U.S. Reps. Tom Tiffany and Derrick Van Orden were hyped on Friday afternoon, yelling to the crowd at a Chippewa Falls “farm roundtable” about how great  President Donald Trump is for American farmers and how thrilling it was to have him here in Wisconsin. Was that flop sweat on their glistening foreheads? 

Trump’s approval rating hit a new low of 38% according to a Marquette poll released two days before his rural Wisconsin visit, with most respondents saying Democrats do a better job handling the economy. In rural Wisconsin, the Northern Ag Network reports, high fuel and fertilizer prices have been weighing heavily on farmers ever since Trump began his protracted military entanglement in Iran, while farm income is down and projected to drop further this year.

Van Orden, who is trying to hold onto his 3rd Congressional District seat and Tiffany, who wants to be Wisconsin’s next governor, have been faithful to Trump, voting for his “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” with its historic cuts to Medicaid and food assistance that will fall especially hard on rural areas. The five-year, $50 billion rural healthcare fund added to the bill in the U.S. Senate — which Van Orden touted at the Chippewa Falls event — will not come close to making up for the OBBA’s $137 billion in permanent Medicaid cuts to rural areas, according to KFF health policy research. Those cuts will lead to the closure of rural hospitals and, combined with the rollback of the Affordable Care Act, will leave an estimated 30,000 Wisconsinites without healthcare. 

Trump’s visit to Wisconsin was a kind of Hail Mary. “Who’s excited that Donald J. Trump is here?” Ag Secretary Brooke Rollins shouted hoarsely. “Can I get an amen?” 

It was not an intellectual appeal. As Henry Redman reports, the so-called roundtable mostly consisted of a meandering speech by Trump, who insulted Democrats, mocked former President Joe Biden and showed pictures of his revamp of the Washington, D.C. reflecting pool. Instead of policy, the event offered vibes. But vibes can only do so much to overcome the cold, hard economic reality confronting rural voters.

Tiffany and Van Orden, who helped inflict Trump’s disastrous policies on rural Wisconsinites, are hoping Trump’s star power will propel them to victory. 

Wisconsin GOP Chair Brian Schimming took a stab at justifying the cognitive dissonance that will require of Republican voters, telling the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that Trump is forcing them to go through pain now so that he can fix long-term structural problems and bring them future prosperity. 

It was a pretty good try. Wisconsin farmers have demonstrated tremendous resilience in the face of brutal economic cycles. Those who are still around have persevered as more than half of the state’s dairy farms disappeared over the last two decades, through both Democratic and Republican administrations. Trump has denounced the global trade deals embraced by both political parties and promised to stop global trade from harming U.S. workers and farmers. For people who lived through massive consolidation, vertical integration and the commodification of farm products that sent prices plummeting, major structural change, even if it involves some short-term pain, sounds good. But how much longer can those early promises stay fresh? And how much faith do voters have that Trump really has a long-term plan? 

In Chippewa Falls, Trump spent a lot of time bragging about better than expected recent jobs numbers and ignoring underlying weaknesses in the economy that are a danger sign. He complained that the stock market didn’t share his rosy outlook. And he crowed about stopping illegal immigration, telling Wisconsin farmers who rely heavily on immigrant labor that he has stopped “people from mental institutions” and “murderers” from coming across the border. Wisconsin farmers are the wrong crowd for that red meat.

The most significant thing Trump said, before rushing through the brief “roundtable” section of the program, leaving just enough time for the assembled Republican politicians, two athletes, a beer company executive and one farmer to shower him with praise, was a promise of a massive farm subsidy. “I got $28 billion for the farmers in the first term,” he said, referring to the Market Facilitation Program that paid out big checks to farmers just before the 2020 election, to offset the effects of tariffs and trade wars. Once again, he said, he’s  “working on something” to help farmers, “because what happened to you was artificial.” 

Van Orden and Tiffany are hoping that will be enough to stave off reality a little bit longer.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

In the eight years that Cindy Veeser has operated her childcare center in the Green Bay suburb of Bellevue, Forever Young, she has provided an essential service — but she has also faced almost constant challenges.

At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic a few years ago, things got a little easier. Federal pandemic relief funds gave childcare providers like Veeser a new safety net — support and stability that they hadn’t known previously.

In Wisconsin the money went to thousands of providers, including Veeser, through Child Care Counts, a $20 million-a-month childcare stabilization fund that paid providers a monthly stipend.

The money helped childcare centers stay open and increase pay for childcare teachers, all without increasing costs for the parents depending on childcare so they could work.

“Federal stabilization funding prevented system collapse, supporting 5,762 programs, 75,740 educators, and more than 430,000 children, while helping reverse a decade long decline in licensed child care,” the Wisconsin Early Childhood Association states in a report issued in May.

“It made everything possible,” Veeser says of Child Care Counts. “My teachers were getting paid a little bit closer to what they should have been making at that time.”

The money didn’t just go to wages. “There wasn’t one thing that it didn’t help cover,” Veeser says.

At the end of this month, however, providers will lose the last vestige of that support. One year of “bridge” funding from the 2025-27 Wisconsin state budget ends June 30, and childcare providers across Wisconsin are unsure what happens next.

“We’re holding things together the best we can now,” Veeser says. “I just see us falling behind.”

One in four centers could close

More than a year ago one out of four Wisconsin provides told researchers that without Child Care Counts funding they could close down entirely.

More than one in three said they would probably reduce the number of hours they could provide child care. And nearly three out of four said they would have to increase the fees they charge parents.

The survey results were reported in March 2025 by the University of Wisconsin Institute for Research on Poverty. At the time, Wisconsin child care experts were looking ahead to June 2025, when the federal funds that paid for Child Care Counts would run out.

Providers, advocates, Gov. Tony Evers and Democrats in the Legislature had hoped for $480 million in the 2025-27 state budget to continue the stabilization program. What they got was less than 25% of that: $110 million for one year of stabilization funds that ends June 30.

WECA’s May report looked to the 2025 UW survey to forecast what could follow, and solicited new comments from providers.

“I believe that the numbers we reported on, which are the most recent data we have, are going to be much higher in reality,” says Paula Drew, WECA’s director of early care and education policy and research.

“Every provider is talking about the cost of what they’re paying for everything.” in comments submitted to WECA, Drew says. “Many, many, many of them said, ‘I will price parents out and I will likely close,’ or ‘I’m planning on closing because there’s no way I can pay my teachers less.’”

Increased fees and families dropping out

As fees rise, some families drop out of childcare programs. “There’s a huge, growing trend of under-enrollment due to parents not being able to afford the increases that they already have in tuition,” Drew says.

In The Beginning Child Care and Preschool operates centers in Boscobel, Prairie du Chien and Dodgeville, each licensed for 50 children.

“Child Care Counts was a huge difference in our operations,” says director and owner Beth Markut. “We were able to give the staff a minimum of a $2-an-hour raise. We were able to afford new supplies. It was a game changer for us.”

It also helped Markut and her husband, Patrick, open the center in Dodgeville, where they live, in 2023.  “I don’t know if we would have done that if we hadn’t had Child Care Counts, but my guess is probably not,” Markut says.

When Wisconsin cut Child Care Counts payments in half in 2023, In The Beginning increased tuition by 2.5% to 3%, Markut says, and she expects a similar increase after the bridge payments end.

In The Beginning’s increases have been modest compared with those in a state survey, which reported increases for infant care ranging from 11% to 14%, according to WECA.

Nevertheless, Markut says, “I’ve had four families leave our Dodgeville center because it’s cheaper for them just to stay at home” instead of both parents working.

Markut says she’s confident that In The Beginning can keep operating, but she also hopes that lawmakers will come around to the need for ongoing childcare support.

“I don’t think they understand what our profession does through day in and day out,” she says. “If they really understood they would support us, but they don’t. It doesn’t just affect us, it affects the broader economy.”

Shelly Boelter has operated a family child care program in the community of Hager City in northwestern Wisconsin for 23 years.

The family care license is limited to eight children at a time. Boelter built her home with the lower level as childcare space designed into it from the start. “When I was 12, this was what I dreamed of doing,” she says.

Child Care Counts enabled her to take a better wage, cover expenses and put some money away for retirement. That ended when the stabilization stipend was reduced.

To keep going, “I’ll be spending less on things that we could use, to try to just keep it affordable,” Boelter says.

She says she tries to avoid raising rates for families who already have children enrolled, however, because “I don’t want money to be an issue for them to leave.”

As a result, fees vary from one family to another. In the coming months, she expects to raise her rates for new clients, however. “Probably a 25% increase would not be unrealistic,” Boelter says.

She would need even higher increases to fully cover escalating costs, “but families would not be able to afford it,” she says. “I have some families with three children here. They can’t afford that cost for themselves and actually make a living, either.”

‘It’s going to get worse’

With the bridge funding ending and a significant number of programs at risk of  shutting down, advocates say their focus now is on the 2027 state budget, which will be hammered out by  a new governor and a new  state Legislature.

And the childcare economy is likely to become even more precarious.

“The stabilization funding in Wisconsin did some really remarkable things, and it’s really, really sad that we’re just going to see those things roll back,” Drew says.

“There’s a lot of different ways to approach the next budget,” says Ruth Schmidt, WECA executive director — from a new system of direct payments like Child Care Counts to new tax policies or tapping a revenue source, such as legalizing cannabis and then taxing it as a dedicated childcare funding stream.

“The bottom line is, this all is revenue. There’s no way to fix childcare to make it affordable for families, to make it stable within an economy without paying for it,” Schmidt says.

“So, is it going to get worse? We anticipate it’s going to get worse,” she says. “We anticipate it getting significantly worse. And every possible strategy needs money. We can’t just rely on providers to continue to sort of take this on their backs, and it’s not good for them, and it’s not good for kids and families.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

President Donald Trump held a roundtable discussion Friday at Custer Farms in Chippewa Falls to tout his administration’s efforts to help farmers. 

Trump’s visit is his first to Wisconsin during this year’s election season. First to take the stage on Friday were U.S. Reps. Derrick Van Orden and Tom Tiffany, signaling the importance of the 3rd Congressional District and the Wisconsin gubernatorial contest  for Republicans this year. 

Despite Trump’s waning approval ratings, Van Orden and Tiffany tied themselves to the president, effusively praising him.

Trump appeared on stage for the roundtable with both congressmen as well as U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins, farm owner Ken Custer, Jake Leinenkugel, Olympic speed skater Jordan Stolz and Joe Thomas, a Hall of Fame former NFL player who played for UW-Madison and now owns a western Wisconsin beef farm. 

Despite its billing as a roundtable discussion of agriculture policy, Trump spoke for more than 40 minutes straight, at times appearing to read from a script and at others riffing on a number of favorite topics including former Presidents Joe Biden and Barack Obama, “Dumbocrats in Congress,” the allegedly “rigged” 2020 presidential election, transgender people, his multi-million dollar D.C. renovation projects and the southern border. 

