A federal judge heard from attorneys Monday about the treatment of Salah Sarsour, the Palestinian president of Milwaukee’s Islamic Society and a legal U.S. permanent resident who is being held in an Indiana immigration detention facility.

Sarsour’s lawyers say that since arriving at the Clay County Detention Center in Brazil, Indiana, following his arrest by federal immigration agents in March Sarsour has lost 30 pounds, is not receiving appropriate care for his type 2 diabetes, and has been denied the ability to practice his religion. Separate from Sarsour’s immigration proceedings, Sarsour’s attorneys pushed in federal court for his release, arguing that his treatment at the detention center amounted to a First Amendment violation. 

Luna Droubi, an attorney who represents Sarsour, said that the judge listened closely and asked questions about the 53-year-old business owner, activist and grandfather’s experiences. The judge “addressed and directed the facility to take a look at Salah Sarsour’s medical guidance, and I do think he has real concerns about his treatment,” said Droubi, adding that Sarsour “really has been tormented for exercising his religious beliefs.” 

Initially, Droubi explained, “he wasn’t able to pray five times a day; they would disrupt his prayers at certain hours and tell him to stop doing it.” Sarsour’s requests for Halal meals, foods which are considered permissible in Islam, have been denied, and obtaining a makeshift prayer towel proved challenging as well. When he asked for food that would help him maintain balanced blood sugar levels because of his diabetes, Sarsour was offered pork rinds by detention facility staff according to his attorneys, in violation of his religious dietary requirements.

“It’s been a very difficult time for him,” Droubi told the Examiner. “He’s the president of the largest Islamic Center in Milwaukee. … He is a type 2 diabetic and he has very clear medical instructions that he requires daily glucose testing. At today’s hearing, they represented that they had started daily glucose testing and then somebody at the facility was instructed that they only need to do it once a month.” That goes directly against medical guidance, she added, since glucose levels can drop and rise on a daily basis, “and that can be incredibly dangerous.” 

At one point, Droubi said, Sarsour experienced severe abdominal pain and then was told “there’s nothing we can do for it. There’s no medical professional here. You’re going to have to wait until morning.” She stressed that “he couldn’t even stand up, and it’s only been two months. So he’s really, really struggled.”

Since Jan. 1 of this year, there have been 18 deaths of people detained in immigration detention facilities nationwide. This has outpaced the deaths reported last year –  the highest in two decades. This comes as Immigration and Customs Enforcement announced that it will stop reporting the deaths of people who’ve been recently released by detention, the AP reported.

Sarsour’s attorneys argued that there are numerous reasons why Sarsour needs to be immediately released, and that it’s within the federal court’s authority to do so. Droubi said that Sarsour is being held “because of his speech and associations,” and that the arrest was purely punitive for that speech.

Sarsour grew up in the West Bank and became an outspoken critic of the Israeli government and a supporter of Palestinian rights and freedoms as an adult. That activism continued after the militant arm of Hamas attacked Israel in late 2023, killing 1,200 people, followed by a large-scale Israeli assault on Palestinians living in Gaza which has killed at least 75,000 people while displacing thousands more. 

The Department of Homeland Security has repeatedly called Sarsour a “terrorist” who was convicted of throwing Molotov cocktails into the homes of Israeli forces.

“This was an Israeli military kangaroo court,” Othman Atta, executive director of Milwaukee’s Islamic Society, said of Sarsour’s conviction during a community gathering and press conference held in early April after Sarsour’s arrest. “Human rights groups will tell you that these claims are coerced under torture, under interrogation. So absolutely, that’s not true.” At the gathering Atta also said that Sarsour spent two years in Israeli detention as a teenager. “He would talk to us many times how for 80 straight days, he was interrogated, and brutalized, and tortured while he was in Israeli military custody.”

These experiences are widely reported by detained Palestinians. In 2024, United Nations experts found that due process rights for Palestinians in the West Bank, where Sarsour grew up and was detained, had been violated by Israeli authorities for the past 60 years. 

“He is also an illegal alien that lied on his green card application to fraudulently gain legal status in the U.S. under the Clinton Administration,” a DHS spokesperson said in an emailed statement to the Examiner. “Any accusation of discrimination by ICE agents is FALSE. All illegal aliens in ICE custody receive three meals a day and proper medical treatment. Sarsour is a criminal and a terrorist and will remain in ICE custody pending removal proceedings.”

Droubi said that the federal judge is considering the argument for Sarsour’s release. Attorneys representing the government say that the federal court has no jurisdiction over a claim of unlawful detention. 

“He should be home with his family,” Droubi told the Examiner. “He really should.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

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

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security will allow states to access federal citizenship data by June 30 and plans to monitor the flow of mail ballots for signs of voter fraud, according to a court document.

Amid a series of lawsuits, President Donald Trump’s administration is now moving to carry out a March 31 executive order restricting voting by mail ahead of the November midterm elections.

Democrats and voting rights advocates oppose the directive as unconstitutional election meddling by Trump and have sued to stop him. The president, who has long attacked mail ballots but votes by mail himself, says the additional rules will fight noncitizen voting, a rare phenomenon.

“No president has the authority to unilaterally rewrite election rules or dictate how states administer their elections,” Marcia Johnson, chief of activation and justice at the League of Women Voters, said in a statement last week. The League of Women Voters filed one of at least five lawsuits challenging the order.

Potential disruptions

The order could carry major consequences for the midterm elections. Any new restrictions on mail ballots would risk disrupting how tens of millions of voters cast their ballots. About 30% of voters cast mail ballots in 2024, according to data gathered by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

But despite several legal challenges, the order remains in effect. 

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., in late May ruled against a request by Democratic groups to pause the order, finding that it was too soon to weigh in because federal officials hadn’t taken enough action yet. A second judge in Massachusetts held a hearing last week, but didn’t immediately issue a decision.

“The Trump Administration will continue fighting for the safety and security of American elections,” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement shortly after the D.C. judge’s decision.

One portion of the order demands the postmaster general enact new restrictions on mailed ballots and not transmit ballots from states that refuse to provide the names of absentee voters. The U.S. Postal Service, despite its status as an independent corporation, has put forward a proposal in line with the order to require states to submit lists of voters before mailing ballots.

Now, Homeland Security is responding to another part of the order that requires the creation of lists of voting-age citizens in every state, which the Trump administration calls “state citizenship lists.” State election officials would receive the lists, which they could compare to their voter rolls in a search for noncitizen voters.

Homeland Security’s plans for the citizenship lists came into focus on June 5, when the U.S. Department of Justice filed a notice in federal court that briefly outlines the administration’s plans. The notice describes a two-part effort by Homeland Security and its subsidiary agency, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, to comply with the order.

First, Homeland Security will implement a “State Voter Roll Verification” that allows state election officials to submit their voter rolls to the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, or SAVE, system. 

SAVE is a powerful computer program that checks names against citizenship information held in a variety of government databases. It can flag registered voters as possible noncitizens, but faces criticism for incorrect identifications.

For the past year, states have already had the option to upload their voter rolls into SAVE. Some Republican-led states, such as Indiana, Texas and Wyoming, have used the system, while Democratic states have declined. It’s unclear how the State Voter Roll Verification would be different, if at all, from states’ current SAVE access. 

Homeland Security and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services didn’t respond to questions from States Newsroom.

Second, the Justice Department notice says Homeland Security will set up a registry for state election officials to securely access “citizenship-related data” from USCIS, the Social Security Administration and the State Department.

According to the notice, the “underlying data would remain in each agency’s respective system.” No other details were provided.

The notice also outlines Homeland Security’s intention to use the lists of voters that states provide to the Postal Service for investigations. It says DHS wants to “integrate” data on those voters “to monitor mail-in and absentee ballot flows, identify anomalies that may suggest voter fraud or misuse, and generate authorized investigative leads.”

