to cover additional screenings for women with dense breast tissue or at higher risk. 

Bipartisan support for the bill did not prevent partisan bickering during debate. Republican lawmakers complained in a press conference announcing the bill scheduling and again on the floor about Democratic lawmakers’ prior actions urging a vote.

Rep. Barbara Dittrich (R-Oconomowoc) said that the eight Republican Assembly lawmakers were the “true heroes who fought for where we are today.” 

“I celebrate them, rather than the tantrum throwing we saw leading up to this,” she said.

Others highlighted the bipartisan nature of the bills. 

Rep. Lee Snodgrass (D-Appleton) thanked Sen. Rachael Cabral-Guevara (R-Appleton), a key supporter of the legislation, and Rep. Dean Kaufert (R-Neenah), who called for lawmakers to go to partisan caucus to discuss the measure on Wednesday. GOP lawmakers credit discussion during the caucus for the recent breakthrough. 

“I know that this body is contentious often. I know that some of us don’t even like each other, but when we can come together and do something good for women’s health and the people of Wisconsin,” Snodgrass said, “it’s truly a victory.” 

Some lawmakers said that Wisconsin still needs to do more to ensure that people can access health care in the state.

Margaret Arney (D-Wauwatosa) called the passage of the bill a “victory” but a “small step on a long road.” 

“We need to seriously stare in the face of what it takes for people to afford health care,” Arney said. “All the people in Wisconsin deserve to have health security and I invite us to take that step together.” 

Postpartum Medicaid extension

Wisconsin is poised to become the 49th state to accept a federal expansion of Medicaid coverage for women for one year after they give birth after the state Assembly approved SB 23. 

The bill passed 95-1. Rep. Shae Sortwell (R-Two Rivers) is the only lawmaker who voted against the bill. 

Evers, who most recently called on lawmakers to pass the bill and send it to him at his State of the State address on Tuesday evening, is likely to sign it.

Pregnant women can receive Medicaid coverage in Wisconsin if they have an annual income of up to 306% of the federal poverty level, however, currently they risk losing that coverage 60 days after giving birth. 

Rep. Patrick Snyder (R-Weston), the lead Assembly author on the bill, said he picked up the “mantle” on the issue because of what he heard while knocking doors during the campaign cycle. A previous author on the bill was former Republican Rep. Donna Rozar, who lost her reelection bid in 2024. 

Snyder also doubled down on criticizing Democratic lawmakers for their efforts to force a vote on the issue. “I had a night’s sleep and I realized that a lot of my Democrat colleagues who I’m friends with are following orders,” he said. 

“Thank goodness we beat Arkansas,” Snyder said, referring to the only other state in the U.S. that has not extended postpartum Medicaid coverage for a year. “Strong families will mean strong Wisconsin. That’s what I put my faith in, not trying to score political points.” 

Rep. Deb Andraca (D-Whitefish Bay) struck a more cordial tone. 

“I want to thank everyone here who changed their mind,” Andraca said. “That’s not easy.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Eight Republican state Assembly lawmakers announced at 9:45 p.m. Wednesday that gridlock is ending on bills to provide a year of Medicaid coverage to postpartum mothers and ensure cancer screenings for women with a high risk of breast cancer, and both will receive a vote in the Assembly this week. 

The bills had been held up this legislative session despite widespread bipartisan support due to opposition from Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester), who once said he didn’t want to expand “welfare” in relation to the postpartum coverage and said recent federal changes made changes on breast cancer screening coverage unnecessary. He declined to comment to the Wisconsin Examiner on what changed his mind. 

Vos was not at the press conference led by Rep. Todd Novak (R-Dodgeville) and seven other Assembly Republicans, who represent purple districts across the state and had been advocating for the bills.

“It hasn’t been fun,” Novak said about the process. “I truly appreciate a caucus who is willing to listen to us bring the stories from our district… and get them to a point where they are willing to take a vote tomorrow.”

The lawmakers said that they sent a letter to Vos on Feb. 3 urging him to allow for a vote on the bill. The letter stated that the measure aligns with “core Republican priorities” including “protecting life and supporting families,” “fiscal responsibility” and “reducing government dependency.”