“These are some very sick puppies that I’m looking at that are running for office and on the other side,” Trump said. “I call them the Dumocrats, D-U-M, you take out the B, a lot of people don’t know, dumb has a b, a lot of people don’t know. You take out the b and change the E, you put the you and you have a Dumocrat, but they are, their policy is just outstandingly bad, and it’s really bad for the farmer, because we were having record stuff, and then we had to put out a fire, we had to extinguish a nuclear weapon.” 

With six months until November’s midterm elections, many of Trump’s signature policies have directly affected the bottom line of Wisconsin farmers. Trump’s tariffs and war in Iran have greatly increased the cost of essentials such as fertilizer and gas while limiting access to foreign markets for corn and soybeans. In western Wisconsin communities close to where he appeared on Friday, Trump’s immigration crackdown in Minnesota’s Twin Cities extended into the Dairy State, directly striking the undocumented migrant labor the region’s farmers rely on. 

“If anybody you hear says that Donald Trump doesn’t care about the farmers, you can look him straight in the eye and tell him that’s a pile of manure, because the man is right back there,” Van Orden said. “We’re going to make sure our farmers don’t have to wring their hands at night because they’re worried about paying bills.” 

Trump and other speakers promised that the administration and congressional Republicans are working to ease the burden on American farmers, but offered little in the way of concrete proposals for how fertilizer, seed, gas and equipment will get cheaper or how milk, corn and soybeans will get easier to sell. 

“Your fertilizer prices are going to go way down, just like they were four months ago,” Trump said. “Your fertilizer is down, your energy’s down, your oil, your gas is all coming way down. And frankly, I thought it would go much higher than it did.” 

In the days leading up to Friday’s event Democratic politicians and Democratic-aligned groups rolled out a series of tours, roundtables and online events to highlight complaints about administration policies on all manner of things. 

“Wisconsin farmers do backbreaking work to produce world-class products that feed the world and drive our rural economies. President Trump came into office promising to support our farmers, but instead has taken every opportunity to jack up their costs, limit their customers, and cut into their margins,” U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin) said in a statement. “Between Donald Trump’s trade war, unnecessary war in Iran, and attacks on our health care system, Wisconsin farmers are paying more for everything, and Donald Trump has no solutions to the problems he’s caused. As President Trump visits Wisconsin, he owes our farmers more than lip service – they need real relief from the high costs they are paying.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The University of Wisconsin Board of Regents approved a 2% tuition increase for the 2026-27 academic year and elected Regent Kyle Weatherly to serve as its president this week. 

Weatherly to serve as UW Regent president 

Weatherly, whose day job is serving as the president of Alta Medical, has been on the Board since May 2020. He is a graduate of UW-Madison. He succeeds Regent Amy Bogost, who served two terms as president starting in June 2024. 

“I owe so much of what I have achieved to my family and to the Universities of Wisconsin,” Weatherly said. “As Regent President, my priority will be to help ensure that students in every corner of our state have access to the opportunity, excellence, and upward mobility that public higher education can provide.” 

The Board president is responsible for deciding Board committee membership, signing diplomas and contracts issued by the Board as well as speaking on behalf of the Board to the governor and lawmakers. Bogost, alongside Regent Tim Nixon, was recently questioned by Wisconsin Senators over the firing of Jay Rothman, who had served as the system president since 2022, in April. 

The Board also elected Regent Ashok Rai to serve as vice president, taking over the role from Weatherly. Rai has served as a regent since May 2021. 

Tuition increase

The board announced the proposed increase earlier this week and approved it on a 15-1 vote, with Nixon the only opponent.

The increase will support university operations, including utilities and facility maintenance, employee salaries and benefits and student services. It’s the fourth consecutive year of increases since a 10-year tuition freeze that was lifted in 2023. 

Bogost called the increase “a balanced and measured approach to addressing the rising costs” in the UW system. 

“It helps preserve affordability for students while ensuring the UWs have the resources needed to maintain the high-quality education they provide,” she said in a statement. 

The board had characterized the increase as “modest,” less than the current 3.8% inflation rate and less than last year’s tuition increase of 5%. 

“Our universities are facing inflationary increases, an obligation to help fund state-mandated pay increases for our hard-working employees, and other cost pressures,” Weatherly said in a statement. “Our universities have done a great job in recent years managing expenses, but the financial environment remains challenging. We have a fiduciary duty as regents to ensure quality and the long-term success of our universities.”

Before the vote, Nixon said he wouldn’t support the increase due to the “lack of open and honest communication” by Rothman’s administration and the burden that it could mean for students and their families. He noted that state senators knew about the increase before regents were informed. 

At an April confirmation meeting when lawmakers questioned Bogost and Nixon about Rothman’s firing, Sen. Rachael Cabral-Guevara (R-Appleton) asked the regents about the proposed tuition increase. Bogost, at the time, said the increase was not set in stone. 

“That was disturbing to me,” Nixon said Thursday. 

Regents in the past were “expected to rubber stamp proposals without necessary information to public discussions,” he said.

“We’ve increased tuition four years in a row. I personally have not been provided with sufficient information to believe it is again necessary. No matter how reasonable the increase, the burden on students, parents and the public is real,” Nixon said. “It should not be undertaken without a clearly demonstrated need.” 

Nixon also said the tuition increase could “cost” the system in the next budget cycle “no matter who is in control.” 

Republican lawmakers have criticized the increase, arguing that recent tuition increases and increases in state funding should have been enough to avoid an increase this year. The about $250 million that the system received in the 2025-27 state budget fell well below the amount that Rothman at the time said was necessary to avoid tuition increases. 

In a statement after the proposal was announced, Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point), who sits on the powerful committee responsible for writing the state budget every two years, said that he and his colleagues “certainly will not forget this betrayal when the regents and UW officials come begging to us for more money during next year’s state budget deliberations. This is simply unacceptable.”

The increase will add $210 to the annual tuition cost for in-state students at UW-Madison, $184 at UW-Milwaukee, and between $147 and $175 at other campuses, according to Board meeting documents.

Students from out of state will see an increase of 4.0% — about $1,700 a year.

The regents also approved a 3.5% increase — about $56 annually — in segregated fees, which help cover student services, activities, programs and facilities. The combined increase in tuition, segregated fees and cost of room and board for in-state students would average 2.5%, or $477 annually. UW-Stout has the highest yearly increase, $666, and UW-Oshkosh the lowest, $296. 

“It is easy to say we are only taking a few hundred dollars,” Nixon said. “That is, however, a lot of money for many people when they do not have it, especially with skyrocketing costs of almost everything. We should lean a little in the direction of the students. We inherited these problems. We need to look at creative fixes.” 

The combined annual tuition and segregated fees for in-state students at each campus are:

• UW-Eau Claire: $10,268
• UW-Green Bay: $9,133
• UW-La Crosse: $10,563
• UW-Madison: $12,416
• UW-Milwaukee: $11,153
• UW-Oshkosh: $9,180
• UW-Parkside: $8,851
• UW-Platteville: $9,007
• UW-River Falls: $9,448
• UW-Stevens Point: $9,692
• UW-Stout: $10,289
• UW-Superior: $9,477
• UW-Whitewater: $8,984

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

At a forum hosted by the Madison West High School civics club, former Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes told students that he would be the strongest Democratic candidate for governor because of his previous statewide experience.

“This will be an incredibly competitive race. It already is. The general election is going to show up fast and furious,” Barnes said in April. “I am the only person who has ever competed at that level.”

Barnes was referring to his 2022 U.S. Senate race, which he lost to Sen. Ron Johnson by about one percentage point. Barnes is now seeking Wisconsin’s top executive office and arguing that nearly winning that Senate seat combined with his statewide experience has uniquely prepared him to take on U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, Republican candidate for governor endorsed by President Donald Trump.

Barnes entered the race in December and he’ll need to get through a crowded Democratic primary to make it onto the November ballot. It’s unlikely the rest of the Democratic candidates will drop out to clear the field for him as they did in the 2022 Senate race. Other Democratic candidates on the ballot include state Rep. Francesca Hong (D-Madison), Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez, Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, former Wisconsin Economic Development Corp. CEO Missy Hughes, former head of Gov. Tony Evers’ Department of Administration Joel Brennan and State Sen. Kelda Roys.

Putting in the work

Barnes, 39, grew up in Milwaukee the child of a public school teacher and an auto worker who was a member of United Auto Workers (UAW) union and worked third shift for decades. He first ran for office at 25, winning a seat in the state Assembly. He served two terms in the Legislature before launching a failed campaign for the state Senate.

“I felt that there weren’t enough people who understood what it meant to be born in our state’s poorest and nation’s most incarcerated ZIP code,” Barnes said of his motivation for seeking political office. He came back in 2018 to run for lieutenant governor, winning a spot on the ticket with Gov. Tony Evers in 2018. He served as the state’s first Black lieutenant governor before he challenged incumbent U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson.

Barnes, an avid runner and biker, told the Examiner in an interview that politics is an “endurance sport” and that “sometimes you face setbacks” — adding that he faced setbacks every day in the Assembly and views his loss to Johnson as another setback. There is too much on the line, however, to give up and stop working toward his goals, he said.

“In order for us to truly make Wisconsin the place that it can and should be — not just to catch up to our Midwest neighbors, but to lead this entire country in terms of progress — I have put in that work. I have put in that fight, and there’s nobody who’s put in their work in the advocacy space,” more than he has, Barnes said. “I see becoming governor as the best opportunity to continue that focus, to continue that work.”

Barnes has made it his campaign motto that he will do things the “Wisconsin Way” instead of the “Washington Way.” He criticizes Trump and his ally Tiffany as being “out of control.” 

The Barnes campaign is focused on the rising cost of living for Wisconsin families. 

“There is an affordability crisis that affects almost every household in this state, whether it’s healthcare, whether it’s groceries, whether it’s energy bills, or whether it’s housing, and it feels like there’s no sign of things letting up,” Barnes said. He added that voters are looking for leaders who understand those pressures firsthand.

Barnes spoke with the Examiner about two weeks after the failure of a bill negotiated by Wisconsin’s soon-to-retire Democratic governor and Republican legislative leaders who are also about to leave office that would have spent down the state’s $2.5 billion projected budget surplus to provide tax cuts to Wisconsinites and additional special education funding to schools. He expressed opposition to the deal, which most legislative Democrats along with a handful of Republicans rejected. He said policymakers need to “be more deliberate about negotiating big tasks.” 

An organizer’s mindset

Over the last three years, Barnes has led Power to the Polls Wisconsin, a grassroots voting rights organization dedicated to mobilizing voters, combating voter suppression and advocating for underserved communities of color and working-class families. He also founded Forward Together Wisconsin, a clean energy nonprofit. He brings an organizing mindset to the legislative process.

“People shouldn’t feel like they’re rushed to get legislation passed… I think that there should be more public hearings,” he said, adding, “There’s not a whole lot of public input.”

Barnes said the projected surplus “didn’t just come out of nowhere; it’s because Republicans have withheld investments in our future.” He, like the Democrats who are hoping to win control of at least one chamber of the Legislature in the fall, would like the opportunity to reverse years of Republican budget policy without facing a looming budget deficit, which analysts predicted would result from the tax-cut and school funding deal. 

“The answer to most of our problems is simple,” Barnes said. “It’s just a tax on billionaires, tax the wealthiest, tax large corporations that have every tax advantage at their disposal.” 