California elections

The notice comes as Trump renews his attacks on mail-in voting. Last week he alleged, without evidence, voter fraud in California, which held primary elections last week. California relies heavily on mail ballots and often counts votes at a slow pace — meaning final results sometimes don’t match election night vote totals.

“Do you know why they’re doing that? Because they’re cheating on the election,” Trump said in an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

While the executive order already faces a slew of lawsuits, the NAACP on June 3 filed a motion in federal court seeking to specifically block the Postal Service’s proposed regulations of mail ballots. The NAACP alleges the regulations violate a 2021 settlement agreement that requires timely delivery of election mail to all voters. 

The Postal Service has until Thursday to respond.

The American Postal Workers Union in a statement on June 5 denounced the executive order, saying the Postal Service serves all Americans. It is “not a tool for politicians” to pick which Americans receive which benefits, the union said.

“The Executive Order is an unconstitutional attack on the millions of Americans who vote by mail,” the union said, “and another front in an ongoing assault on voting rights in the United States of America.”

WASHINGTON — A federal judge in Massachusetts Monday struck down the Trump administration’s efforts to require a $100,000 visa fee for highly skilled immigrant workers, finding the policy is an unlawful tax.

Judge Leo T. Sorokin found the hefty fee placed on the H-1B visa by President Donald Trump exceeded his authority by creating a tax, something that falls under Congress’ authority.  

“The President has no authority to levy a tax unless such a power is delegated by Congress through statute,” Sorokin, who was nominated by former President Barack Obama, wrote. “For these reasons, the Court finds that the Policy imposes a tax on H-1B petitions without the requisite delegation by Congress.”

The H-1B program allows a U.S. employer to hire a noncitizen worker in a specialty occupation for a maximum of six years, ranging from the technology industry to healthcare workers. At a minimum, visa applicants have to hold a bachelor’s degree.

A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said in a statement to States Newsroom that the agency disagrees “with this blatant judicial activism dismantling President Trump’s historic efforts for immigration reform.”

“The recent changes to the H-1B visa program, including the increased fee, are intended to address concerns about program integrity and the impact on the U.S. workforce,” the spokesperson said. “The policy aims to ensure that employers prioritize hiring U.S. workers, particularly in high-skilled fields. The Trump Administration remains committed to safeguarding opportunities for American workers and maintaining the integrity of employment-based visa programs.”

The suit was brought by 20 states: California, Massachusetts, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington state and Wisconsin. 

In September the Department of Homeland Security issued a proclamation requiring employers to pay a $100,000 fee for a noncitizen to enter the U.S. under a H-1B visa. 

The most recent budgets proposed by governors across the country reflect ongoing financial pressures for states as they expect modest revenue growth, rising prices and federal policy changes.

Most governors recommended state budgets for fiscal year 2027 that would essentially keep spending flat from the general funds that pay for most state services. That’s according to the Fiscal Survey of States by the National Association of State Budget Officers. (Forty-six states will begin the 2027 fiscal year in July.) 

The survey of budget leaders found nearly half the states were implementing some form of spending cuts to balance the books. 

In their budget plans, 14 states said they would eliminate vacant positions, four reported hiring freezes and eight reported changed retirement benefits to reduce costs. Four states reported layoffs and cuts in employee benefits.

“While budgets are tightening, states overall remain in a strong fiscal position due to steps taken in recent years to manage spending carefully and build reserves,” Alexis Sturm, director of the Illinois Governor’s Office of Management and Budget and current president of the National Association of State Budget Officers, or NASBO, said in a news release.

The survey found that most states planned to increase the size of their rainy day funds: 25 states project those reserves to grow in fiscal 2027, 10 expect theirs to decrease and 11 states expect no change in dollars unadjusted for inflation. Four states did not report. 

But researchers at The Pew Charitable Trusts earlier this year found that the power of those reserve funds is weakening as states confront rising costs. Pew researchers concluded that the median state in 2025 could fund its operations on reserve funds for 47.8 days — down from a record 54.5 days in fiscal 2024.

States pay for most spending from three primary tax revenues: sales and use taxes, personal income taxes and corporate income taxes. In the recent survey, 29 states reported tax revenues were coming in higher than forecasted for fiscal year 2026. Nine states reported collections were on target, while 11 said their revenues were below expectations. One state did not report on revenue collections and NASBO noted the revenue numbers may change following the April tax season.

In their budgets, governors proposed a mix of tax increases and decreases for the upcoming fiscal year that NASBO says will collectively have a near-zero net impact on general fund revenues. 

With federal stimulus dollars and strong consumer demand, states recorded record revenue growth in fiscal years 2021 and 2022. But NASBO expects more modest growth for state revenues in the coming years with a slower national economy, the impact of state tax cuts and changes in federal tax policy.

“States are continuing to navigate a tighter fiscal environment than they experienced earlier this decade,” Shelby Kerns, executive director of NASBO, said in a statement. “While revenues in most states are meeting or exceeding forecasts, growth remains modest and many states are seeing ongoing spending demands outpace recurring revenue growth in the out-years.” 

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

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon changed course Monday after its removal of dozens of religious denominations from a list of recognized faiths drew intense criticism over the weekend from Utah Republicans incensed by the failure to classify the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a Christian denomination.

U.S. Sen. Mike Lee, a member of the church widely known as the Mormon church, said the policy for military chaplains announced Friday was “offensive” and demanded the Pentagon reverse course, which the department did Monday afternoon.

“It’s also just repugnant to any sense of decency, any sense of our common heritage and our common belief that the government needs to not weigh in on doctrinal disputes between various religious denominations,” Lee, a Utah Republican, said in a video statement posted to social media Sunday night.

“So I’m respectfully imploring the people at the Pentagon to reconsider this, not just reconsider but undo it,” Lee continued. “Secretary Hegseth: Tear down that wall. This is not cool.”

Hours later, Lee wrote on social media that he personally spoke to President Donald Trump on the phone about the “Pentagon’s ‘Christian list’” and told people to “stay tuned.”

“I won’t speak for him, but I’m thrilled about where this is heading,” Lee wrote. “We’re most fortunate that President Trump (1) loves Latter-day Saints, and (2) is our commander in chief.” 

A spokesperson with Lee’s office told States Newsroom Monday the senator received assurances from the administration that the issue will be resolved.

Just after noon Eastern time Monday, the Pentagon pointed States Newsroom to a social media post showing an updated list without the word “Christian” before any of the denominations.

“The Pentagon’s job is not to adjudicate theological debates, but instead to ensure sincerely-held faith is respected and encouraged in our ranks,” according to the post by an account with the handle “DOW Rapid Response,” using the acronym for the administration’s preferred but unofficial name, Department of War.

Sen. John Curtis, a Utah Republican, also spoke out on social media stating the church is “unequivocally Christian.”

“It is unacceptable for a government entity to characterize a faith in a manner that contradicts the religion’s own foundational tenets,” he wrote Saturday.

A concern from lawmakers is that service members who belong to the Latter-day Saints may not receive services from a Christian chaplain.

The issue places the Pentagon in the middle of a longtime theological dispute between Latter-day Saints, who believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ and consider themselves Christian, and some members of other Christian faiths who believe the Salt Lake City-based church should be viewed as outside of Christianity.

Latter-day Saint church leaders declined to comment Monday.

The White House pointed States Newsroom to the department’s Monday afternoon social media announcement.

Shorter list

Citing a two-page letter posted to social media Friday, Parnell said the department was making a “long overdue move” to reduce the military chaplains’ overall list of religious affiliations to 31, down from an “unmanageable” 200.

“This decrease in religious affiliation codes is not designed to make any claims on the legitimacy of any faith or religious belief, nor is it intended to provide a list of ‘officially approved’ religions. Rather, it is designed to allow chaplains to quickly look at the religious composition of their units and determine how they structure resources to best provide for warfighters of all faith groups,” Parnell wrote.