SB 23 would extend Medicaid coverage for postpartum mothers to a year. Wisconsin is one of two states in the U.S. that has not taken the federal extension, which was first offered to states five years ago in the American Rescue Plan Act.

People in Wisconsin are typically only eligible for Medicaid coverage if they make up to 100% of the federal poverty level, but pregnant women can receive Medicaid coverage if they have an annual income of up to 306% of the federal poverty level. Currently in Wisconsin, a newborn whose mother is a Medicaid recipient receives a year of coverage, but mothers risk losing their coverage after 60 days if they don’t otherwise qualify for Medicaid.

The bill passed the Senate in April 2025 on a 32-1 vote. It also previously passed the Senate in 2023-24 legislative session, but died in the Assembly.

SB 264 would require health insurance policies to provide coverage for diagnostic breast examinations and for supplemental breast screening examinations for an individual who has dense breast tissue. The bill would require coverage to include no patient cost-sharing. 

The bill is named “Gail’s Law” in honor of Gail Zeemer, a Neenah woman who advocated for the legislation and who died from breast cancer in 2024. Women with dense breast tissue have a higher risk of breast cancer and dense breast tissue can make it harder for radiologists to see cancer on mammograms, according to the American Cancer Society. 

The bill received a nearly unanimous vote in the Senate in October.

Republican lawmakers also railed at Democratic lawmakers, who had been urging the Assembly to vote on the bills for months and planned to hold up votes during Wednesday’s floor session by introducing amendments on every bill to advocate action on the issues.

“I’m very angry at what happened today — very angry,” Rep. Patrick Snyder (R-Weston) said, adding that he had been speaking to his Republican colleagues about why it was important to join the majority of the country in extending coverage. “I talked to my Democratic colleagues and told them that I was close, that it was going to get done, but then they throw this crap at us today. It almost blew it up.”

At a press conference at 1 p.m., Assembly Minority Leader Greta Neubauer (D-Racine) announced that she and her husband are expecting their first child this summer while urging the Assembly to take a vote on the bills that would increase health care coverage for women.

“I wasn’t really planning to talk about this today, but I am pregnant,” Neubauer said, adding that she is due in June. “We could not be more excited. During this pregnancy, I have been reflecting and I’m very lucky. I’m lucky to have quality, affordable health care coverage for myself and my baby when they arrive. For too many Wisconsin families, that health care coverage is cut off far too soon… This needs to end. We must pass postpartum Medicaid expansion now.” 

As the Assembly began acting on bills in the floor session that followed, Democrats took turns interrupting with speeches demanding that GOP lawmakers take up their amendments to put the Medicaid and breast cancer bills on the floor. Shortly after 3 p.m. Rep. Dean Kaufert (R-Neenah) called for a partisan caucus, and the session was paused. The Assembly did not return to the floor until 10 p.m. 

Republican lawmakers said they spent the time in caucus talking about the issues.

“I’m in it for the women that need this protection. They’re in it for politics, and that’s sickening,” Snyder said, adding that it would be hard for him to trust his Democratic colleagues in the future. “I don’t know what they were trying to do, but lobbyists told them to wait at least till Thursday, and they didn’t.”

Novak said his voice was hoarse after the caucus. He said lawmakers who were on the fence about the bill were angered by the Democratic amendments and it set back their progress on the discussions.

“I actually put my seat on the line. I said I wanted this bill to pass or I don’t know I could run again,” Snyder said. “How many Democrats put their seat on the line for anything if there’s something they’re passionate about? That’s why it’s about people, not about the politics.” 

At a press conference after, Neubauer was unapologetic for the Democratic lawmakers’ actions. 

“It seems that the bills are going to the floor after years of Rep. Pat Snyder telling us that these bills were going to be passed and them not being passed, so it does seem like our actions made a difference today,” Neubauer said. 

Neubauer rejected the assertion that Democrats were just engaging in politics and said the job of the minority party is to ensure that important issues get air time and get votes.

“Republicans refusing to vote on [the amendments] is their own choice. We have a responsibility to our constituents and the women of this state whose lives depend on these policies being passed,” Neubauer said. “We were going to stop at nothing to get a vote on these bills. We hope that that’s what’s going to happen tomorrow.”