“Ultimately, if a state like Wisconsin is a place that fully funds our schools, puts more support into higher education, tech schools, and university system, invests in public transportation,” he added, “that’s how you make the state a much more attractive place.”

Closing tax loopholes

Barnes said he would focus on closing tax loopholes that allow large corporations and wealthy individuals to reduce their tax burden. One example is Wisconsin’s manufacturing and agriculture tax credit, which provides a credit of 7.5% on income from eligible qualified production activities — reducing the effective corporate tax rate on qualifying income from 7.9% to about 0.4%.

Barnes wants to change it so “it benefits our family farmers, not these factory farms, corporate farms” and the “primary benefit also goes to Wisconsin very small businesses versus out-of-state corporations.”

He said he would not seek to raise income taxes on families making $400,000 or less, but those making more should pay more. He didn’t offer specifics, but said that the income tax brackets could change, mentioning Minnesota as an example. Wisconsin’s neighbor’s top income tax rate is currently 9.85%, while Wisconsin’s is 7.65%.

“I’m not saying we’re taxing people into poverty, right? That’s not the case. We’re not taxing people out of the state,” Barnes said. “We’re just looking for a little bit of parity.”

Barnes said that Wisconsin “shouldn’t be left behind anymore.”

Barnes has said he supports increasing state funding so it covers two-thirds of public school costs and has called for repealing Act 10 to restore collective bargaining rights for public employees, including teachers. He also backs increased investment in the University of Wisconsin system and technical colleges, though he has not outlined a specific number. 

Barnes, if elected, will need to win support in the Legislature to advance his agenda. He said he is optimistic about Democrats’ chances of winning the majority, but he would be open to negotiating with anyone should he win office.

“I’m willing to play ball,” Barnes said, though that negotiation commitment would not extend to one of his top promises — Medicaid expansion. He has promised to veto any budget that doesn’t include it, even as candidates have argued over whether an expansion would be the best way to address costs in light of federal changes made by the Trump administration. 

Barnes said an ultimatum would not inhibit his ability to negotiate with lawmakers because the issue shouldn’t be partisan. 

“It is a politicized issue,” Barnes said, noting that Republican-led states including Louisiana have taken the expansion. 

Republican lawmakers who hold the majority in the Legislature, have refused to expand Medicaid since 2010. Barnes said during the student forum that he finds it “very hard” to find common ground with Republicans because the party has become “essentially the Republican party of one person” and he doesn’t want to find himself “in a place where I am validating bad behavior.”

Making a comeback

Barnes argues that his gubernatorial candidacy has the support he needs to win, although there was some public skepticism even before he entered the race. He was the subject of a New York Times article comparing his loss to Johnson in 2022 to former Vice President Kamala Harris’ loss in 2024. The Milwaukee Courier, a prominent Black-owned newspaper, urged him in an opinion piece not to enter the race. 

Barnes said of the criticism that people have “gotta have something to write about.” Asked whether he needed to build back trust with Wisconsin Democrats ahead of running statewide again, he said he didn’t think it was about that. 

“People know how much money was spent against me. People know that I was the most targeted Democrat in the entire country, the target of the largest anti-Democratic candidate super PAC in the country. People know what I was up against and the relationships I built over the course of that race. People know that I was counted out from the very beginning,” Barnes said. “People know how Republican billionaires are willing to spend big, and this is a moment for us to fight back against those corporate interests that have held Wisconsin back, and they’re ready to see this through.”

Barnes’ campaign finance report from December included a mix of donations from Wisconsin-based donors, including those who live in Milwaukee and Madison as well other towns and cities across the state, and many from other states including California, Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York and Virginia as well as Washington D.C. Barnes also received a donation from the Long Run PAC, a group he launched to support progressive candidates. He has a goal to raise $50 million over the course of the campaign. 

In the first half of the year, Barnes has also received a mix of endorsements from Wisconsin Democrats, including State Reps. Angelina Cruz and Amaad Rivera-Wagner and Green Bay Mayor Eric Genrich and from national political players including California Sen. Adam Schiff, and most recently, the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund, a leading environmental advocacy organization. 

Climate change and utility costs

“No one in Wisconsin has done or will do more to tackle the climate crisis while lowering costs for working families than Mandela Barnes,” Jed Ober, managing director of Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund, said in a statement. 

Barnes has made reducing utility rates one of the key parts of his affordability platform. He says that he’ll seek to freeze rates as governor by appointing commissioners to the Public Service Commission, which regulates utilities and approves rates, who will do so. Utility experts have criticized the plan and said its unclear whether he could carry it out, though Barnes said that criticisms of that plan are being levied by “the industry itself.” 

Barnes has said he would appoint commissioners who have a “demonstrated commitment” through a “thorough interview process” and they will need to have worked alongside the industry and have a “real deep understanding of how we can actually benefit the public to make sure that the PSC is doing its job to represent the public interest.” He added that he would like to increase staffing at the PSC as well. 

Barnes said environmental policy will be a priority. He chaired a climate change task force as lieutenant governor that he noted produced a slate of policy solutions that were later introduced by Democratic lawmakers as a package of 18 bills. 

The Senate race as well as his time serving as the state’s second-in-command helped him enter the race with the most name recognition, according to polling by Marquette Law School. On the other hand, Charles Franklin, the Marquette Law School poll director, looked at the track record of five statewide candidates, Republican and Democrat, who lost an election and ran again for statewide office. He found that name identification and previous campaign experience, including established donors, did not significantly improve the percentage of votes they got in the general election in their second statewide campaign. The last successful “second act” was the 1970s, he said.

Barnes is working to convince enough voters that he can overcome the historical pattern and is the best candidate to compete in November. He is reaching people in a variety of ways, including traveling the state to attend forums and county Democratic Party meetings, where he said he’s been glad to reconnect with people across the state whom he hasn’t seen in a while. 

Through his @MandelaHQ account on X, Barnes has adopted a rapid-response social media style reminiscent of national campaign-style accounts like @KamalaHQ during the 2024 cycle. The account highlights poll results, including a recent one that showed Barnes winning in a matchup against Tiffany, targets Tiffany with humor and memes — one post featuring Tiffany at a farm joked that “cows can smell DC stink” — while also promoting policy proposals through short videos. In one video on banning AI-driven dynamic pricing and hidden fees, a group of children raise the price of lemonade after Barnes passes by on a run.

Barnes told students that one of the biggest misconceptions about him is that he doesn’t “get to be as funny” as he’d like.

“It’s tough because in politics, if you crack a joke or people aren’t able to translate sarcasm, like the story’s getting written the wrong way,” Barnes said. “I can’t be as funny as I want to be… sometimes my humor is a little dry. It’s not for everybody.”

Editor’s note: The Examiner is running periodic profiles of the contenders in the Aug. 11, 2026 gubernatorial primary as well as the candidates in the general election Nov. 3. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The Wisconsin Supreme Court voted Thursday to create a committee that will study and assess the state’s recusal rules for judges and justices — delaying immediate action on an issue that has gained public prominence as the cost of the state’s Supreme Court elections has risen. 

The Court voted after holding a public hearing and open conference on a petition from a group of retired judges to update the state’s recusal rules, which currently put the decision of recusal in the hands of each individual judge or justice.  

The existing rules were adopted in 2010 and largely written by two powerful lobbying groups, Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce and the Wisconsin Realtors Association. In 2017, the Court’s then-conservative majority voted 5-2 to reject a petition to enact stricter recusal rules. 

In recent years, as the Court’s liberals worked year by year to gain a majority, the conservative justices and many Republican officials in the state have complained that they were in league with the state Democratic party and called for the recusal of justices on high profile issues. Those accusations continued Thursday. 

“I oppose the creation of this committee, because I think it will ultimately waste the time of all of the members,” Justice Rebecca Bradley said. “Because if the committee proposes anything that represents true reform in the recusal arena, the court, as currently constituted, will never adopt anything that will interfere with the successful formula for electoral success in recent elections, which is to telegraph how you will rule on cases and receive up to $10 million from a party, and then sit on that party’s cases. So I ultimately think it’s going to waste a lot of people’s time.”

During the public hearing, the petition authors were among the speakers pushing for a committee to study the issue rather than adopt the suggested new rules because of the complexity involved. Speakers questioned how recusal rules might conflict with the First Amendment, whether they would adhere to existing state law, the state of Wisconsin’s legal culture and Supreme Court campaigns were questioned. 

“We want to have the correct rule, the best rule,” said retired Dane County Judge Richard Niess, one of the petitioners. “There is no one single rule that is demanded by the circumstances. There are a number of options, but they all need to be vetted within the context of Wisconsin and within the context of the constitutions, both state and federal.” 

Throughout the day, Justice Brian Hagedorn was especially vocal, pushing speakers to say what they hoped to accomplish with a new rule. He noted that every member of the Supreme Court has decided cases in which one of the parties spent money campaigning for or against them. 

“A lot of this feels like PR cover to me that doesn’t really do anything, and so I’m trying to figure out what problem you’re trying to solve,” Hagedorn said. “Who should have recused that’s not recusing, that you think this rule is meant to resolve. Like your petition is described as something ‘toughening recusal.’” 

He added that it “goes both ways. From my perspective, I don’t know whether it matters whether somebody campaigned for or against somebody, so for example, SEIU [the Service Employees International Union], they spent, according to public records, under $40,000 campaigning against me. I sat on the case. They gave $400,000 plus to the Chief Justice [Jill Karofsky]. She sat on the case. Is that problematic? None of us, neither of us seem to think it was under those circumstances.” 

The justices also debated how modern campaigns have affected the issue of recusal — with political parties and their allies spending millions of dollars to elect their preferred candidate while the candidates themselves more directly reference their personal views  on important issues. 

“There’s this question about what kind of legal culture we want in the state of Wisconsin,” Hagedorn said. “What kind of judicial elections we want in the state of Wisconsin. When I travel around the country, frankly, judges of all stripes kind of aghast at what has become of Wisconsin’s elections. We’re kind of considered a bit of a national disgrace about how elections are run nowadays, and part of that’s the resources that flow into these races. Part of it’s the nature of how campaigns have played out, because they’re no longer about often the legal questions.” 

Karofsky said that those frustrations about Wisconsin’s system also go the other way, noting that observers are just as annoyed by nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court telling senators they’ll just “call balls and strikes” when clearly they will bring a political frame to the Court. 

“The utter frustration of members of the Senate, members of the public, members of the legal community who know that’s probably — and as it turns out, in many cases — just not the truth, and that there’s this veneer that they hide behind and say that they are just going to be fair and impartial,” she said. 

During the hearing, Ann Jacobs, a former president of the Wisconsin Association of Justice and chair of the Wisconsin Elections Commission, said that whatever the rule is, the Court needs to be careful that it doesn’t punish attorneys for being politically involved. 

“It appears that in considering recusal, a judge has to consider a lawyer’s or a litigant’s prior political activities, and what does that mean? Door knocking, signature gathering, fundraiser holding, social media posts, hours spent on behalf of a campaign, meetings attended,” she said, referring to the draft rule written by the petitioners. 