The list includes 21 separate Christian denominations, but lists the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints separately.

‘Christian nationalist takeover’

Criticism of the new list reverberated beyond Latter-day Saints.

Rev. Paul Brandeis Raushenbush, a Baptist minister and president and CEO of the Interfaith Alliance advocacy group accused the administration Friday of pushing a “Christian nationalist takeover of the Department of Defense.”

“Religious freedom in the military must mean religious freedom for everyone who serves, not just those this administration finds politically useful,” Raushenbush said in a statement.

“Secretary Hegseth is not ‘streamlining’ anything. He is elevating one narrow religious worldview from the top of the chain of command. That is dangerous, discriminatory and fundamentally un-American. The First Amendment does not allow the government to create a hierarchy of faiths, and it certainly does not allow the Pentagon to decide which beliefs are worthy of recognition.”

Hegseth announced a restructuring of the military’s chaplain corps in March, which he said had been “infected with political correctness and secular humanism.”

Hegseth hosts a monthly Christian worship service at the Pentagon.

When her son was a teenager, Connecticut mom Amy Wadsworth said, he was the type of kid parents rarely worry about.

He played sports, cared about his health and stayed away from drugs. In 2018, when he left West Hartford to start his freshman year at American University in Washington, D.C., she expected his biggest challenge would be adjusting to college life.

Instead, she said, he began using cannabis to cope with social anxiety and as a sleep aid.

Within months, Wadsworth’s son was calling home in the middle of the night, terrified and disoriented.

Over the next several years, his behavior became increasingly erratic, he had psychotic episodes and he was eventually diagnosed with severe cannabis use disorder. That’s when a person’s marijuana use becomes difficult to control and begins interfering with daily life.

Now 25, Wadsworth’s son has spent much of the past several years cycling through hospitals and treatment programs across the country.

“It’s definitely changed the trajectory of his life,” Wadsworth said. “It did nothing but harm him, literally harm every facet of his life — every facet, physical, mental, everything.”

States have spent the past several decades debating whether to legalize cannabis. Now, they are debating how intoxicating legal products should be.

A growing body of research suggests that frequent use of high-THC cannabis increases the risk of cannabis use disorder, psychosis and other mental health problems for users, particularly adolescents and young adults. In response, lawmakers in some states this year have moved to impose stricter potency caps, while others have scaled back or rejected such measures amid industry opposition and uncertainty over research findings.

While cannabis flower once commonly contained THC levels in the single digits, many products sold legally today contain 15% to 20% THC or more. Concentrates — such as waxes, oils and shatter — can exceed 80%.

About 15% of Americans ages 12 and older reported using marijuana in the past month in 2024, according to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. And about 3 in 10 people who use cannabis have cannabis use disorder, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Some public health researchers and addiction specialists argue that public perceptions of marijuana have not kept pace with the growing availability of high potency products. They say broader legalization efforts — including the federal government’s recent move to reclassify medical marijuana as a less restrictive drug under the Controlled Substances Act — may reinforce the belief that cannabis is harmless.

“Moving cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III doesn’t help me save lives by decreasing the perception of that risk,” said Dr. Alta DeRoo, the chief medical officer of the Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation, one of the largest nonprofit treatment providers for addiction and mental health. DeRoo also is a board-certified addiction medicine physician and OB-GYN.

Some state efforts to impose potency limits have been stalled by resistance from the cannabis industry and questions about how far governments should go in regulating a legal product.

In Connecticut, lawmakers this year reinstated a 35% THC cap on flower just weeks after voting to eliminate it. Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle said they were concerned about the potential public health effects of increasingly potent marijuana products.

At the same time, the legislation moved forward with other cannabis market expansions. Lawmakers removed a 70% THC cap on concentrates, increased the amount of THC allowed in certain cannabis-infused beverages and expanded the market to include products such as topicals, tablets and capsules.

Proposals to cap THC potency have surfaced in statehouses across the country for years. This year, lawmakers in California, Georgia, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Oregon and South Dakota introduced similar measures, though most did not advance.

Georgia Republican Gov. Brian Kemp signed a law in May that removes the state’s previous 5% THC potency cap starting July 1. The new law will also add a 12,000 mg possession limit for registered medical cannabis patients and allow patients over 21 to vaporize medical marijuana.

‘A perennial debate’

Lawmakers across the country have proposed a range of measures aimed at limiting the potency of cannabis products.

In Washington state, Democratic state Rep. Lauren Davis has spent years trying to place guardrails on high-potency cannabis products. Since 2020, she has introduced at least five bills that would have capped THC levels in concentrates or imposed safeguards, including age restrictions, warning labels and a higher tax rate on products with elevated THC levels.

Most of those measures were thwarted by opposition from the cannabis industry, Davis told Stateline.

Industry groups and cannabis businesses argued that Washington’s existing regulations already protected consumers and kept cannabis away from minors. Opponents also warned that limiting high-THC products would drive consumers to the illicit market, hurting legal businesses and exposing users to unregulated, possibly contaminated products.

“(The industry) then went on to basically rain down all fire and brimstone and crush every bill that I’ve ever attempted in this area,” Davis said.

The only proposal to become law was a 2024 measure that requires retailers to warn customers about the association between high-potency THC products and psychotic disorders.

Washington state does not currently impose THC caps on flower or concentrates, but it does set limits on edibles and beverages.

Nearly all states have some form of medical-only or hybrid medical and recreational cannabis program, but just eight states, Connecticut, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont, have potency caps on some products, including flower, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Potency limits on edibles are far more common.

“This is a perennial debate that comes up in Vermont and elsewhere around higher potency products,” said James Pepper, who chairs the Vermont Cannabis Control Board, the agency that regulates the state’s market.

“I feel like the concerns are certainly real,” he added.

In Oklahoma, a recent incident in which a 4-year-old boy was hospitalized and remained unconscious for more than a day after his parents said he ingested a 1,000 mg edible found at a playground has added to growing debate over high-potency cannabis products in the state.

“We know that some of our medical patients truly do need higher potency products, but do we really need a 2,000 milligram gummy available for anyone with a patient license to purchase in an Oklahoma dispensary?” said Adria Berry, the executive director of the Oklahoma Medical Marijuana Authority, which oversees the state’s medical market.

Oklahoma Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt also signed a measure into law last month that will take effect in November, adding stricter packaging and labeling requirements, including restrictions intended to prevent products from resembling candy or appealing to children.

While some industry experts acknowledge the potential harms, they say the focus should be on consumer education and clear information about potency and effects, rather than new restrictions.

An official with Trulieve, a cannabis company that operates dispensaries in eight states, told Stateline that its products are independently tested and that potency information is available for customers to review and ask questions about, including a product’s effects.

“We believe that that piece of information is critical for a consumer to make an educated decision on what type and what potency of product they are looking to consume,” said Lauren Niehaus, Trulieve’s executive director of government relations.

Some advocacy and trade groups, such as the National Cannabis Industry Association and the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), argue that policymakers should steer consumers into tightly regulated legal markets rather than imposing blanket THC caps that could push some users back to illicit sellers. They say that accurate labeling, child-resistant packaging and public education campaigns are the best strategies to protect public health and prevent youth access.

“It’s undoubtedly safer and better for public health outcomes to regulate these products,” said Adam Rosenberg, who chairs the board of the National Cannabis Industry Association.

Paul Armentano, NORML’s deputy director, said potency caps oversimplify the risks of cannabis products and fail to account for how consumers actually use them. Consumers view ultra-potent products as a novelty, he said, and ultimately gravitate toward lower-potency options.

“When you look at state-tracked sales in legal states, cannabis flower or botanical cannabis still outsells every other product, and I would dare say it’s because that is the most moderate to low potency product available on the shelf, and that’s what most people want,” Armentano said.

Armentano also argued that some of the strongest calls for THC limits come from opponents of legalization, who see potency restrictions as a way to gradually roll back access to legal cannabis.