Rep. Shannon Zimmerman (R-River Falls) said that the development is “proof that minds can be shifted.”

“I appreciate, certainly, the speaker’s willingness to hear us out. I appreciate all of my members in my caucus,” Zimmerman said. “The outcome that we have reached today is one that will have a positive impact on the lives of many in the state of Wisconsin.”

Vos and Assembly Majority Leader Tyler August (R-Walworth) were not at the caucus the entire time. In the early evening, the caucus leaders were at what Vos called a “thank you reception” hosted by the Jobs First Coalition — a nonprofit advocacy group that has a history of spending to help elect Republicans. 

Michelle Litjens, Vos’ wife and a former Republican member of the Assembly, has worked as a fundraiser for the organization. She told reporters the group was thanking legislators and that they often bring guests to speak on issues to their members.

When asked about why they were at the event while lawmakers were said to be in recess for caucus, Vos said “people are caucusing.” 

“This is the way it was for, like, 50 years before I became speaker,” Vos said. He added that people would leave floor sessions to go to receptions “all the time.” 

The Republican lawmakers who announced the deal to bring the bills to the floor said they were able to “win over hearts” in their caucus and shared personal stories about breast cancer. 

“Probably every person in this room has been touched in some way with someone in their family with cancer,” Kaufert said. “In my particular case, my mother when I was 17 years old in high school, she had breast cancer, and they didn’t have technologies that they do now, and at age of 19, my mother passed away due to that breast cancer.”

Rep. Bob Donovan (R-Greenfield) said his wife was diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer.

“Sadly, had this bill been in place back then, it may have impacted her particular situation. I’m very proud of the way she has dealt with this in front of my family and how they’ve stepped up to the plate to deal with it,” Donovan said. “Our situation is what it is, but I can’t tell you how pleased I am to have played a small part in helping this bill move forward.” 

Novak also said Vos is a “tough negotiator,” but that he “really felt what we were saying,” and that other GOP lawmakers also had some concerns.

The reversal comes as Assembly lawmakers are racing to finish their work. August said the Assembly GOP leaders plan to be finished this week. The Assembly has scheduled a floor session for Thursday. 

The lawmakers said they want the bills to go to Gov. Tony Evers by Monday, adding that Evers has committed to signing them without any line-item vetoes as long as they are unchanged.

“They’ll be clean,” Novak said.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The Trump administration is using a law Congress passed in the 1990s after a wave of deadly violence at abortion clinics to prosecute demonstrators and reporters who were at a immigration-related church protest in Minneapolis last month. 

Independent journalists Don Lemon and Georgia Fort, along with several activists, are accused of violating a 1994 law that made physically obstructing access to reproductive health clinics and places of worship a federal crime. Lemon pleaded not guilty Friday, while Fort is set to be arraigned next week and has denied any wrongdoing. Other plaintiffs have vowed to fight the charges — they’re also accused of conspiring against churchgoers’ right to worship — and maintained they were exercising their First Amendment rights. 

Some abortion opponents say the law should be repealed entirely, even though the statute also protects access to anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers. Reproductive rights advocates say getting rid of the law altogether could spur more attacks on clinics and providers, which already increased in recent years. 

“It would give an even stronger signal to the zealots who would wish to shut us down to intimidate and harm our clinic folks and patients,” said Julie Burkhart, who owns clinics in Wyoming and Illinois. 

The Minnesota indictment is only the second time that the Department of Justice has brought charges under the religious provision tucked in the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. In September, the federal government filed a civil complaint against pro-Palestinian groups and demonstrators, accusing them of violating the FACE Act after they protested outside a New Jersey synagogue in 2024.

During a news conference announcing the charges, Harmeet Dhillon, the assistant attorney general for the DOJ’s civil rights division, said the New Jersey case was the “first time in history” the FACE Act was used to “prosecute an attack civilly on a house of worship.”  

While the Trump administration has started to use the FACE Act in religion-related cases, it has also relaxed enforcement of the law against people who interfere with access to abortion clinics. 

Republican President Donald Trump pardoned 23 anti-abortion protesters convicted of violating the law within weeks of taking office in January 2025, and the DOJ released a memo that stated abortion-related cases should only be pursued in “extraordinary circumstances,” such as death, serious bodily harm or severe property damage. 