“How does a judge ascertain this?” she asked. “Does a lawyer have to divulge this as a matter of course, does the judge have to question lawyers about their political activities? Is a judge required to search the internet looking for political activity?”

Jacobs warned against the prospect of “a system where parties, litigants, their lawyers, etc. are cross examined” about their political activity and possibly excessive partisanship.

She said she has a “selfish interest in this” because she’s a co-chair of a Democratic party caucus, a partisan appointee to a state commission and sits on the board of a political organization.  

“I’m sort of the definition of politically active, and what I can’t tell from this proposed rule is whether and when and how my political activity that I am proud of, within the party of my choosing could cause the recusal of a judge,” she said. “We must be extraordinarily careful not to penalize lawyers and litigants for being politically active. That’s the heart of our democracy. It’s what we want people to do.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The state of Wisconsin and Tyco Fire Products have reached a settlement agreement to help clean up the environment and provide clean drinking water in Marinette, where the company’s actions have caused PFAS contamination in the city water supply. 

Under the settlement, Tyco agreed to pay $10 million into the state’s PFAS remediation trust fund, provide clean drinking water to residents in the affected area and work with the Department of Natural Resources to clean up the contamination. The agreement concludes a lawsuit filed by the state Department of Justice against Tyco in 2022 in which the state accused Tyco of failing to notify the state of the PFAS discharge and then failing to properly remediate the pollution. 

A separate legal action in which the state sued the manufacturers of products containing PFAS, including Tyco, is still pending. 

Officials on Thursday celebrated the settlement as a historic first for the state in its efforts to hold polluters accountable for the PFAS pollution that has affected communities across Wisconsin. 

“Today is a historic and important milestone in our fight to make sure every Wisconsinite has access to clean and safe drinking water, whether they live in Marinette or Stella or on French Island or anywhere in between,” Gov. Tony Evers said in a statement. “While today is an important victory, we know our work cannot stop. For the folks in Marinette, this day has been a long time coming, but we know that for so many families and communities across our state, dealing with PFAS pollution is still a daily reality. Here in Wisconsin, we must keep working to tackle PFAS head-on, and that includes continuing to hold PFAS polluters accountable for the damage they’ve caused and are causing across our state.”

PFAS are a group of manmade chemical compounds commonly called “forever chemicals” because they don’t break down in the body or environment. They’ve been used in household goods such as non-stick pans and fast food wrappers, as well as certain kinds of firefighting foam. PFAS have been connected to health problems, including birth defects and certain types of cancer. 

The settlement marks another action by the state this year to address the state’s PFAS problems. In April, Evers signed into law a bill that will release $125 million to help communities test for and clean up PFAS contamination in the local water. 

The enactment of that law ended a multi-year legislative saga to reach bipartisan agreement on how to best structure the clean up programs and who should be held responsible for the pollution. 

“Municipalities like Marinette and Peshtigo have waited far too long for this day to come. Now, the work begins to turn this settlement into relief for pollution victims,” Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Gillett), the PFAS law’s main author, said in a statement. “Now, every single dollar from the Tyco settlement will go into the PFAS Trust Fund and be used to support affected victims and communities.”

But clean water advocates in the area said in a Thursday evening press release they’re disappointed in the settlement — mostly due to the state’s agreement to reduce the area for which Tyco is being held responsible. SOH20, a Marinette-based group that has pushed for better protections of PFAS-affected communities across the state, said that the boundaries the state agreed to means that 80 households with contaminated private wells won’t get the support they need.

“Safe drinking water should never become a competition between contaminated communities,” said SOH2O. “By placing these funds into a statewide PFAS trust fund, impacted residents across Wisconsin are now forced to compete against one another for limited resources, despite all communities being equally deserving of clean, safe drinking water.”

This report has been updated with a statement from SOH20 in Marinette.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. House passed a resolution Wednesday to force President Donald Trump to withdraw from the war with Iran and require congressional approval for further military action in the country.

The 215-208 vote, in which four Republicans voted with all Democrats to adopt the resolution, is the strongest rebuke to date against Trump’s handling of the months-long war that has left more than a dozen military troops dead, killed thousands of Iranian civilians and disrupted global supply chains of fertilizer and oil with the blockage of the Strait of Hormuz. 

Republican Reps. Tom Barrett of Michigan, Warren Davidson of Ohio, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and Thomas Massie of Kentucky voted in favor.

The War Powers Resolution nearly passed the House last month, but failed on a 212-212 tie. The measure is a tool for Congress to limit the president’s ability to initiate or escalate military actions.

Several similar efforts in the Senate have failed. However, following the Republican primary loss of Sen. Bill Cassidy, the Louisianan joined with Democrats and several GOP senators in a vote to move the measure forward. A vote on final passage on the Senate measure has not been scheduled.

Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, sponsored the resolution in that chamber.

Michigan Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib has a separate War Powers Resolution that would force the president to withdraw troops from Lebanon. Israel, with weapons and funding from the United States, has launched an assault on that nation.

The passage of the resolution in the GOP-controlled House was the latest sign of growing dissent against Trump among congressional Republicans. 

Senate Republicans balked at Trump’s effort to create a nearly $1.8 billion fund to pay people who believe they were wrongly prosecuted by the Justice Department, including those who were convicted and later pardoned by the president for attacking the U.S. Capitol in January 2021. 

The Trump administration backed away from the fund after disputes over it halted work on legislation to fund immigration and deportation activities for the rest of the president’s second term.

A total of 333 people filed nomination papers with the Wisconsin Elections Commission to run for office in Wisconsin this fall — the first official act in a campaign season that will see the state elect a new governor and potentially change the balance of power in the state Legislature. 

In the races for statewide offices such as the governor’s race, candidates are required to collect at least 2,000 signatures. Candidates for Congress must file at least 1,000 signatures while state Senate candidates must file 400 and Assembly candidates 200.

Any member of the public can challenge the sufficiency of a candidate’s nomination papers. To challenge a candidate, a person must make a verified complaint to WEC by 5 p.m. Thursday. The candidate will get an opportunity to respond, and the commission will meet June 9 to certify or deny ballot access.

The seven major candidates in the Democratic primary for governor all filed enough signatures to ensure ballot access, according to WEC records. 

Minocqua Brewing Company owner and political gadfly Kirk Bangstad did not reach the 2,000 signature threshold after listing the wrong date on a number of signature forms — writing the date of the Aug. 11 primary rather than the Nov. 3 general election. Circulators who gathered signatures for Bangstad also omitted information on the forms such as the municipality they live in. 

Bangstad, who did not announce his run for governor until early May, will have until Sunday afternoon to file affidavits seeking to fix the errors on the forms. 

“Bangstad is NOT DEAD YET,” a post on the Minocqua Brewing Facebook page stated. 

Former Democratic state Rep. Brett Hulsey, who has regularly turned up at political events around Madison in recent months to draw media attention and tout his run for governor, did not file any signatures with the commission, records show. 

On the Republican side, U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany filed nearly 4,000 signatures. Tiffany cleared the field of serious contenders after he was endorsed by the Republican Party of Wisconsin and President Donald Trump earlier this year. But 27-year-old medical services technician Andy Manske filed 2,040 signatures to get on the Republican primary ballot.

In the race for lieutenant governor, Democrat Sarah Godlewski and Republican Will Martin filed enough signatures. But WEC only counted 1,977 valid signatures from Republican David Varnam. 

In the state’s congressional races, the once-crowded Democratic primary in the 1st Congressional District to unseat Rep. Bryan Steil will have four candidates: Miguel Aranda, Mitchell Berman, Peter Burgelis and Lorenzo Santos. 

Randy Bryce, an ironworker who previously ran for the seat in 2018 and was the first to announce his intention to challenge Steil for 2026, did not file any signatures and announced he was suspending his campaign. 

In the 3rd Congressional District, where Democrats are again focusing their attention in an effort to unseat Rep. Derrick Van Orden, Democrats Rebecca Cooke and Emily Berge both filed enough signatures to gain ballot access. Berge was the first candidate in the entire state to file her signatures with WEC. Two independents, Alexander Valiensi Kent and Rustin Provance, also filed to run in the race. 

Democratic Rep. Gwen Moore in the Milwaukee area’s 4th Congressional District is set to face a primary challenge from Democratic Socialist Amy Donahue. 

Six potential challengers filed to run in the 6th Congressional District, held by Republican Rep. Glenn Grothman. Seven candidates, including three Democrats and four Republicans, filed enough signatures to run in the 7th District to replace Tiffany, and three candidates filed to run in the 8th District Democratic primary to challenge GOP Rep. Tony Wied. 

In four races, candidates were given an extension until 5 p.m. Thursday because Tiffany, Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez, state Rep. Dave Murphy (R-Hortonville) and state Rep. Jenna Jacobson (D-Oregon) did not file declarations of non-candidacy. Murphy is retiring while the other three are running for higher office.

The Wisconsin Legislature’s budget committee authorized $7 million in state funds Tuesday so that a state agency that supports Wisconsinites with disabilities entering the workforce can draw down a waiting list of more than 7,000 people.

The Joint Finance Committee voted unanimously for the funding, but members first argued over why the panel didn’t act sooner to provide the money.

The Division of Vocational Rehabilitation in the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development reported in November that it faced a shortfall under the current state budget.

For people with disabilities who are seeking work, DVR provides career services including training as well as technical assistance for employers. The agency typically works with about 19,000 clients at a time, according to DWD. DVR receives federal funds to cover 78.7% of its annual costs, with the state required to cover the remaining 21.3% under federal law.

The 2025-27 state budget added $3.8 million for the agency, bringing state funding to $21.3 million, according to the Legislative Fiscal Bureau.

In November, the agency announced it was $4.6 million short of what was needed for the 2025-26 fiscal year. Because of that shortfall, the agency instituted a waiting list for people needing the DVR’s services.

“While we’ve been able to support existing program participants, all new applicants have been forced to wait for services, leaving over 7,600 Wisconsinites with disabilities currently on the waitlist to receive career services,” said DWD Secretary-designee Amy Pechacek in a statement Tuesday from the department. About 1,000 people seeking services are added to the waitlist each month, according to DWD.

DWD asked the finance committee for $4.6 million for the budget’s first 12 months, 2025-26, and another $6.4 million for the second 12 months, 2026-27.

Tuesday, the budget committee’s Republican majority on a 4-11 vote rejected a bid by the committee’s four Democrats to honor that request.

“It just stuns me that this committee wouldn’t take every opportunity to make sure that we have a zero waitlist opportunity so that people with disabilities can enter the workforce, pay taxes, and contribute to our economy,” said state Rep. Deb Andraca (D-Whitefish Bay) after the vote. “Are we really saving money by preventing people from working and not doing everything we can so that there’s no waitlist for this program?”

Instead, the majority proposed a $600,000 appropriation for the first year, which ends June 30, and the full $6.4 million sought for the second year. The Legislative Fiscal Bureau projected the appropriation would enable the waitlist to be closed by the end of June 2027. The proposal passed 15-0.

The funds were made possible in part because a $20 million appropriation for dairy farm aid that passed the Senate died in the Assembly, said Sen. Rob Stafsholt (R-New Richmond).