What the research says

A study published earlier this year in JAMA Health Forum found that adolescents who use cannabis, including products with higher potencies, had a significantly increased risk of developing psychotic and bipolar disorders, along with higher risks of depression and anxiety. The research followed about 463,000 adolescents in Northern California between ages 13 and 17 and tracked outcomes into early adulthood. The study did not, however examine whether the use of higher-potency products is more likely to cause psychotic and bipolar disorders.

But other research has linked frequent use of high-potency cannabis to a greater risk of psychosis and psychotic disorders, particularly among heavy users. Several studies have found a dose-response relationship, meaning the risk tends to rise as THC concentration and frequency of use increase. Experts caution, however, that many studies cannot definitively prove that cannabis causes psychosis and that individual risk varies widely.

Other research suggests the risk of developing psychosis may be higher for adolescents and young adults, whose brains are still developing, as well as people with existing mental health conditions or a family history of psychotic disorders.

“I’ve seen patients come through our facilities where they haven’t done any other drugs other than just high-potency marijuana, and their psychosis is remarkable,” said DeRoo, of the Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation. “They don’t have a grasp of reality. They come in seeing things, they come in believing things, alternate realities.”

John Puls, a psychotherapist and addiction specialist in Florida, has seen similar patterns in his practice at Full Life Comprehensive Care, particularly among adolescents and young adults using high-potency products.

He said families often don’t believe cannabis alone could be driving such dramatic changes. Beyond psychosis, he added, cannabis can chip away at more ordinary parts of life: Motivation drops, executive functioning suffers, patients miss appointments or forget obligations, and short‑term memory and relationships start to fray.

Some medical and industry experts say that cannabis can provide meaningful relief for some people, including those undergoing cancer treatment or who have chronic pain. But there is very little consensus on appropriate medical uses, dosing and long-term effects, particularly as products vary widely in potency.

“If there’s no standardized testing of products, or if there’s no enforcement of potency limits, then we might be putting people at more risk,” said Dr. Smita Das, an adult addiction psychiatrist and a clinical professor at Stanford University School of Medicine.

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

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

Carrie Frail was in the process of leaving an abusive relationship when she discovered she was pregnant. Her partner told her he could hit her in the stomach until she had a miscarriage, and it would save some money.

“I firmly believe he would have killed me at some point, whether accidentally or intentionally,” Frail said.

She had a medication abortion at a Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Louis, Missouri, in 2008 while serving in the U.S. Air Force. She was relieved to have the option of using medication instead of a procedure, and it let her take less time off work. It wasn’t an easy decision, she said, but she knew if she hadn’t done it, she never would have been able to get away from that partner.

“I was too wrapped up mentally and emotionally in my life with him that … I needed to be able to leave without giving him a phone number or letting him know where I was,” Frail said. “I still believe that an abortion saved my life.”

Access to telehealth prescriptions of mifepristone, one of two drugs used to terminate a pregnancy in the first trimester or to treat miscarriages, is threatened by an ongoing lawsuit in Louisiana. That state government has sued the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, trying to strike down the agency’s 2023 rule allowing the medication to be dispensed without an in-person visit.

Researchers, advocates and survivors of domestic violence say it’s vital to keep telehealth access available for people in abusive relationships who need discreet abortion options. The Louisiana lawsuit, however, argues in part that mifepristone has been weaponized against pregnant women in abusive relationships and shouldn’t be available by telehealth.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily blocked the FDA’s 2023 rule in early May, making in-person visits required for mifepristone prescriptions for two days before the U.S. Supreme Court paused that decision on emergency appeal. The court, with the exceptions of Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, decided to keep the rule in place while the appeals case proceeds. But the rule could still be struck down again later, and the full case may end up in front of the Supreme Court.

Data from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey from 2023-24 showed about 34% of women and 17% of men experienced physical or sexual violence or stalking by an intimate partner. Those figures could be higher because of hesitance to report incidents of abuse. States with high rates of violence include many with near-total abortion bans, including Arkansas, Indiana, Oklahoma, Tennessee and West Virginia — meaning residents who are victims of reproductive coercion have less access to abortion medication.

Pregnancy is a time of heightened risk in a relationship with domestic abuse, according to research, and intimate partner violence is a leading non-obstetric related cause of death among pregnant and postpartum women. Those risks are highest among Black and Indigenous people in the United States.

Reproductive coercion 

The lawsuit over mifepristone access includes Louisiana resident Rosalie Markezich as a plaintiff, who says the availability of the drug without an in-clinic visit allowed her boyfriend to order the pills in 2023 and pressure her to take them. In her written statement in the case, Markezich said the pressure caused ongoing trauma, and that if she’d had to see a doctor beforehand, she could have told the provider she didn’t want an abortion and the pills would never have been prescribed.

Anti-abortion groups, including Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America and Family Research Council, submitted amicus briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court about the type of coercion Markezich said she experienced. The telehealth option prevents in-person screenings for coercion, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America said, and the in-person requirement provided “a line of defense” against reproductive coercion. Family Research Council also argued that because the FDA’s initial approval of the telehealth provision did not include a thorough study of how it could be used for coercion, it should be struck down.

Liz Tobin-Tyler, professor of health services, policy and practice at the Brown University School of Public Health, said people in abusive relationships very commonly experience what researchers call reproductive coercion. According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, that includes situations in which a partner tries to control when and how pregnancy occurs, either by intentionally causing a pregnancy or forcing someone to end it, as with Markezich.

Coercion can also occur when a partner interferes with contraceptive methods, such as trying to force the use of a certain method or intentionally failing to use contraception. Tobin-Tyler said sometimes the abusive partner attends medical appointments to try to influence decisions related to birth control and other medical care discussions.

“It all comes back to that aspect of control,” she said.

Robin Turner, Montana director at gender equity organization Legal Voice, said what happened to Markezich was terrible, but that Louisiana could prosecute Markezich’s partner under existing laws, including harm induced by drugs. She said reinstating the in-person requirement for mifepristone would harm many other people because it would apply nationwide.

“It’s not a reasonable or proportional way to address what happened to the client,” Turner said. “We have to take what happened to the plaintiff seriously — and understand that taking that (access) away is not effective.”

Turner co-authored a brief for Legal Voice submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court during the emergency appeal proceedings that centered on the importance of access to mifepristone for people in relationships marked by domestic violence.

“A lot of what being in these relationships is about is your world getting smaller, and we don’t want our systems to imitate the dynamics of abuse. But that’s what happens when the government takes away the access to the healthcare that they need,” Turner told Stateline.

Safety planning for hotline callers

Kaelah Oberdorf, 24, said she was on birth control when she discovered she was pregnant in 2023 in upstate New York.

She was in an emotionally abusive relationship, struggling financially and still recovering from the postpartum depression she experienced after having her first child when she was 20, despite thinking that she couldn’t get pregnant because of a medical condition. The depression was so severe she had to be hospitalized. She decided that ending the pregnancy was the right thing to do for her mental health and the daughter she already had.

“I didn’t want to be tied to him for life, I didn’t want my daughter, or any of my children, to be tied to him for life,” said Oberdorf, who now lives in Georgia. “I already had a living child who did not need to be kept in that situation, and if I’d had another one, even if I left him, I mentally would not have been able to handle it.”

Research also shows that pregnant and postpartum women in rural areas experience higher rates of intimate partner violence, possibly because they’re farther from in-person medical care, which could contribute to lower rates of preventive screenings for abuse.

Elizabeth Ling, associate director of legal services at nonprofit hotline If/When/How, which offers reproductive legal aid, estimated the hotline receives between five and 10 calls a week from people who talk about experiencing intimate partner violence, whether it’s physical, emotional or some form of coercion. She said callers in rural communities are some of those who need access to medication abortion by telehealth and via mail because they are often the furthest away from a clinic and can’t travel because a partner is actively watching their movements.