“This sent a very clear signal to anti-abortion extremists that this administration was OK and even encouraged anti-abortion violence, and we’ve seen the same people that were pardoned within Trump’s first week in office go right back out and start harassing abortion providers and their patients, whether that is putting together blockades or clinic invasions,” National Abortion Federation President and CEO Brittany Fonteno told States Newsroom. 

FACE Act followed murder of abortion provider, clinic sieges 

Tactics by the anti-abortion movement were starting to reach a fever pitch in the U.S. before the FACE Act’s passage. In 1988, hundreds of protesters were arrested in Georgia during the “Siege of Atlanta,” where abortion opponents staged routine clinic blockades over a three-month period. In 1991, thousands of anti-abortion protesters were arrested by local officials for invading abortion clinics in Kansas during the “Summer of Mercy.” 

“We were literally unable to do our jobs,” said Burkhart, who worked in Wichita that summer with Dr. George Tiller, a provider who was later killed by an anti-abortion extremist. 

In 1993, Dr. David Gunn was murdered by an anti-abortion protester outside a Florida clinic, and six months later, Tiller was shot outside his Kansas clinic. Tiller survived that attack, but he was assassinated at his church in 2009.  

Sen. Ted Kennedy and then-Rep. Chuck Schumer, both Democrats, introduced the FACE Act in Congress alongside former Republican Rep. Connie Morella, and President Bill Clinton signed the legislation the following year. 

Legal experts said the religious part of the reproductive health law was added to broaden legislative support for the bill. 

The law protects reproductive health clinics and places of worship from being physically obstructed or damaged, and makes it a federal crime to intentionally injure, intimidate or interfere with access to those places. Violators face up to a year in prison or a $10,000 fine, and up to six months in prison for nonviolent obstruction. A defendant could face 10 years if they inflicted bodily harm or life behind bars if someone is killed.  

Mary Ziegler, an abortion historian and professor at the University of California, Davis School of Law, said the measure was modeled on other civil rights laws, which typically include protections for religious institutions. She said Congress already had a Democratic majority at the time, but the religious part of the law could have been added to avoid accusations of viewpoint discrimination. 

“Even people who saw themselves as pro-life were disturbed by some of the violence,” Ziegler said. 

After the law took effect, violence against abortion clinics declined by 30%, according to the National Abortion Federation. 

The power of anti-abortion groups like Operation Rescue, known for orchestrating mass clinic blockades, waned. 

“The FACE Act was created to suppress civil disobedience at abortion centers, so it’s had a massively negative impact on the anti-abortion movement,” said Terrisa Bukovinac, the founder of Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising. 

Bukovinac’s group along with Students for Life of America and Alliance Defending Freedom have called for the law’s demise since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the federal right to an abortion in June 2022. 

Trump reconfigures enforcement while abortion opponents call for repeal

Violence against abortion clinics increased after the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision. From 2021 to 2022, clinics saw a 100% increase in arsons, a 25% increase in invasions and a 20% increase in death threats or threats of harm, according to the National Abortion Federation. 

The Biden administration pursued enforcement of the FACE Act by prosecuting people convicted of blocking access to abortion clinics in Michigan, Tennessee and Washington, D.C. 

Trump pardoned all of those defendants. But for some abortion opponents, the Republican administration’s narrow use of the FACE Act does not go far enough. 

“It should be repealed because it’s a draconian law,” Bukovinac said. “There are local laws that address trespass, disorderly conduct, disruptions of churches, and various other violations of statutes, but the FACE law adds the full weight of the federal government in these situations.” 

Ziegler said the law isn’t a trespassing statute, it’s about conduct and obstruction. No legal challenges against the law have held up in court before or after Dobbs, she said. 

“If you’re shooting someone in the head because they’re trying to go to a synagogue or they’re trying to go into an abortion clinic — or you’re threatening to kill them or you’re physically blocking all the entrances — that’s not speech protected by the First Amendment,” Ziegler said. 

Matthew Cavedon, a criminal justice and religious liberty expert at the libertarian CATO Institute, has written that the law may be unconstitutional. He said the federal government has typically defended the FACE Act’s constitutionality based on the Commerce Clause and the 14th Amendment.