DWD will draw down the waitlist by first giving priority to people with the most serious disabilities, followed by people with less severe but significant disabilities and finally people whose disabilities do not seriously limit their functional capacity or require people with multiple services.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Wisconsin State Rep. Francesca Hong (D-Madison), one of the leading candidates in the Democratic primary for governor, is being sued by Capital One Bank over nearly $30,000 in credit card debt, court records show. 

The lawsuit was filed May 26 in Dane County Circuit Court by the bank due to Hong “failing to make the minimum payment” on her Discover credit card — which the records show she’s had since September of 2011. The suit alleges breach of contract and account stated, meaning Hong was notified of the total balance due of $29,344.48 and did not object. 

Hong’s campaign manager Becky Cooper said in a statement that the campaign “will have a letter shortly confirming this debt is paid in full.” 

Since she entered the race last year, Hong, a member of the Legislature’s Socialist Caucus, has emerged as a surprise contender. With two and half months until the Aug. 11 primary, she’s been leading or at the top of a number of polls, picking up early support and energy through an active social media campaign and non-traditional events across the state. 

Hong has centered her campaign on issues of affordability and income inequality, focusing especially on increasing taxes on the state’s wealthiest residents and protecting people from rising utility bills caused by the proliferation of hyperscale data centers in Wisconsin. A chef and former restaurant owner, she was first elected to the Legislature in 2020 after highlighting the toll the COVID-19 pandemic took on working class people. 

Cooper said Hong’s debt is emblematic of the struggles many Wisconsin residents have faced recently. 

“Like 80% of Americans, Rep. Hong has debt, specifically from business expenses that rose astronomically during the pandemic,” Cooper said. “She leads from a place of knowing the endless struggles with bills and the stress that places on families every day. Her policies will help Wisconsin residents develop greater economic stability and success.”

The University of Wisconsin Board of Regents will vote this week on a 2% tuition hike that would go towards supporting university operations, including utilities and facility maintenance, employee salaries and benefits and student services. 

In a release, the Board characterized the increases as “modest,” noting that it’s less than the current inflation rate of 3.8%. The Board said the increase follows years of “significant financial restructuring across UW universities, including reductions in structural deficits, operational changes and campus-level cost containment efforts designed to strengthen long-term financial stability.”

UW Interim President Renée Wachter, who took up the position on May 8, said in a statement the system recognizes that “Wisconsin families are managing rising costs in every part of their lives, and that reality informed this proposal.” 

“This is a measured increase that helps our universities continue providing strong student support and high-quality academic experiences while keeping a UW education among the most affordable in the Midwest,” Wachter said.

The change would also include a 3.5% increase — or about $56 annually — in segregated fees, which help cover student services, activities, programs and facilities. The combined increase in tuition, segregated fees and cost of room and board would average 2.5%.

Over the years the state’s investment in the system has declined. In 1984-85, state revenue made up 41.8% of the UW System’s budget, while in recent years, state funding has made up less than 20% of the system budget. The change has meant the system has had to rely more heavily on tuition and fees. 

It’s the fourth year of increases following a 10-year tuition freeze that was adopted under former Gov. Scott Walker and ended in 2023. The tuition hike in 2025 was the maximum of 5%.

Republican U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, who is running for governor, said in a post on X that he would institute another tuition freeze and “restore accountability” to the universities if elected. He noted the previous increases and the recent investment in the state budget.

The system received a $250 million boost for operational costs under the biennial state budget adopted in 2025, but it was well below the $855 million operational budget increase that former UW President Jay Rothman said would be needed to avoid tuition increases.

Republican lawmakers also expressed irritation at the proposed increase.

The prospect of a  2% increase came up in April during a Senate Technical Colleges and Universities committee hearing as lawmakers questioned UW Regent President Amy Bogost and Regent Timothy Nixon about the firing of Rothman. The regents told lawmakers at the time that there was “nothing written in stone.”

“I don’t know if it’s going to happen,” Bogost said then. 

In a statement, Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point), who sits on the powerful committee responsible for writing the state budget every two years, claimed the regents lied.

“Unfortunately, students and their families are the ones who will be paying the price for this dishonesty,” Testin said. “At least we now know that we can no longer take the UW Board of Regents at their word. My Joint Finance Committee colleagues and I certainly will not forget this betrayal when the regents and UW officials come begging to us for more money during next year’s state budget deliberations. This is simply unacceptable.”

Sen. Rob Hutton (R-Brookfield) chairs the Senate Universities and Technical Colleges committee,  did not respond to a request for comment from the Examiner. Hutton is retiring and will not be in the Legislature when lawmakers return in 2027 to write the next state budget.

It is unclear whether Republicans will hold control of the state Senate and Assembly or to the governor’s office in 2027. 

The regents are scheduled to meet on June 4 and 5 in Milwaukee.

The per-year tuitions at each campus under the proposed increase are: 

• UW-Eau Claire: $10,268
• UW-Green Bay: $9,133
• UW-La Crosse: $10,563
• UW-Madison: $12,416
• UW-Milwaukee: $11,153
• UW-Oshkosh: $9,180
• UW-Parkside: $8,851
• UW-Platteville: $9,007
• UW-River Falls: $9,448
• UW-Stevens Point: $9,692
• UW-Stout: $10,289
• UW-Superior: $9,477
• UW-Whitewater: $8,984

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

After two 5-year-old Indianapolis girls separately died from abuse in the last two years, Indiana Republican state Rep. Julie McGuire said lawmakers could not get basic answers from the state agency responsible for the safety of children.

Kinsleigh Welty had been known to the child welfare system before she was found, starving, in a closet in 2024, McGuire told Stateline. The girl died soon after. And Zara Arnold’s death last May raised questions on what state officials did about pleas from her mother to protect the child from her father, who had a documented history of violence.

McGuire said she called the Indiana Department of Child Services to ask what had happened, only to be told the agency could not share details because of state confidentiality law. So, McGuire sponsored a bill, which passed unanimously and became law in March, requiring the agency to promptly release to the public more information when child abuse or neglect results in a death or near fatality, including reports received about the abuse and what actions the department took.

The goal, she said, is to identify patterns that could prevent the next death.

“We have a billion dollars of taxpayer money for this agency, and we have no window into it as legislators who create the policies that DCS is supposed to enforce,” McGuire said. “The only way to fix things and to improve the system is to shine a light.”

Indiana is among several states that have enacted or considered laws this year to increase reporting and oversight of child neglect and abuse. Some of the new laws came after high-profile deaths or abuse cases, with lawmakers citing warning signs such as repeated visits from child services or complaints about unsafe family dynamics. The issue often draws support — even unanimously — across party lines.

Some of the new measures require the disclosure of more information to lawmakers and the public, to illuminate trends that might allow policymakers and social services workers to prevent future cases. Other measures require state agencies to initiate investigations faster or more thoroughly to stop harm.

Oklahoma enacted a law in May that requires school administrators who receive allegations of a student being abused by a school employee to report it to law enforcement within 24 hours. In April, Iowa enacted a law allowing courts to grant investigators access to children in alleged abuse cases even when parents refuse to cooperate. Lawmakers approved both measures without a single dissenting vote.

Also in April, Idaho enacted “Benji’s Law” to require the Department of Health and Welfare to investigate and verify any report alleging abuse and neglect by a caretaker of a high-risk newborn within 12 hours. The bill was named after an infant Benjamin, or “Benji,” who died in Nampa in December despite calls to the agency asking officials to check on him. Families had raised concerns about the baby’s parents, who had prior child abuse convictions and had their parental rights terminated for five other children, the Idaho Capital Sun reported.

AJ McWhorter, a spokesperson for the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, told Stateline that hotline staff will verify within the 12-hour timeframe whether a child under a year old is in a home with certain red flags. Those include whether a parent or guardian is on the central child abuse registry or the infant was a born with neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome.

McWhorter said the agency is confident it can meet the new requirements and will assess staffing needs as they emerge.

But Dr. Mical Raz, a professor of public health and policy at the University of Rochester, cautioned that while everybody wants to prevent child deaths, measures that encourage more and faster reporting and investigations don’t always have the desired effect.

“There’s really no evidence that more reporting and more investigations keeps families safe,” Raz said. “We should stop thinking about parents as the enemies to the children and start thinking about the family unit as a whole.”

Raz said one downside to pushing more reporting and investigations is the disproportionate oversurveillance of certain families, especially Black, brown and low-income families.

The National Coalition for Child Protection Reform notes that more than one-third of all children — and more than half of Black children — will experience an abuse or neglect investigation before adulthood. Critics say many of the conditions that prompt neglect investigations are simply manifestations of poverty.

High-profile cases 

Other states also have introduced or enacted child protection measures this year after high-profile deaths.

In Arizona, lawmakers passed a bipartisan bill, which became law in April, aimed at improving communication between the Department of Child Safety and tribal nations after the death of Emily Pike, a 14-year-old San Carlos Apache girl who disappeared from a group home and was later found dead. Her killing remains unsolved.

In Ohio, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in February introduced a bill to create Kei’Mani’s Law, which would require schools to appoint child protection liaisons.

The measure was named after 13-year-old Kei’Mani Latigue, who was found dead in an abandoned Toledo house after being reported missing in March 2025. Tiara Kasten, her mother, said in a statement advocating for the bill’s passage, “The hurt of losing my daughter, the person who saved my life before her life ever began, will never truly cease. But today, I am using my pain to propel us forward as a society.”

Authorities alleged Latigue had been sexually assaulted and mutilated. Her father has been charged with aggravated murder, rape, kidnapping and other counts.

In Louisiana, lawmakers introduced a bill this session that would expand and clarify how child abuse, neglect and child deaths are reported, after lawmakers said they were not notified about the starvation death of a 5-year-old.

In New Mexico, the state child welfare agency is under scrutiny and facing a lawsuit from the state’s attorney general, Democrat Raúl Torrez, over allegations it misused state confidentiality laws to hide systemic failures.

‘I could see me’

When North Carolina state Rep. Carla Cunningham, who is not affiliated with either party, read through the records about Dominique Moody — a 6-year-old who died in December 2025 after years of severe abuse and neglect — she viewed it through her experience as a nurse.

Cunningham told Stateline she found herself asking many questions she didn’t see answered in police or agency reports about Dominique’s death: Was Dominique verbal? Was she a special needs child? Were there signs that someone trained to recognize abuse or neglect should have caught earlier?

The case prompted Cunningham to introduce a bill bearing Dominique’s name that would create a child welfare case escalation team, expand training for social workers and require more review in high-risk cases with extensive Child Protective Services history.

Cunningham said the goal of the bill, which is currently in committee, is to help agencies and others involved with child welfare recognize “missed signs or patterns” that could prevent future deaths.

Dominique’s case has stayed with Cunningham personally, she said, because she too was raised by people other than her parents, moved from house to house and changed schools about 20 times before graduating.

“When this case came up, I didn’t sleep at night a couple of nights,” Cunningham said. “I could see me.”

A database called Lives Cut Short — a collaborative effort by the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute think tank and the University of North Carolina — compiled more than 4,000 incidents of children who have died from abuse or neglect between 2022 and 2026.Many of the cases, the researchers found, were not counted in state and local statistics.