If/When/How talks callers through their legal options and counsels them about legal risks, which Ling said is a top concern for people in abusive relationships. It’s common for them to be fearful of their partner reporting them for having an abortion, which can bring unwanted attention from police and investigations even if it doesn’t result in charges.

The hotline also helps people make a safety plan for receiving abortion medication, talking through steps such as where medication will be mailed, who has access to that mailbox and how to navigate a situation with a partner tracking their movements.

“Abortion pills really are a lifeline for those who call and share their experiences with us,” Ling said.

Frail, who still lives in Missouri, now has a daughter and a son who are in their 20s. She has left many voicemail messages recently for Republican U.S. Sens. Josh Hawley and Eric Schmitt, who have advocated for the withdrawal of FDA approval for mifepristone and called for federal investigations into drug manufacturers. In her messages, she says that being able to choose when she had her children made her a better parent.

“I know if I had not had an abortion, I would not have ever been able to get away from that abusive partner,” Frail said.

Stateline reporter Kelcie Moseley-Morris can be reached at kmoseley@stateline.org.

The idea started with a sermon Micah Longmire heard at his Presbyterian church in Ogden, Utah, about the importance of grandparents in a child’s life.

Longmire, now 31, exchanged a look with his mother-in-law. “We were like, ‘I’d be OK living with you after that sermon,’ and the ball rolled downhill from there,” Longmire said.

Both families are now living in a house they bought together in Chattanooga, Tennessee, after a two-year nationwide search. Their partnership is an example of the lengths first-time homebuyers have gone to this year amid stubbornly high home prices and interest rates.

“I make $200,000 and I wouldn’t have been able to buy a house by myself. That’s ridiculous,” Longmire said. His wife’s parents contributed $200,000 from selling their own home in Utah and retired to live with them in a 3,500-square-foot house that cost $585,000.

Home prices rose this year, though not as much as inflation, so affordability increased in all regions as of April compared with a year before, according to the National Association of Realtors.

But prices are settling at a high level. After inflation adjustment, they’re still less than 4% below the 2022 peak, though some areas with large-scale building, mostly in Florida and Texas, have seen prices drop, according to real estate analyst Bill McBride’s CalculatedRisk newsletter.

Help from family and even shared living arrangements are becoming the norm in higher-priced areas.

“The family now has accumulated so much equity that they’re able to help their kids make these downpayments. Many people like to live in multi-generational households for reasons of culture and also cost,” said Nadia Evangelou, senior economist for the National Association of Realtors.

Nationally a typical single-family home cost $422,300 in April, up $4,300 from a year before, according to the National Association of Realtors. But the typical family made about $6,000 more in that time, and mortgage rates came down a little, so affordability improved.

But a shortage of affordable starter homes is slowing the market and keeping it hard to buy for first-timers. Last year the median age of first-time buyers reached a record 40 years old, while the median repeat buyer was 62, as the housing market became dominated by repeat buyers who could sell a house at today’s high prices.

“Affordability today is still nowhere near what it was for much of the last decade,” Evangelou said. Between 2009 and 2016, the typical family had about 70% more income than it needed to buy the typical median-priced house, while today it’s a much smaller margin of about 11% as of April.

San Francisco is an extreme example: The artificial intelligence boom has driven median home prices to a record $2.15 million, according to the real estate brokerage firm Compass. So Charlie and Nettie Culp felt lucky to get a 1,500-square-foot condo for $1.5 million. The couple, both 32, work in finance and tech and saved for years with some family help, putting down $500,000 and taking a $1 million mortgage in May.

“That’s a lot of money for what you get, but that’s the market and it’s a beautiful city,” Charlie Culp said. He has lived in the city since 2015, at times sharing rent among as many as four people while saving money.

“I saw the AI boom coming in San Francisco, so we decided to reach out to our landlord and ask if she was willing to sell,” he said.

First-time buyers are particularly hard-pressed: They lack profits from a previous house, and the smaller houses they can buy are in short supply.  The number of houses on the market is rising, but mostly at the high-priced end.

“Many young households still face the most challenging homebuying environment in decades,” Evangelou said. “The question isn’t simply whether more homes are coming into the market, the question is whether those homes that are available for sale are at price points that local households can actually afford.”

The nation needs another 311,000 houses selling for less than $261,000 to meet the needs of middle-income families — buyers earning around $75,000 — according to a May report that Evangelou co-authored. Several states considered legislation this year aimed specifically at creating more starter homes.

A New Mexico law signed in March by Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham creates no-interest loans of up to $75,000 for down payments to first-time buyers with moderate income. The loans are meant as an incentive for builders to create smaller houses.

Several states moved to curb minimum lot sizes, seen as an impediment to starter homes and other affordable housing, often drawing opposition from cities.

Colorado considered a measure this year allowing smaller lots for building, hoping to “expand attainable homeownership opportunities for first-time homebuyers.” It was opposed by the Colorado Municipal League, which said it “removes community planning and public input from the decision-making process.” The bill passed the state House but was killed in a state Senate committee.

Florida also considered smaller lots and other incentives for starter homes in a bill this year that died in committee after opposition from the Florida League of Cities.

A similar bill that would limit minimum lot sizes, aimed at creating more starter homes and other affordable housing, was under consideration this year in Hawaii but did not pass after clearing a state Senate committee. Democratic state Sen. Stanley Chang, the bill’s sponsor, told Stateline that “some version of the concept” will be considered in future sessions.

The Midwest continues to have the highest affordability, according to the National Association of Realtors report.

Ty Setty, 29, and his wife, Allisha, 32, had been renting for six years near Cincinnati, but they needed no family help to buy their new $170,000 house, a two-bedroom in suburban Delhi Township, Ohio.

“We had been looking at houses for a few years and just couldn’t afford them, or we let ourselves think that,” Ty Setty said.

After two weeks of looking on Zillow and touring nine houses, they saw this house as a new listing and “fell in love. We put an offer on it that night,” Ty Setty said. “They accepted the next morning. That was a long 12 hours.”

For the Longmire family in Chattanooga, the partnership between parents raising children and grandparents needing their own affordable housing has worked out well.

“Grandparents want to live with their grandchildren, and you know parents need a babysitter on date night,” Micah Longmire said. “The story that we’re telling through our life right now is, that if you can work with your family, don’t give in to the pressure of the world to go it alone.”

Stateline reporter Tim Henderson can be reached at thenderson@stateline.org.

Congress is looking to roll back state animal welfare laws as it wrangles over reauthorization of the federal farm bill.

The farm bill, which Congress generally reworks every five years, includes money and federal rules for food assistance programs, farm subsidies, and other ag-related programs.

A pending version of the legislation includes the Save Our Bacon Act, which would block states from regulating the raising of livestock. The measure takes direct aim at California’s Proposition 12, which requires farms to meet specific standards providing animals freedom of movement, cage-free confinement and minimum floor space.

A key component of California’s law effectively bans hog sow farms from using gestation crates — pens so small that mother pigs can’t even turn around. Currently, at least 15 states ban battery cages for egg-laying hens, gestation crates for sows or veal crates for calves.

California’s law includes protections for egg-laying hens, but the current farm bill proposal that Congress is considering specifically excludes them.

The California law also bars retailers from selling meats raised in other states that don’t meet the state’s standards. Opponents say that provision places a heavy burden on producers across the country who must meet different standards for different markets.

“This legislation will stop out-of-touch activists — who don’t know the first thing about farming — from dictating how Iowa farmers do their job,” U.S. Rep. Ashley Hinson, an Iowa Republican, said when introducing the Save Our Bacon Act last year.

But supporters of the California law say consumers increasingly demand higher animal welfare standards. They note that farmers outside of California are free to ignore the law — if they choose not to sell into the nation’s most populous state.