“Pro-lifers have made the point that in order to defend the FACE Act under the 14th Amendment, you have to have some sort of federal constitutional right to have an abortion,” Cavedon said. “Back in 1994 when the act passed, the Supreme Court said that you did have that right. It doesn’t anymore. That’s been reversed. So I think that’s a very strong argument.” 

U.S. Rep. Chip Roy, a Texas Republican, introduced a bill last year that would repeal the law. The House Judiciary Committee advanced the measure in June, States Newsroom reported. 

Roy did not respond to requests for comment, but during a hearing for the bill, he said he has been criticized by Trump administration officials who wanted to use the law to defend churches. 

“That’s not what my goal is,” he said. “My goal is to alleviate the politicization in the first place.”

Renee Chelian, the founder and CEO of Northland Family Planning Centers in Michigan, testified before the committee about the importance of the FACE Act and the invasion of one of her clinics during the first Trump administration. 

“Once the law went into effect, the violent blockades immediately stopped. This all ended when President Trump took office for his first term, emboldening extremists to resume their attacks,” she said. 

In August 2020, a group of protesters blocked the entrance to Chelian’s Sterling Heights clinics, preventing patients and staff from entering the clinic. 

“Patients were stuck in their cars, including three women who were coming in for abortions following the detection of fatal fetal anomalies,” Chelian said. One of those patients was losing amniotic fluid and needed to get to her appointment for the second day of her procedure, but protesters surrounded her car and chanted at her, her mother and her husband, according to the DOJ. 

Trump’s decision to pardon seven people who invaded her clinic “left us reliving our trauma and feeling abandoned by the government that is supposed to protect us,” Chelian told lawmakers. 

Last month, the Center for Reproductive Rights sued the Trump administration after the government did not respond to Freedom of Information Act requests about “selective enforcement” of the FACE Act and Trump’s pardons of 23 anti-abortion protesters convicted under the law. 

“This is straight out of the anti-abortion movement’s playbook,” said Sara Outterson, the center’s chief federal legislative counsel. “They know they can’t ban abortion outright in a number of states, so they’ll try everything they can to restrict access to care, including allowing criminals to harass people as they try to go in to get care.” 

Community and environmental justice advocates say the Biden administration is failing to deliver promised transparency and public engagement around its $7 billion clean hydrogen hub initiative.

“Engagement isn’t merely leading people into a process that’s going to happen with or without them,” said Tom Torres, hydrogen program director for the Ohio River Valley Institute, a nonprofit serving one of the regions where federally funded partnerships are trying to lay the groundwork for new local hydrogen economies. “It means meaningfully involving people in the decisions about the project.”

The U.S. Department of Energy announced funding in October 2023 for seven regional clean hydrogen hubs — clusters of interconnected projects meant to kickstart production of the fuel with little or no greenhouse gas emissions. Since then, the department has held online briefings and virtual listening sessions for each hub, but advocates say they are not getting the kind of information necessary to assess who will be impacted by the projects and how.

Torres and others say they want more than just dots on a map. They want to know how hydrogen will be produced, how it will be used, and how it will get to end users. For projects that depend on carbon capture, they want to know how and where the carbon will be captured, transported and stored. And once the specifics are known, they want a chance to have meaningful input on the final projects.

Spokespeople for the Department of Energy and regional hubs said the answers to those questions are still being worked out and that more engagement is on the horizon.  Advocates are increasingly frustrated and fear that community input will come too late to affect how the hubs are developed.

“It doesn’t make sense … on one hand to say there’s not enough on paper to tell the public about, but on the other hand there is enough to allocate almost $1 billion for these companies,” Torres said.

Are events just ‘checking a box’?

When burned as a fuel source, hydrogen does not emit carbon dioxide, but its production today almost always comes from fossil fuels. Some see a potential for hydrogen to replace natural gas in certain hard-to-electrify sectors such as industry or heavy duty transportation, but the benefits for addressing climate change hinge on whether it can be produced cleanly and at scale.

The Biden administration’s hydrogen hub program, part of the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, aims to ramp up production of hydrogen made with low-carbon energy, including renewables, nuclear power, and fossil fuels paired with carbon capture. 