The tool is public for families, journalists, policymakers and the public to understand patterns of these deaths across state lines. Naomi Schaefer Riley, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, told Stateline she hopes lawmakers can find warning signs in the thousands of cases tracked in the database.

“People come to (this issue) in a very shocking kind of way,” Riley said, often after a particular child’s death affects their family, community or state. “But once the immediate grief settles, people begin asking harder questions like how can this be prevented?”

According to the database, only 11 states — Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Nevada, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin — post notifications about any child fatality, near fatality or other “egregious” incidents.

Cunningham said the point of her bill is not to shift blame to agencies such as the Division of Social Services — which she acknowledges is sifting through hundreds of mentally taxing cases regarding death and maltreatment — but about assisting these departments that have staffing challenges.

One of the more glaring red flags in Moody’s case, according to Cunningham, was that the Charlotte police department had gone to the apartment that Dominique was living in 59 times over four years.

“It’s not like we are pushing against the departments of DSS locally. We want to assist. We know the caseload,” she said. “We want to help any way that we can on the front, so we don’t have to be looking at numerous deaths.”

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

Gov. Tony Evers raised the Progress Pride flag over the Wisconsin State Capitol for his eighth and final time Monday.

“We celebrate Pride Month because we know what it took to get here. We also know what is at stake,” said Evers, who delivered the remarks outside of the Capitol surrounded by advocates, lawmakers and others who held small pride flags in their hands.

Evers was the first governor in Wisconsin history to recognize the month by ordering the flag to fly over the Capitol building in 2019. He has done it each year since even when Republican lawmakers have criticized flags raised over government buildings, other than those representing the United States of America, prisoners of war and the state of Wisconsin, as divisive.

Evers said the flag is a message that the state “recognizes and celebrates our LGBTQ Wisconsinites — where they can be treated with dignity, treated with dignity and respect, and welcomed without fear of prosecution, judgement and discrimination.” The Progress Pride flag includes the LGBTQ rainbow colors as well as additional stripes that create a chevron to represent LGBTQ people of color, the transgender community and those who are living with and who have been lost to HIV/AIDS.

Evers took note of the national political moment and the hostility towards LGBTQ+ people and history from President Donald Trump’s administration. Trump’s second term has included an attempted ban on transgender people from serving in the military and the removal by the National Park Service of the Pride flag from the Stonewall Inn, a bar and national monument in New York City that was the location of riots that kickstarted the gay rights movement. In April, following a court decision, the administration agreed to restore the flag.

“There are those who want to revise and rewrite this important history so they can create a new story for our state and our country,” Evers said. “They want to pretend that trans and queer folks weren’t there at Stonewall. They tell trans folks and veterans willing to fight and die for our freedom — and theirs — that their patriotism isn’t wanted and never mattered.” 

An appeals court ruled Monday that the military ban on trans service members is unconstitutional. 

Pride Month originated in June 1970 as a way to honor the Stonewall riots, though it has become a wider celebration of LGBTQ+ people. 

Evers’ proclaimed June “LGBTQ Pride Month” and signed an executive order authorizing state buildings and any jurisdiction of the state of Wisconsin to fly the Progress Pride flag during the month. 

Evers also reiterated his promise to always fight for LGBTQ Wisconsinites. During his time as governor, he has vetoed bills sent to him by the Republican-led Legislature each session that have sought to impose restrictions on LGBTQ youth and adults. 

Summer Strand, a parent of an LGBTQ child and the chairperson of the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSC), said as she delivered remarks at the flag raising that Evers has been the “most crucial goalie,” stopping harmful bills from becoming law.

Some of the Republican-authored bills Evers mentioned in his speech that he said  “hell no” to this year include a ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors, a ban on tansgender students from participating on sports teams that align with their gender identity and restrictions on the pronouns and names students can use in school.

“It’s simple, folks,” Evers said. “This type of legislation and harmful rhetoric pushes harm [to] mental health, threatens the safety and dignity of LGBTQ+ Wisconsinites and emboldens anti-LGBTQ harassment, bullying and violence.”  He added that he also has “no intention of repealing the ban on the outdated and dangerous practice of conversion therapy on kids.” 

The Evers administration has defended a rule banning conversion therapy for not meeting the professional standards for mental health counselors in Wisconsin. The right-wing Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) has sued to have the rule blocked. 

Madison Mayor Satya Rhodes-Conway, who is the first openly gay person to hold the office, said it is “critical that we as state and local governments and as a community stand up to hate and discrimination.”

“My community, especially trans folks, are demonized and attacked every day in our country and around the world,” Rhodes-Conway said. “It’s one of the tried and true tools of authoritarianism. Authoritarians pick a minority that might be unfamiliar or misunderstood, and they use hate and division to distract us while they take away our rights and our freedoms and accumulate wealth through grift and corruption.” 

Evers added that anyone listening should “know that no matter who you are, what you believe or you love or how you express your truest, most authentic self, you are family here. You belong here. You are welcome here. This is a place for you. Happy Pride Month, Wisconsin.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

President Donald Trump’s extraordinary $1.776 billion fund to pay off allies and others who say they have been wronged by past administrations has drawn widespread condemnation by opponents, including some Republicans, who characterize it as an act of brazen corruption.

But the Trump administration’s push to reward its supporters also harkens back to an earlier era of American cronyism, experts say, while expanding the frontiers of political favoritism.

From the early years of the United States until well into the 19th century, a spoils system dominated the federal government. Presidents handed out jobs to supporters, filling the bureaucracy with workers who had demonstrated loyalty to the administration in power. 

Trump’s political idol, President Andrew Jackson, replaced large numbers of federal officials after his 1829 inauguration, for instance. One appointee to a role at the Port of New York made out with more than $1 million, valued at tens of millions today.

The comparison isn’t exact. The spoils system was associated with the distribution of government jobs to political allies, a practice called patronage. Trump’s new fund would instead deliver taxpayer dollars directly to favored individuals.

Yet, academics who have studied the spoils system and the presidency see parallels between the past and present — with a desire to reward allies and build allegiance at the center of it all.

“It seems to me that may be the common element here,” said Sidney Shapiro, a professor of law at Wake Forest University who wrote before the 2024 election that Trump wanted to reinstate the spoils system. “It appears President Trump is thinking about using the fund to reward people unfairly punished, but I think in his mind it’s unfairly punished because they were trying to support him.”

Five-member board to be named by Trump

The Department of Justice announced the “anti-weaponization fund,” which critics call a “slush fund,” on May 18 as it moved to settle a lawsuit Trump had filed in his personal capacity against the IRS over the leaking of his tax returns by a former agency contractor. 

The suit placed Trump in the extremely unusual position of effectively negotiating with himself because he has erased the DOJ’s post-Watergate tradition of independence from the White House.

Even before the settlement, the Justice Department under Trump had taken actions that would have been unheard of in other recent administrations. For instance, federal prosecutors have brought a case against former FBI Director James Comey and tried to pursue criminal charges against New York Democratic Attorney General Letitia James. 

The DOJ has also obtained an indictment against the Southern Poverty Law Center, a frequent critic of GOP politicians.

Trump’s settlement agreement provides for the creation of the fund overseen by a board of five members chosen by acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who previously served as Trump’s personal attorney. Trump can fire the members for any reason.

The fund’s board will have the power to make decisions about payments, as well as issue formal apologies. Claims submitted to the fund must be processed by Dec. 1, 2028, prior to the end of Trump’s term.

Jan. 6 rioters line up

A bevy of Trump supporters and hangers-on have said they plan to apply for compensation. They include individuals who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, disrupting Congress’ certification of President Joe Biden’s Electoral College victory. Trump previously pardoned rioters when he took office in January 2025.

Former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio, who was convicted of seditious conspiracy and sentenced to 22 years in prison before Trump pardoned him, predicted on a recent podcast that a “lot of J6ers are going to spend their money on firearms.”

Trump has cast the fund as an act of magnanimity on his part because the settlement agreement doesn’t include a monetary payout to him. 

However, Blanche also signed a document barring any additional scrutiny of the president’s past tax history, a move that shields him from audits. The New York Times and ProPublica reported in 2024 that Trump could have owed $100 million if he lost an audit battle over improper tax breaks.

“I gave up a lot of money in allowing the just announced Anti-Weaponization Fund to go forward. I could have settled my case, including the illegal release of my Tax Returns and the equally illegal BREAK IN of Mar-a-Lago, for an absolute fortune,” Trump wrote on Truth Social, referring to the FBI search of his Florida residence in 2022.

“Instead, I am helping others, who were so badly abused by an evil, corrupt, and weaponized Biden Administration, receive, at long last, JUSTICE!”

Trump has adopted a “patrimonial” approach to governing, James Pfiffner, a professor emeritus at George Mason University who has studied the presidency, wrote in an email to States Newsroom. 

Benefits, like federal contracts, go to those who are loyal, Pfiffner wrote, and the government is treated as if it were a family business and the state’s resources were his personal property.

The “anti-weaponization fund” represents an extension of that approach, Pfiffner wrote, but also goes further than past presidents. He wrote that he could think of no past precedents in the modern presidency for such a blatant use of taxpayer money to potentially reward loyalists.

“At least in the spoils system, the people hired by the government were working and presumably doing their jobs,” Pfiffner wrote. “The beneficiaries of this fund have done nothing to earn their benefits, and presumably some will be rewarded for having committed crimes to overturn the 2020 election.”

Congress began curbing the spoils system after the 1881 assassination of President James Garfield by a spurned job seeker. 

Over the next two decades, many federal positions were moved into a civil service system. While the federal government still includes some 4,000 political appointees today, the vast majority of the bureaucracy is staffed by civil servants.

Critics and defenders in Congress

But it’s unclear whether Congress will block Trump’s fund, despite an intense backlash.

Anger among Republican senators has stalled action on budget legislation funding immigration enforcement, which Democrats would have used to force votes on amendments to block the fund. Democrats have introduced multiple bills aimed at halting it.

“Congress cannot stand by while Trump turns the federal government into a political operation for his friends and cronies,” Sen. Michael Bennet, a Colorado Democrat, said in a statement.

Obstacles exist to congressional action. Even if Republicans who control both chambers voted with Democrats, Trump could veto bills passed placing restrictions on the fund, which would require two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate to override. 

And some GOP lawmakers have defended the fund.

On May 21, Sen. Tommy Tuberville, an Alabama Republican, objected to a unanimous consent request by Sen. Alex Padilla, a California Democrat, to pass a bill that would prohibit payments to Jan. 6 rioters.

“Thankfully, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and the Trump Department of Justice established a standard and lawful process to hear from American citizens who suffered lawfare or weaponization under the Biden administration,” Tuberville said on the Senate floor.

Lawsuits have been filed challenging the fund and how it’s structured. Two police officers who defended the Capitol on Jan. 6 have sued, warning that rioters could use the money to organize. 

Fund blocked temporarily

On Friday, a federal judge in Virginia ordered the Trump administration to halt work on the fund for at least two weeks while she considers ordering a lengthier pause.

The decision came in a lawsuit brought by a former federal prosecutor fired by the DOJ and a California professor who was charged but acquitted of assaulting a federal officer after protesting an immigration raid.