A spokesperson for the California Department of Food and Agriculture, which enforces Proposition 12 regulations, said the agency could not comment on pending legislation.

California Assemblywoman Esmeralda Soria, the Democratic chair of the agriculture committee, said voters “spoke clearly” when more than 62% approved the 2018 ballot measure.

“Taking Prop 12 away now, would create long term uncertainty and disruption to California meat and egg production,” Soria said in a statement. “We can do better for California agriculture, and for the millions of people who rely on stable and affordable food systems.”

Following an unsuccessful legal challenge to Proposition 12 by pork producers, lawmakers and ag interests have been pushing for years for federal action to block similar laws. While a similar anti-Proposition 12 measure was introduced in 2023 farm bill negotiations, the effort has gained some momentum after receiving bipartisan support in the U.S. House of Representatives, which approved the farm bill legislation by a 224-200 vote in late April. It’s now the subject of Senate negotiations.

The yearslong debate over agricultural regulations has inflamed tensions between states and the feds over who should regulate various sectors of the economy, mirroring ongoing debates about artificial intelligence and online prediction markets.

An issue of state autonomy

Most of the focus has centered on California, which has the world’s fourth largest economy. But opponents say the congressional proposal could upend hundreds of state laws and regulations.

An analysis by Harvard Law School’s Animal Law and Policy Clinic concluded that the Save Our Bacon Act could affect more than 600 state agricultural regulations, including seafood labeling requirements, food safety regulations and state restrictions aimed at preventing the spread of pests and diseases, such as the New World screwworm.

“Congress would be overturning the results of democratic elections and devaluing animal welfare investments made by livestock producers across the country,” researchers wrote, noting it would take years for regulators and courts to sort out implementation of the legal change, creating years of uncertainty for regulators, consumers and producers.

Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller said he doesn’t agree with California’s mandates but said he would “defend to my dying day California’s right to self-determination.”

In an interview, Miller said Proposition 12 has driven up the price of eggs and pork. But he said the Constitution’s 10th Amendment clearly endows states with such power by reserving for the states those powers not delegated to the federal government.

“It is what it is,” he said. “I’m ready to move on and accept Prop 12.”

Miller, who recently lost the Republican primary for reelection, said producers who have poured millions into revamping their operations to ensure more space for animals would be “up a creek without a paddle” if the law is blocked by Congress.

“They spent all that money for nothing if that happens,” he said.

Proponents say consumers are already demanding higher standards.

“No one is mandated to sell in California, and I think that’s a really important piece of this. This is all market driven, and so there are other options,” said Alicia Prygoski, strategic legislative affairs manager for the Animal Legal Defense Fund, a nonprofit advocating for animal protections.

Prygoski characterized Proposition 12 as a “common sense, reasonable measure” that allows animals the freedom to move and exhibit natural behaviors. She rejected arguments that such animal welfare laws create a burdensome patchwork of regulations for farmers, noting that states already have a variety of ag rules regarding animal imports, noxious weed transportation and zoonotic diseases.

‘We care a lot about our animals’

Trish Cook, who raises about 40,000 pigs per year on her family’s Iowa farm, said large-scale swine operations like hers rely on scientific guidance from groups such as the American Veterinary Medical Association and American Association of Swine Veterinarians.

Cook is a board member of the Iowa Pork Producers and the National Pork Producers Council, the latter of which unsuccessfully sued to block California’s Proposition 12. In 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision upheld California’s rules.

In April, the organization and the American Farm Bureau Federation wrote to congressional leaders arguing that Proposition 12 has created uncertainty across rural America, especially on small and medium-size farms that can’t afford to retrofit barns. The letter was signed by nearly 400 agricultural groups.

The issue is particularly relevant in Iowa, by far the nation’s largest pork producer with nearly one-third of American hogs raised there.

Cook said most pig farmers she knows are not producing Proposition 12-compliant pork because California’s demand is being met. But, she said, Congress must protect farmers before more states pass different rules and regulations.

“I do still feel like it’s really important that we get a fix for things like Prop 12, because this is just the beginning,” she said.

Cook said consumers across the country should have access to her pork products without following “arbitrary” rules created by state ballot measures. As an example, she cited the California requirement that each sow have access to 24 square feet of usable floor space. That footage allows the sow to turn around completely within its pen.

“If you didn’t enjoy raising pigs, you wouldn’t be in the business,” she said. “So we care a lot about our animals, we care about taking care of them, having them in the best facilities, and being comfortable with the climate that we provide them.”

Some producers, though, say they are troubled by the confinement systems commonly used in industrial agriculture.

“Keeping a 500-pound gestating sow in a metal crate where she can’t ever turn around for the vast majority of her adult life is simply not good animal husbandry,” said Alicia LaPorte, senior director of communications and impact at Niman Ranch, a national network of hundreds of farms producing what they call humanely raised meat.

Although Niman’s 500 hog farms have always been crate free, LaPorte said they have spent time and money ensuring compliance with California’s Proposition 12. She said the proposed legislation in Congress would pull the rug out from under family farmers who played by the rules and made huge investments to comply.

“They are actively devaluing these investments, disrupting stable markets and putting forward-thinking family farms at financial risk,” she said.

By moving away from confinement to more humane practices like group housing, LaPorte said producers can see increased profitability through improved sow health, lower stress and higher conception rates. And growing demand for such products pushed laws like Proposition 12 in the first place.

“The consumer drove the change,” she said, “and policy secured the marketplace.”

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

The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine published new clinical guidance this week affirming that acetaminophen, better known by its brand Tylenol, should be the “first-line” defense against pain and fever during pregnancy. 

The directive contradicts the Trump administration’s notice to physicians last year cautioning against the use of the primary pain reliever recommended for pregnant women, following the president’s unsupported claims that the medication could lead to autism in children.

The national professional association for maternal-fetal medicine specialists, clinicians and scientists continues to recommend acetaminophen as the “first-line medication” to treat pain and fever during pregnancy. The federal government’s statements prompted the organization to review its 2017 guidance finding acetaminophen safe to use during pregnancy. 

Trump ties autism to Tylenol use in pregnancy despite inconclusive scientific evidence

“Although some studies have reported associations between maternal acetaminophen use and adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes in offspring, methodological limitations preclude conclusions about causality, and the biological mechanism for such an effect remains unestablished,” reads the statement, following a comprehensive review of recent and historical scientific literature. 

The organization’s guidance cautions patients to “use the lowest effective dose of acetaminophen for the shortest duration necessary,” while emphasizing that untreated maternal fever carries well-documented risks to the fetus, especially in the first trimester.

At a news conference last September, President Donald Trump said his administration had found acetaminophen use during pregnancy to be a likely contributing environmental cause of autism. 

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has directed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to shift its research into autism toward potential environmental causes. 

Even though medical experts and the drug manufacturer have said there is no proven link, the FDA immediately said it would initiate a process for a label change for Tylenol and similar products to “reflect evidence suggesting that the use of acetaminophen by pregnant women may be associated with an increased risk of neurological conditions such as autism and ADHD in children.”

The label has not yet changed. But the September news conference has had consequences.  

A month later, Texas’ Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is running for U.S. Senate, sued Johnson and Johnson, alleging the pharmaceutical company failed to warn pregnant consumers about the risk of taking Tylenol.

And a study in The Lancet published in March found that emergency department orders for acetaminophen for pregnant patients fell 10% in the months following Trump’s statement, while there was no change in the acetaminophen orders for comparable women who were not pregnant.

Stateline reporter Sofia Resnick can be reached at sresnick@stateline.org. 

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

The U.S. Senate rejected the SAVE America Act on Thursday, dealing a blow to President Donald Trump’s efforts to impose voting restrictions ahead of the November midterm elections.

Senators voted 48-50 against advancing an amendment that would have incorporated Trump’s top legislative priority into an immigration-focused spending bill. The vote offered the clearest sign yet that despite pressure from the president, a handful of Republican senators continue to resist advancing the bill, which critics say would unleash immense chaos ahead of elections this fall.