“It is literally like building the natural gas infrastructure that we have all over the place again for hydrogen,” said Shawn Bennett, energy and resilience manager for Battelle, the project manager for the Appalachian Regional Hydrogen Hub, ARCH2, which includes projects for Ohio, West Virginia and Pennsylvania. A majority of its projects will use steam methane reforming to make hydrogen from natural gas, along with carbon capture and storage. Other projects in the hub plan to make hydrogen from waste gases or from electrolysis, which uses energy to split water molecules. 

In May, dozens of groups urged the Department of Energy to suspend funding discussions for the ARCH2 project until the public receives detailed information beyond general maps and short project descriptions. On July 31 the Department of Energy formally committed the first $30 million of federal funding to ARCH2, with a total of up to $925 million to be spent over the next decade or so.

Last month, the Department of Energy committed up to $1 billion for the Midwest Alliance for Clean Hydrogen, MachH2, which spans Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Iowa and plans to produce hydrogen from a mix of nuclear power, wind energy and natural gas. The department will hold a December 9 briefing on MachH2.

In response to the Energy News Network’s questions about community groups’ complaints about a lack of outreach, a Department of Energy spokesperson provided a statement saying it “has been actively engaged with these communities in support of the economic playbook” of the Biden-Harris administration.

The ARCH2 project held a community outreach session in West Virginia in November, and additional meetings will be held in Ohio and Pennsylvania early next year, Bennett said. Some community group members protested outside at the West Virginia session but then came inside for a good discussion, he added.

Torres said there was no general presentation at the West Virginia meeting, and company representatives were present for only a handful of the hub’s projects. Even then, project information was still sparse. 

“It wasn’t an opportunity for people’s voices to be heard,” he said. “What is the value of these events other than checking a box for these companies?”

Advocacy groups focusing on the MachH2 project said months went by without getting updates or details. Then last month, they got less than 24 hours’ notice for a briefing with general descriptions about the MachH2 hub projects.

During that session, representatives for the Department of Energy said a decision on the hub’s funding commitment would come soon, “probably next week sometime,” said Susan Thomas, the legislative and policy director and communications manager for Just Transition Northwest Indiana. Minutes after the November 20 session ended, the Department of Energy announced the MachH2 funding commitment. 

“Our jaws were on the table,” Thomas said.

Details remain to be worked out

Groups have been trying to get answers from the Department of Energy for more than a year, said Chris Chyung, executive director of Indiana Conservation Voters. In his view, the agency’s approach “is just flouting the law.” According to the Department of Energy’s website, engagement with communities and labor is a key principle required in hubs’ community benefits plans, which are part of hubs’ contractual obligations for funding.

Community groups learned in the November 20 briefing that the MachH2 community engagement would not address concerns related to any pipelines associated with the hub. Instead, those would be handled by a separate office within the Department of Energy. 

But a pipeline for northwestern Indiana “is absolutely part and parcel of [a] dirty hydrogen project that is part of MachH2,” and the community should get a say on it, said Lauren Piette, an attorney with Earthjustice, which does not consider hydrogen made with natural gas to be climate-friendly, even with carbon capture.

The Department of Energy spokesperson did not respond to the Energy News Network’s question about how community benefits for hub projects can fully be assessed if they don’t include consideration of issues and input related to necessary pipelines.

Representatives of the MachH2 and ARCH2 hubs who spoke at an Ohio Fuel Cell & Hydrogen Consortium program last month said they couldn’t practically engage in community outreach until funding commitments had been negotiated with the Department of Energy. Until then, it wasn’t certain whether each hub would move forward.

Also, as a practical matter, “there was no budget for these things,” Bennett said. Details for each hub’s projects are still being worked out, and ARCH2 is still trying to add additional project partners.

Even then, details for projects won’t be finalized until review under the National Environmental Policy Act, according to Neil Banwart, who is the chief integration officer for the MachH2 hub and also the managing director for hydrogen at Energy Systems Network. 

“It’s not a certainty that all of the projects will get built in the locations that we shared on a map,” he said.

Chyung said he felt the comments about funding were “a complete dodge on behalf of these extremely wealthy national corporations that have said since 2023 they were eager to get started on community outreach.”

Advocates frustrated by lack of transparency, engagement on regional hydrogen hub projects is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.