Legal advocacy groups also argue Congress didn’t intend for federal money to be used for these kinds of payoffs.

“Another commonality is we the taxpayers are funding both,” Shapiro, the Wake Forest professor, said of the spoils system and the Trump fund. “We certainly fund the jobs that people have and now we’re funding this fund.”

The Wisconsin Supreme Court will hear a challenge to the state’s congressional maps on the grounds that they’re an anti-competitive gerrymander, the Court ruled Friday afternoon. 

In an order that again showed the Court’s partisan divide spilling out into the public, the Court’s four liberals voted to accept the case while Justices Rebecca Bradley and Annette Ziegler accused the majority of acting as tools of the Democratic party. 

The lawsuit against the maps was brought last summer by a bipartisan business group, Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy Coalition, represented by the progressive nonprofit Law Forward. Rather than challenging the state’s congressional maps on the grounds that they’re an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander — a tactic that has repeatedly failed — the lawsuit argues the maps purposefully protect incumbents from realistic challenges. 

Because of a state law passed by Republicans in 2011, the lawsuit was first heard by a panel of three circuit court judges. In a ruling late last month, the panel dismissed the lawsuit, finding that the claims were essentially the same as those made in a partisan gerrymander challenge and therefore a question for the executive and legislative branches. 

The panel’s ruling was immediately appealed to the Supreme Court because the 2011 law states that appeals of these panel rulings can’t be heard by the Court of Appeals. 

While accepting the case, the Court denied a request that it be heard on an expedited schedule. With candidates for this fall’s midterm elections required to file ballot access signatures by June 1 and ballots are set to be printed shortly after, it’s unlikely the case will be concluded in time to change the state’s maps before November. 

In response to the Court accepting the case, Bradley and Ziegler vehemently objected — arguing that accepting the case is signaling the majority’s intent to redraw the maps. 

“An astonishingly activist court will once again revisit precedent it doesn’t like in order to do the bidding of its political masters,” Bradley wrote. “The Democratic Party bought multiple seats on this court to achieve yet another outcome unobtainable democratically. Like last time, the United States Supreme Court will likely reverse the majority’s unlawful ruling and protect our Republic. No kings. No queens either.”

Bradley, who frequently cites sources from a wide range of non-legal texts, also quoted George Orwell’s “1984” in her dissent. 

Justice Rebecca Dallet wrote a concurrence to the ruling, defending the majority from the conservative justices’ criticisms and calling them “false, inappropriate, and disingenuous.” 

“Deciding to hear a case does not reflect any weighing of the merits of any party’s claims, let alone prejudgment about who will prevail and why,” Dallet wrote. “Instead, we must — as a majority of this court does — stick to our neutral role, and let the parties argue their case before we render judgment. When the time comes to issue our decision, we will follow the law wherever it leads.”

“It really blew up our world,” public schools advocate Heather DuBois Bourenane says of the failed school funding and tax-cut deal that Republican legislative leaders and Gov. Tony Evers trumpeted as a “blockbuster” before it fizzled in the state Senate, ending in finger-pointing and recriminations. 

“It was the first time the carrot had been dangled so close to public schools,” DuBois Bourenane says, describing the “moment of utter euphoria” when her group, the Wisconsin Public Education Network, made up of parents, teachers and school officials from every corner of Wisconsin, first heard about the deal. “It seemed like what we’d been fighting so hard for for so long was finally about to happen.”

But then DuBois Bourenane and the other members of her organization got the details.

The funding for special education was not locked in at 50% in the second year of the plan as they’d hoped. Instead of a “sum-sufficient” or guaranteed allocation to cover a set percentage of costs, the 50% was an estimate. If costs go up, that percentage would go down. As for the $300 million increase in general aid to schools, as a Legislative Fiscal Bureau analysis explains: “the additional aid would provide property tax relief but not additional resources for school districts.”

Tax cuts made up the lion’s share of the deal — about 80% of the total $1.8 billion. Those included property tax cuts, interest earnings reductions, no tax on tips and overtime and, biggest of all, an $870 million income tax rebate that would have put $300 checks in the mail to people who earned enough money to qualify. The Legislative Fiscal Bureau projected that the deal would leave the state with a nearly $3 billion deficit. 

Most of that deficit would be caused not by school spending, but by what Dubois Bourenane describes as a wasteful tax giveaway. “What the heck?” she says. “You’re wasting the surplus while pretending to fix the thing [school funding] you broke the worst!”

School funding in Wisconsin was broken by former Republican Gov. Scott Walker’s historic budget cuts. The damage has compounded each year for more than a decade and a half as school budgets haven’t kept pace with inflation. In such dire circumstances there were, DuBois Bourenane acknowledges, public school advocates who felt anything was better than nothing. But the two-year stopgap deal Evers and Republican leaders reached did not come close to fixing the long-term problem. 

On the bright side, says Dubois Bourenane, at least politicians in both parties have stopped pretending the last several budgets actually funded schools sufficiently. The need to address the funding crisis in Wisconsin public schools has become a bipartisan talking point. Even Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Tiffany (who, as a legislator, voted for former Walker’s massive cut to schools) lists it as a top priority.

A recent Marquette poll showed that 80% of Wisconsinites who were contacted about the rushed deal right after it failed, with little time for discussion or analysis, and asked if they would like to receive $300 in the mail from the state, said yes. But voters deserve a full, public discussion of their options, and whether tax rebates worth $278 to most individual Wisconsin tax filers and $574 to most married joint filers, according to the Legislative Fiscal Bureau, are worth putting the state in a $3 billion hole with no long-term fix for the school funding crisis. 

DuBois-Bourenane wishes the Legislature would take up a bill introduced in March that would guarantee a 60% special ed reimbursement from the state, easing the burden on local property taxpayers, who have been filling the hole by passing local referendum requests at record rates, raising their own taxes as the state reneges on its obligation to fund schools. 

But couldn’t committing the state to once again cover the real costs of public education put us in a deficit? Maybe, says DuBois Bournenane. “We’d have to cut money in other ways. But we would stop balancing the budget on the backs of children” — instead of acting as though the state can always avoid paying its biggest bill.

“There’s not really a surplus here,” she adds. “There’s just a pool of money that used to be used to fund public schools that now is not used at all.”

That’s the pool of money Walker “saved” by cutting funding for schools, and Evers and Republican leaders wanted to dole out over the next two years — 80% of it in the form of tax cuts and 20% to schools. 

She finds Evers’ public expressions of frustration with Democrats for not supporting his deal mystifying. “It seems to me it’s a predictable problem he could have solved in advance by consulting with his colleagues on the deal before moving forward.”

But most of all, for public schools, kids and communities across Wisconsin, the whole thing was “incredibly cruel,” she says.

“If we were being led by adults they’d laugh it off and get back to the table and get a new deal,” she says. Instead, the long-term problems threatening public education in Wisconsin continue, with no real fix in sight. 

“I know it doesn’t look like it from a distance, but it’s not about the money,” DuBois Bourenane says. “It’s about are the kids OK? Can we meet their needs?”

The answer, coming from districts that are facing steep cuts, growing class sizes, fewer extra curricular activities and school consolidations and closures, is no. The kids are not OK.

Compounding the damage is a looming crisis that was not part of the budget deal discussion at all. In 2026 all caps come off Wisconsin’s school voucher program. An unlimited number of families will be able to send their kids to private schools at taxpayer expense, and the funding for that program, under a law signed by Walker and supported by Tiffany, comes off the top of state funds. As school voucher programs have steadily grown in Wisconsin, most new students enrolled come from families that already had their kids in private school. The potential explosion in new families joining that group will put the current school funding crisis in a long shadow.

Still, DuBois Bourenane is optimistic Wisconsin can fix the problem. Her group is part of a lawsuit charging the state with failing its obligation to provide a “free, adequate public education” to all Wisconsin children. 

She believes the problem could be solved right now, and that “it’s irresponsible to walk away from the table” after the budget deal disaster. And that the pride and anger of the politicians who don’t want to keep trying is hurting Wisconsin kids.

But she also sees a huge opportunity for voters to put pressure on the politicians running for office this fall to change the attitude in the statehouse and “elect people with more energy to do things for our communities.”

“I don’t think all is lost. We will fix it in the long run. But we could fix it now,” she says. “And we’re choosing not to.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

James Troupis, the former attorney for President Donald Trump’s 2020 campaign who played an instrumental role in the fake elector scheme that led to the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, has applied for $3.2 million through Trump’s “weaponization” fund. 

Troupis, a former Dane County Circuit Court judge, was part of the trio of Trump campaign aides who conceived the plan to have Republicans posing as members of the Electoral College cast ballots for Trump and send those ballots to Washington D.C. to be certified by Congress as the official results. The false slates of electors were the mechanism through which the Trump-aligned “stop the steal” efforts were organized — culminating in the Jan. 6 attack aimed at forcing Congress and then-Vice President Mike Pence to certify Trump as the winner of the 2020 election. 

Troupis also represented Trump in the campaign’s failed lawsuit seeking to have the Wisconsin Supreme Court overturn the 2020 election results. 

After participating in the plan, Troupis was investigated by the U.S. Department of Justice under President Joe Biden and is currently facing felony charges of forgery for his role in the fake elector plot. He also settled a civil lawsuit against him for his involvement in the plan. 

In a letter to Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche, Troupis complains that his life has been upended because of the justice system’s effort to investigate and charge him with crimes. 

“I was honored to represent President Trump in the Wisconsin Recount,” Troupis wrote in the letter posted to social media by right-wing radio host Vicki McKenna. “Sadly, my life (and the lives of my entire family) has been a nightmare since I stepped forward to represent President Trump … The total real financial cost now exceeds $1.7 million, the annihilation of my reputation and law practice, thousands of hours in preparation and response to those legal actions, five years of time lost with my children and grandchildren, loss of retirement funds used for defense costs and ongoing legal expenses that will likely cost me our family home and the balance of my retirement funds. I now face spending the rest of my life in prison!” 

Troupis adds that he’s become a “poster-child” for the weaponization of the law. Last year, a Dane County judge denied Troupis’ effort to have the state criminal charges against him dismissed. 

“Troupis does not show that the First Amendment protects the right to commit forgery, does not show that the government violated his right to due process by entrapping him into that forgery, and does not show prosecutors must exercise discretion to charge an accused of his preferred offense,” Judge John Hyland wrote. 

Troupis’ cause has become a favorite of right-wing figures, including U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson — who himself was involved in the fake elector scheme. 

The $1.776 billion fund created by the DOJ as part of a settlement in Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS has been criticized as a tool the Trump administration can use to pay out its allies and the foot soldiers of the Jan. 6 attack. Figures such as Enrique Tarrior, the former leader of the militia group the Proud Boys, have applied for funds through the fund. 

Jeff Mandell, the president and general counsel of Law Forward, a voting rights-focused firm that brought the civil lawsuit against Troupis, said that the request for $3.2 million in taxpayer money continues Troupis’ pattern of refusing to accept the consequences of his actions.