The SAVE America Act would require voters to offer documents, such as a birth certificate or passport, proving their citizenship when registering to vote. It would also mandate voters show photo ID when casting a ballot and restrict where voters can register, effectively eliminating voter registration drives.

Democrats and voting rights groups have assailed the bill, saying it would disenfranchise voters and upend the midterms because the new rules would take effect immediately. Trump and the bill’s GOP supporters say it’s needed to combat noncitizen voting, an extremely rare phenomenon.

Since taking office last year, Trump has made a series of attempts to shape how elections are run. An executive order that would limit voting by mail remains in effect for now as opponents challenge it in federal court, and the Department of Justice continues to seek to force states to hand over sensitive voter data, so far unsuccessfully.

The Senate amendment, offered by Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, also included restrictions on sports participation by transgender athletes. On social media after the vote, Graham called the SAVE America Act “one of the most consequential” pieces of legislation developed by Trump and his team.

“All Democrats voted no, and they will eventually pay a price,” Graham wrote.

Republicans also vote no

But the proposal fell short among a small group of Republicans, too. Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Thom Tillis of North Carolina joined Democrats in voting no.

Collins is seeking reelection in what is one of the most competitive Senate races in the country. McConnell and Tillis have both opted against seeking reelection, while Murkowski has said the bill would set up barriers for voters in her large, rural state.

Sixty votes would have been needed to advance the amendment — the same threshold to overcome a filibuster. 

The vote came after the Senate spent weeks debating the SAVE America Act earlier this year before moving on to other business without a vote. Trump has urged Republicans to abandon the filibuster to pass the bill, without success.

“We will squash this blatant attempt at voter suppression,” Sen. Mark Warner, a Virginia Democrat, wrote on social media after the vote.

The Senate also rejected, 50-49, a separate amendment offered by Sen. Mike Lee, a Utah Republican, that included a different version of the SAVE America Act. According to Lee, the amendment was the version of the bill passed by the House, which didn’t include provisions on transgender athletes. 

Collins voted in favor of the amendment after earlier opposing Graham’s amendment.

California

Both amendments failed hours after Trump asserted, without evidence, that Democrats were stealing “the vote” in California. The state held primary elections earlier this week, but vote counting is often slow in the state, meaning vote totals reported on election night don’t always reflect the final outcome of a race.

Trump linked California’s elections to his push for the SAVE America Act, writing on social media that “I hope Republicans are watching” so they could pass the legislation.

“They found a lot of mail-in ballots last night, shockingly,” Trump said at an unrelated Oval Office event on Thursday. “So we don’t want that.”

With the Senate unwilling to advance the SAVE America Act, some GOP lawmakers have begun offering alternative election-related bills.

Republican Reps. Julie Fedorchak of North Dakota and Laurel Lee of Florida on Thursday introduced the SAVE America Through REAL ID Act, which would create a grant program to help states provide REAL ID-compliant driver’s license and identification cards to residents for free to low-income Americans.

On Tuesday, Sen. Marsha Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican, and Graham introduced the Election Security Partnership Act, designed to encourage states to submit their voter rolls to a computer program operated by the Department of Homeland Security that can identify possible noncitizens. 

States can already upload voter data to the program, called Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements or SAVE, but the legislation would provide $20 million in grants for states to offset any costs related to using SAVE.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge in Rhode Island Friday struck down several Trump administration policies that halted processing for asylum seekers following a shooting in Washington, D.C., that left one West Virginia National Guard member dead and another seriously injured.

In a searing opinion, Judge John J. McConnell Jr. said the Trump administration “threw the lives of countless immigrants living in the United States into indeterminate legal limbo” when it directed U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to pause asylum applications and green card paperwork for immigrants hailing from 39 African, Asian, Latin American and Middle Eastern countries subject to the president’s travel ban. 

The policy was announced in November after the two National Guard members were shot. Authorities later charged Rahmanullah Lakanwal, an Afghan national who was granted asylum, with the shooting. He has pleaded not guilty in federal court. A status conference is set for June 10 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

McConnell, who was nominated by former President Barack Obama, said the policy “violated the very immigration laws that Congress has charged it with administering.”

USCIS is an agency within the Department of Homeland Security that oversees processing of legal immigration, ranging from asylum seekers to work authorization forms.

“USCIS’s hold on adjudications cannot be attributed to anything that these individuals did wrong; rather, it arises solely by the happenstance of their birth,” McConnell wrote.

He added that “the Court is reminded of a line often repeated in discussions around immigration policy: If people wish to immigrate to the United States, they ought to ‘follow the law’ and ‘do things the right way.’ This case serves as a perfect example of immigrants doing just that.”

New policy paused processing 

Labor unions and immigration advocacy groups in Rhode Island sued the Trump administration over the policies. They brought the suit on behalf of their members, immigrants who had the processing of their work visas and travel documents paused after the new policy following last year’s shooting in Washington, D.C.

After the November shooting, on the eve of Thanksgiving, one guard member, U.S. Army Spc. Sarah Beckstrom, 20, died, and U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, 24, was critically wounded, but recovered. 

One of the groups that sued, Democracy Forward, praised the decision. 

“This ruling reaffirms a basic principle: the federal government cannot shut down lawful immigration pathways or discriminate against people based on where they come from,” Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, said in a statement. “These unlawful policies caused enormous harm to families, workers, asylum seekers, and communities across the country who were left in limbo, unable to work, access protections, or move forward with their lives.”

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate approved a nearly $70 billion package early Friday, moving Republicans one step closer to funding immigration and deportation activities for the next three years without negotiating new constraints on federal agents with Democrats. 

The 52-47 mostly party-line vote sends the measure to the House, where GOP lawmakers could send it to President Donald Trump for his signature as soon as next week. 

Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski was the only Republican to vote no. Colorado Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet, who participated in a debate in his bid to become his state’s next governor, did not vote. 

Murkowski said in a statement she opposed the legislation because it bypassed the annual government funding process that forces the two political parties to debate issues and find compromise. 

“By choosing to appropriate funding for three fiscal years instead of one, this measure weakens the normal budgeting process and sets another precedent for avoiding it when we find ourselves in disagreement,” she said. “In doing so, it reduces Congress’ ability to apply reasonable checks on immigration policy for the remainder of this administration and into the next.”

Murkowski added that she would have voted for the package had it “provided immigration funding for one year, included clear restrictions on what those funds can be used for, and eliminated any potential for taxpayer dollars to be allocated to the administration’s brazen ‘anti-weaponization’ fund.”

Majority Leader John Thune said during floor debate GOP leaders were forced to draft the package after Democrats “walked away” from negotiations that could have placed restrictions on federal immigration agents.  

“Republicans are going to continue to ensure that these agencies have the funding that they need to fulfill their national security responsibilities,” the South Dakota Republican said. 

Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., argued the measure shows that Republicans are more focused on funding deportations than lowering the cost of living. 

“Apparently, Republicans think we cannot afford a single penny to help Americans cover the skyrocketing costs of gasoline, of healthcare, of housing, of food, of energy, you name it,” he said. “But somehow we can afford to give another $70 billion to Trump’s rogue agencies.”

Senate approval followed a marathon amendment voting session that stretched throughout Thursday and overnight as Democrats sought to challenge Republican senators on policy differences just months before the November midterm elections. No amendments were approved. 

Building on “big, beautiful” law

The bill would provide a second hefty cash infusion to the agencies carrying out the president’s immigration crackdown, building on the $170 billion Republicans included in their “big, beautiful” law. 

This legislation would appropriate: 

• $38.53 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement
• $26.02 billion for Customs and Border Protection
• $5 billion for the secretary of Homeland Security.

The money would be available through Sept. 30, 2029, the end of the fiscal year. Republicans decided not to place any new guardrails on immigration agents. 

The measure Republican senators approved was somewhat different from the original version released in early May, which included $1 billion for the Secret Service to make security upgrades associated with the president’s ballroom, dubbed the East Wing Modernization Project.

Republicans also removed $1.46 billion that would have increased funding for several Justice Department programs.

Additionally, GOP lawmakers bolstered ICE funding by $350 million compared to the earlier version of the bill. 

Republican leaders are moving the package through the complex budget reconciliation process, avoiding the need to secure Democratic votes in the Senate that would otherwise be required to end debate on the measure. 

GOP leaders opted to use the special legislative maneuver after they were unable to broker agreement with Democrats to place constraints on immigration officers. 

Democratic lawmakers said new guardrails, including body cameras and preventing the use of masks, were necessary after federal agents shot and killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis in January. 

The impasse led to a 76-day shutdown at the Department of Homeland Security that didn’t end until late April, when Congress approved the annual spending bill without funding for ICE or the Border Patrol. 

June 1 deadline missed

The reconciliation process comes with several strict rules that require each section of the legislation to address revenue, spending, or the debt limit. Proposals also cannot be deemed “merely incidental” to the federal budget. 

Trump wanted Congress to approve the funding package ahead of a self-imposed June 1 deadline. But work on the measure ground to a halt after the administration announced plans to establish a $1.776 billion fund to pay people who believe they were wrongly prosecuted by the Justice Department. 

Floor debate on the bill resumed again this week after acting Attorney General Todd Blanche testified before a House subcommittee Tuesday the administration was “not moving forward with the fund, period.”

Trump, however, muddied the waters a bit Wednesday when asked during an Oval Office event whether the fund was “dead or on hold.”

“I’d have to ask my lawyers. I don’t know,” he said. “Are you talking about the weaponization fund? The weaponization fund, as far as I’m concerned, was a beautiful thing.”

Tough amendment votes

The Justice Department’s “anti-weaponization” account was one of many issues senators sought to address during a marathon voting session that began Thursday morning and lasted until just before sunrise Friday.  

Several Republicans, including those facing tough reelection bids, sided with Democrats on proposals and offered changes of their own, though none were added. 

South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham tried unsuccessfully to include language that would have required people registering to vote provide proof of U.S. citizenship and later present a photo ID to cast a ballot. 

Senators voted 48-50 to reject Graham’s attempt to add the SAVE America Act, showing the legislation doesn’t have the votes to clear Congress, despite pressure from the president.  

Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Murkowski and Thom Tillis of North Carolina voted with Democrats. 

A majority of senators backed an attempt by Delaware’s Chris Coons that would have barred the DOJ from paying anyone convicted of assaulting police on Jan. 6, 2021, when Trump supporters attacked the Capitol. 

The 54-45 vote, however, wasn’t enough to add the provision to the package. It needed the support of at least 60 senators to move past a procedural hurdle since it didn’t address language in the immigration bill. Republican Sens. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Collins, Jon Husted of Ohio, Ashley Moody of Florida, Jerry Moran of Kansas, Murkowski, Dan Sullivan of Alaska and Tillis voted with Democrats. 

An amendment from Cassidy to compensate “law enforcement officers who defended the United States Capitol” on Jan. 6 was unable to reach the 60 votes it needed following a 52-47 vote. Cassidy as well as Collins, Husted, Murkowski, Sullivan and Tillis voted along with Democrats.

Oregon Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley proposed an amendment that would have required congressional authorization before construction could continue on the White House ballroom, but it wasn’t adopted following a 53-46 vote. 

Cassidy, Collins, Husted, Moran, Murkowski, Sullivan and Tillis voted with Democrats, but it needed at least 60 votes to move past an objection. 

Health insurance 

Georgia Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff tried to use a maneuver that would have sent the bill back to the Judiciary Committee in order to create “a task force to conduct investigations into health insurance companies that are found to routinely deny and delay patients’ access to medically necessary care.”

Ossoff told the story of a woman named Ellen from Atlanta who struggled with her insurance company after being diagnosed with a form of blood cancer known as multiple myeloma.

“As Ellen told me, quote, ‘for a corporation to have a finger on the button of your life is ridiculous. They have their minds on profit margins. I just want to be healthy and alive,’” he said. “Thankfully, Ellen’s cancer is now in remission. But across America, insurance companies continue to deny and delay medically necessary healthcare.”

Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley said the issue was “worthy of review” but disagreed with addressing it during debate on the immigration and deportation bill. 

“The Justice Department already performs investigations into healthcare insurance fraud. The Senate also confirmed a new assistant attorney general to fight fraud,” he said. “Further, sending the reconciliation bill back to the Judiciary Committee would essentially kill it.”

The Senate did not agree with Ossoff’s motion following a 47-50 vote. Collins was the sole Republican to vote with Democrats. 

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

WASHINGTON — A Louisiana detention center that houses roughly 1,500 immigrants failed to ensure sanitary conditions, properly store perishable food, properly notify use-of-force incidents and maintain medical records of detainees, according to a report published Thursday by the Department of Homeland Security’s internal watchdog.

The findings stem from an unannounced visit from federal inspectors in March 2025 to the Winn Correctional Center in Winnfield, Louisiana. 

The report from the DHS Office of Inspector General comes on the heels of multiple hunger strikes from immigrants at detention centers, protests outside facilities, a rise in deaths in detention and calls from Democratic lawmakers to shut down certain sites due to poor and inhumane conditions.

In a statement, a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson characterized the report as showing only “minor infractions” at the facility, but did not address the reports of improper use of force.

“These minor infractions included failing to provide detainees exercise equipment, record keeping errors, and leaking vents,” the DHS spokesperson said. “Another infraction included providing a shared computer for legal research that would allow other detainees to see other detainees’ case information.” 

The spokesperson said that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is working to address the issues laid out in the report, including “by adding additional training to facility staff.”

Use-of-force reporting

Facility staff did not properly notify the ICE field office of several use-of-force incidents, and videos of the incidents that inspectors tried to review were incomplete, according to the report. 

The incidents the OIG reviewed included “applying a choke hold around a detainee’s neck,” and “puncturing a detainee’s skin with a pen to gain compliance.”

In the first video reviewed by inspectors, an officer applied a chokehold to stop an altercation between detainees. OIG investigators noted that the facility agreed “that the officer should receive remedial training.”

In a second video, “an officer could not close and secure a housing unit because a detainee would not remove his hand from the unit’s door. After verbally ordering the detainee to remove his hand, the officer then stabbed the detainee’s right thumb with a pen, puncturing the skin.”

OIG detailed that the “facility investigated the incident and determined that the officer required disciplinary action.”

But because the facility does not have a process to document when staff received extra training or disciplinary actions, inspectors argued they could not tell if staff who used prohibited practices or did not follow standards during use-of-force incidents received the appropriate follow-up training or disciplinary actions. 

“This could lead to staff repeating inappropriate use-of-force tactics that could potentially result in property damage, injury, and death,” according to the report.

Sanitation and recreation

The report recommended that detainees be provided some recreational activities or equipment and noted that ICE complied, adding soccer balls, beanbag toss and pull-up bars.

The OIG report also found three leaking vents in the kitchen area, and raised concerns about sanitation.

“Because Winn did not conduct maintenance sufficient to prevent the leaks or repair or remove these leaking items, the facility risks food-safety hazards, such as residue leaking onto food preparation materials or into prepared food,” according to the report. 

Inspectors also found the refrigerators and freezers that stored the food were not at proper temperatures.

“Storing perishable food at temperatures above the required ranges could cause food spoilage or rotting and potentially place staff and detainees at risk of food borne illnesses if served and consumed,” according to the report.

OIG made recommendations to ICE to fix the leaks and food temperature, and the agency agreed. OIG could not determine if ICE fixed the leaks, but did find ICE resolved the issue of food being stored at the proper temperature.