“Wisconsin attorney and former judge Jim Troupis was the primary architect of the national fraudulent-electors scheme,” Mandell said. “As Law Forward’s groundbreaking civil litigation discovered and made clear, absent Troupis’s actions, there never would have been an insurrection on January 6. He is facing criminally prosecution, and we have a pending ethics complaint seeking his disbarment. On January 6, Troupis texted congratulations to one of his colleagues on the fruits of their labor. Troupis was paid by the Trump campaign for the work he did then, has consistently been unwilling to accept personal responsibility for his misconduct since, and now wants to be paid again by the American taxpayers. His actions now continue to be as disgraceful as his misconduct was in the wake of the 2020 election.”

On Tuesday, U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, the Republican nominee in the race for governor of Wisconsin, said at an event that he believes some people charged with crimes after Jan. 6 could “possibly” be entitled to compensation — though not if they assaulted law enforcement officers. 

Wisconsin Senate Minority Leader Diane Hesselbein (D-Middleton) responded to the fund Wednesday by introducing the “No Taxpayer Dollars for Insurrectionists Act” which would apply a 100% state income tax on any money Wisconsinites receive through the fund. She said the fund was the “height of corruption.” 

“Put simply — if you’re from Wisconsin and you stormed the Capitol, you will not receive money from the slush fund,” Hesselbein said in a statement. “Wisconsinites are tired of the chaos and corruption caused by the Trump administration. From reckless tariffs to the conflict with Iran, the President continues to harm hard-working Wisconsin families and businesses by driving up costs. At a time when Wisconsinites continue to struggle with the rising cost of groceries, gas, and housing, our taxpayers must not foot the bill.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A new Marquette Law School poll found 80% of Wisconsinites said the Legislature should have passed a budget surplus bill that ultimately failed amid concerns about a future budget deficit. 

Gov. Tony Evers and Republican leaders announced the deal earlier this month, which would have tapped the state’s projected budget surplus to reduce property taxes, increase special education funding and provide rebates to taxpayers. They swiftly pushed it to a vote in the same week the deal was rolled out. While Evers and Republican leaders were initially optimistic, the bill passed the Assembly in a 61-32 vote only to be rejected by the Senate in a 18-15 vote.

Opposing lawmakers, including a majority of Democrats, expressed concerns about a potential budget deficit.

A memo released by the Legislative Fiscal Bureau (LFB) last Wednesday found that the state would have faced a $2.95 billion budget deficit at the end of the 2027-29 biennium had the bill been enacted. The memo examined the effects of the bill, the spending in the current state budget and other legislation passed over the rest of the legislative session.

Without the bill, the state is projected to have $525 million at the end of 2029. 

The bill included funding to boost schools’ special education reimbursement to a projected 42% in 2025-26 using $85 million and to 50% in 2026-27 school year using $230 million. There was also an additional $302.5 million for general aid to public schools, though it would have only provided property tax relief due to school revenue limits, which cap the amount schools can spend.

The bill also would have provided a $300 state income tax rebate for taxpayers whose state tax bill was at least that much in 2024 and would have eliminated taxes on tips and overtime.

Marquette conducted its survey about the bill between May 20 and 21, just a week after the measure died in the Legislature. It surveyed 454 Wisconsin adults with a margin of error of +/-5.5 percentage points.

Of those surveyed, 80% said it should have passed, 11% said it shouldn’t have passed, while 9% said they didn’t know. 

The support for the measure was bipartisan with 77% of Republicans, 81% of independents, and 82% of Democrats polled saying it should have passed. 

Sen. Dan Feyen (R-Fond du Lac) said in a statement that the poll was confirmation that Wisconsinites want the Legislature to address the affordability crisis. He criticized the Democrats who voted against it but  did not mention his Republican colleagues who voted against the deal.

“The people of Wisconsin understand something that my Democrat colleagues refuse to: when the state collects billions more than it needs, that money should go right back to taxpayers,” Feyen said. “As I’ve said before, in divided government, compromise is a necessity. Republicans accepted that reality and worked with the Governor to put forward a bill that addressed affordability, providing both immediate and long-lasting permanent relief.”

The poll also asked whether lawmakers should have acted now or waited until there was more information next year to act on the budget surplus or deficit.

Of those surveyed, 69% said it would be better to provide the spending, rebates and school aid now, while 21% say it would be better to wait until next year given fiscal concerns. 

Three Republican lawmakers voted alongside Democrats against the deal in the Senate. 

Evers’ spokesperson Britt Cudaback has said that lawmakers had the 17 Republican Senate votes necessary to pass the bill before Republican U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, who is running for governor, made calls lobbying lawmakers to vote against the deal. 

Sen. Chris Kapenga (R-Delafield), who voted against the deal, told WISN-12 over the weekend that Senate leadership didn’t count votes before announcing the deal, thus failing to ensure there would be enough support among lawmakers to get it done. 

“What happened was there were a couple of leaders in both the Assembly and in the Senate, along with the governor, who said we’ll just get it done and we’ll just push it to the floor and they’ll vote for it without talking to their caucus, which was really upsetting for me,” Kapenga said. “The governor also assumed that there were going to be some Democrat votes for this, too, so I think it was failed leadership on all three fronts.”

Evers has said that Democrats have put themselves into a “bad place” by not supporting the deal ahead of the midterm elections in which the governorship and control of the Senate and Assembly are up for grabs. 

“They believe that somehow putting money back into people’s pockets that are struggling financially across the state, apparently they don’t believe that’s an issue,” Evers told WISN last week. “They’re going to say, ‘Well, we’re going to fix it next time when all these wonderful things happen after Evers is gone, and we’ll get a new governor and we’ll have Democrats all over the  place.’ That’s fine. That’s a wish list, and who knows what else is going to happen, but you’re impacting kids right now.” 

According to the survey, 25% of Wisconsinites said that candidate positions on the bill would be “very important” for their November votes, while 48% said it would be “somewhat important.” 21% said it would not be too important and 6% said it wouldn’t be important at all.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany said at an event Tuesday in Madison that if elected governor he’d return the state’s current budget surplus to taxpayers while also cutting property taxes, eliminating taxes on tips and overtime and overturning Gov. Tony Evers’ 400-year school funding increase while also increasing the rate at which public schools are reimbursed for special education services. 

Tiffany said he’d do all of that even though he has not “penciled out in detail” how he’d pay for it all. At the event Tuesday hosted at the Madison Club by WisPolitics.com, Tiffany repeatedly lamented “Madison math” that makes people ask what will be cut from the state budget if lawmakers cut taxes, reducing state revenue. 

Several times during the moderated interview and to reporters after the event, Tiffany compared the state budget process to household budgeting. 

“Families figure out what their priorities are, and then they spend accordingly,” he said. “Education is going to be one of my priorities. Transportation will be a priority. Healthcare is going to be a priority. Those things take first call on the budget, and then when we get down to the wants, if some of them fall off, so be it. We’re going to make sure that we take care of the basics first.”

Tiffany is running for governor during a midterm election cycle in which Democrats are planning for the possibility that they can hold trifecta control of Wisconsin’s government for the first time in more than 15 years. President Donald Trump’s declining approval rating, the national political landscape and new voting maps that could end years of Republican legislative control mean that Tiffany is campaigning against the political current. 

Repeating a line from his speech at the Republican Party of Wisconsin convention earlier this month, Tiffany said he was running for governor rather than continuing to hold his safe Republican seat in Congress because he wants to reverse what he sees as a “state in decline.” 

Loyalty

Tiffany, who was first elected to the Legislature in 2010 and then elected to represent northern Wisconsin’s 7th Congressional District in 2020, said “people who know” him know that he’s always been loyal first to the people of Wisconsin rather than the Republican executives — former Gov. Scott Walker and Trump — he’s worked with. 

Tiffany is a member of the right-wing House Freedom Caucus and has rarely broken from Trump while in Congress. Following the 2020 presidential election, Tiffany joined Republican efforts to overturn Trump’s loss. Last week, he told reporters he still had concerns about “improprieties” in the administration of the 2020 election. 

On Tuesday, Tiffany wouldn’t say that former President Joe Biden won the 2020 election, only that Biden was the president from 2021 until 2025. He said that he had concerns about the administration of the election in “a number of states.” 

“We should make sure that those things that were done wrong did not unduly damage that election,” he said. “On January 6 of 2021 it was decided by the Congress that Joe Biden won the presidency, and he became president … and I accepted that. I referred to him as President Biden, and, but I gotta tell you, it was a bad time for the United States of America when you had 10 million people that came in illegally, when we lost our energy independence, when we tucked tail and ran in Afghanistan … it was not a good period of time, but he was president for those four years.” 

Tiffany said he was still “studying the details” of the U.S. Department of Justice’s $1.776 billion slush fund for compensating people who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. But he said he didn’t think people who assaulted law enforcement officers should receive any of that money. 

Asked to point to other examples in which he disagrees with Trump, he said he didn’t believe the federal government should allow more Chinese students to attend American public universities such as the University of Wisconsin. 

During the audience question portion of the event, Tiffany was asked about the undocumented workers who make up a large portion of the state’s dairy workforce. Tiffany responded by criticizing Biden-era immigration policy, attacking “sanctuary” policies and claiming that the national decline in violent crime is because of Trump’s crackdown on immigration. 

But Tiffany wouldn’t say if Immigration and Customs Enforcement went too far during its occupation of the Democratic-run cities Chicago, Minnesota and Los Angeles. 

“The President made a decision that he thought that things should be done differently after what happened in Minneapolis, and I think that decision will be born out here as we go forward,” he said. “But remember, Minnesota was an anomaly, Immigration and Customs Enforcement works very closely with law enforcement. Here’s what I would do: I would make sure that local, county and state law enforcement works closely with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and coordinate their efforts to make sure what happened in Minnesota does not happen in Wisconsin.” 

Madison issues 

Tiffany also weighed in on a number of issues that lawmakers in Madison have taken up this year, including the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Grant program, the legalization of online sports betting and the growth of hyperscale data centers in the state. 

On the stewardship program, which is set to expire at the end of June after legislators failed to reach a deal on extending it past 2026, Tiffany said he’d sign a bill to re-authorize the program if it focuses on maintaining “what we have” rather than acquiring new state land. Tiffany in recent years has often joined Republican state lawmakers in opposing land conservation projects in the northern part of the state through the program. 

Earlier this year, lawmakers enacted a law that would allow the state’s Native American tribes to begin operating online sports betting operations. The bill will require the state’s gambling compacts with the tribes to be re-negotiated. 

Tiffany said he doesn’t support expanding gambling opportunities in the state but that he’d “have to review the details” of the law to weigh in on the compact negotiations. 

Over the past year, the construction of massive AI data centers has become one of the most potent political issues in the state. Tiffany said that the controversial data centers in Port Washington, Mount Pleasant and Beaver Dam have taught the state lessons on how to move forward. He said he would repeal a provision included in the 2023-25 state budget that exempted data center construction costs from the state sales tax, prevent data centers from being built on “productive farmland,” work to keep utility rates stable and prevent the tech companies building the data centers from making local governments sign non-disclosure agreements. 

However he wouldn’t say if legislation would be required to achieve those goals, only saying that “my Public Service Commission” would handle it.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE