New Nissan cars are driven onto a rail car to be transported from an automobile processing terminal located at the Port of Los Angeles on April 3, 2025 in Wilmington, California. The Japanese automotive maker is being impacted by President Trump’s new 25 percent imported automobile tariffs. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Markets and business owners in the United States and around the world reeled Thursday following President Donald Trump’s announcement of sweeping and steep tariffs that are not “reciprocal” but rather punish many countries that U.S. importers heavily rely on, experts say.

U.S. stocks plummeted, posting the worst one-day drop since June 2020, financial media reported at the closing bell Thursday. Business groups issued criticisms, experts predicted increases in household spending and even a conservative Republican senator pushed legislation that would increase congressional power over tariffs.

Trump unveiled the tariffs Wednesday during a White House Rose Garden event billed as “Liberation Day,” where he told the crowd that trading partners and allies have “torn apart our once beautiful American dream.”

His answer: Signing a “historic executive order instituting reciprocal tariffs on countries throughout the world. Reciprocal. That means they do it to us, and we do it to them. Very simple.”

But economists say the new U.S. tariffs Trump revealed Wednesday — illustrated on a large display table — do not match one-for-one other countries’ levies, as Trump said during his remarks.

Trump held in his hands a chart that claimed to show a list of other countries’ taxes on American imports.

But it was wrong.

The problem with the chart

Vietnam does not charge a 90% tariff on American imports, as the chart said. Rather its rate for imported U.S. goods was on average 9.4% in 2023, according to the World Trade Organization.

“The actual calculation (circulated by the White House) doesn’t factor in other countries’ tariffs,” said Brad Setser, senior fellow on global trade at the Council on Foreign Relations, a think tank focused on international affairs.

In other words, Setser told States Newsroom Thursday, “It’s a tariff on big bilateral trade deficits.”

And so, what does that mean? And why did the president’s chart say that the U.S. would now be charging a 46% tax on every imported good from Vietnam?

Vietnam is a small country, but a competitive exporter, particularly in broadcasting equipment, microchips and computers. And the U.S. is a big customer.

In 2023, the U.S. imported $118 billion in goods from Vietnam, while Vietnam imported about $9.6 billion in U.S. products that year, according to the Observatory of Economic Complexity, a trade data project with roots at MIT.

The White House claimed on the chart that Vietnam applies a 90% tariff on the U.S. — when actually that percentage is roughly the dollar amount of the U.S. trade deficit divided by the dollar amount of how much the U.S. imports from the country. So, $120B – $10B = $110B, then divide that by $120B, and you get roughly 91%.

Trump said he would be “kind” and give trading partners “discounted” tariff rates by about half, and that’s how Vietnam landed at a 46% tax on its imports into the U.S.

“So Vietnam got hit with a huge tariff. It is literally that simple,” Setser said.

Economists and journalists almost immediately took to social media to question the glaring inaccuracy.

‘Bombshell’ tariffs

The new rates are a “bombshell” on U.S. allies and trading partners, said Jack Zhang, a professor of political science who runs the Trade War Lab at the University of Kansas.

Vietnam tried to head off Trump’s announcement in March by cutting levies on U.S. imports and signing “big purchase agreements,” Zhang said, but it didn’t work.

Historically countries have negotiated tariffs product by product in “laborious” talks, Zhang said.

“You know, ‘You reduce tariffs on your stuff, I will reduce tariffs on maybe some other stuff.’ And it nets out to be fair. This sort of lazy, back-of-the-envelope kind of calculation based on the trade deficit, it makes it really hard to negotiate in those terms,” he said.

Products from the European Union will now be taxed at 20%, Japan’s new rate is 24%, and South Korea’s 25% — all significant U.S. allies and trading partners. The EU has already threatened to retaliate if the U.S. does not come to the negotiating table.

Countries carrying a trade surplus with the U.S. — meaning they import more American goods than they sell back to the U.S. — did not escape the policy, as Trump imposed a universal 10% tariff on every nation.

The United Kingdom, which runs a trade surplus with the U.S. and in 2023 charged an average of 3.8% on imported American products, will now see a 10% tax on its items headed to U.S. buyers. Australia, whose Prime Minister Anthony Albanese called the tariffs “totally unwarranted,” faces the same situation.

Trump’s informational table falsely stated that the U.K., Australia and a host of other countries — including the Heard and McDonald Islands, inhabited by penguins and seals — have been charging a 10% tax on American goods.

‘Damage to their own people’

Trump did not include Canada and Mexico in his announcement Wednesday.

But those countries are already subject to up to 25% taxes on steel, aluminum and other imports that the administration enacted in March, after declaring emergencies over illicit fentanyl and immigrants crossing the northern and southern borders.

Additionally Trump’s 25% foreign car tax launched Thursday.  The neighboring countries factor big into the automobile supply chain.

“Given the prospective damage to their own people, the American administration should eventually change course, but I don’t want to give false hope. The president believes that what he is doing is best for the American economy,” Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said Thursday in remarks that streamed on C-SPAN. Carney said he and Trump have agreed to economic and security negotiations next month.

The proposed tariffs will amount to an average $2,100 tax increase per American household, according to an analysis released Thursday by the center-right Tax Foundation, which advocates for lower taxes.

The average levy on all imports will reach 18.8%, compared to 2.5% in 2024, according to the foundation’s modeling.

Numerous trade and advocacy groups spoke out against the tariffs.

The National Association of Manufacturers urged the Trump administration to “minimize tariff costs for manufacturers that are investing and expanding in the U.S.”

The center-right Taxpayers Protection Alliance issued a scathing statement Thursday. “​​American consumers and taxpayers should be appalled by this executive overreach,” said its president David Williams.

States Newsroom spoke to small business owners from around the country who expressed fear about the cost of day-to-day supplies. One Arizona coffee shop owner told the news outlet that he purchased a year’s supply of disposable coffee cups from China last year in anticipation of Trump igniting a trade war.

Trump announced a 34% tax on Chinese imports Wednesday, and some experts say that will stack on top of the existing 20% tariffs Trump imposed during his first administration that were kept in place by former President Joe Biden.

Senators want more control over tariffs

A bipartisan pair of senators introduced on Thursday what they’ve titled the “American Trade Review Act of 2025,” aiming to claw back congressional power over the president’s near unilateral decision-making on U.S. tariffs.

“Inflation and high costs are a threat to the stability and prosperity of American businesses of all sizes, to our farmers and to our consumers,” Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington state said on the Senate floor. She and Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa are co-sponsoring the legislation.

“We live now in an interconnected world, a global economy, and advances in technology and transportation have brought that world closer and closer together. We have a global economy,” Cantwell continued.

States Newsroom sent a list of questions to the White House regarding their informational table of tariffs presented Wednesday and an opportunity to respond to criticism.

In a statement, White House spokesperson Kush Desai said, “Trillions in historic investment commitments from industry leaders ranging from Apple to Hyundai to TSMC are indicative of how this administration is working with the private sector while implementing President Trump’s pro-growth, pro-worker America First agenda of tariffs, deregulation, tax cuts, and the unleashing of American energy.

“These America First economic policies delivered historic job, wage, and investment growth in his first term, and everyone from Main Street to Wall Street is again going to thrive as President Trump secures our nation’s economic future,” the statement continued.

TSMC, a Taiwanese mega semiconductor producer, received $6.6 billion in direct funding from the U.S., plus $5 billion in cheap loans, under Biden’s administration after he signed the CHIPS and Science Act, according to an analysis by the Council on Foreign Relations. The country announced an additional $100 billion investment in early March.

Trump announced a 32% tariff on the island nation.

Demonstrators protest outside the KI Convention Center before the start of a town hall meeting with Elon Musk on March 30, 2025 in Green Bay, Wisconsin. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

It turns out Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, is not so powerful after all. 

Musk’s gambit in Wisconsin — dumping more than $20 million into a nominally nonpartisan Supreme Court race, blanketing the airwaves with negative ads, paying people to sign petitions against “activist judges” and cavorting in Green Bay wearing a cheesehead hat while handing out million-dollar checks to Republican voters — didn’t help, and likely hurt, his chosen candidate in an election Musk described as crucial to “the course of Western civilization” and “the entire destiny of humanity.”

Poor Brad Schimel, whose campaign Musk took over. At his victory party in the Republican stronghold of Waukesha, where he underperformed Trump’s 2024 vote tally, setting up his quick downhill slide, Schimel sat strumming a guitar as the results came in showing that Susan Crawford trounced him by a whopping 10 points. 

After proclaiming that he got into the race because he was disgusted by the Court’s “partisanship,” Schimel ended up promising to be a “support network” for Trump and stood by as Musk became his biggest donor and the public face of his campaign. At some point Tuesday evening he may have begun to regret that approach. Trump himself seems to be rethinking Musk after the debacle in Wisconsin, reportedly telling his inner circle that his billionaire adviser won’t be around much longer.

Other Republicans would be wise to get the message that “Elon Musk is politically toxic, that he is a massive anchor that will drag Republicans to the bottom of the ocean,” Ben Wikler, chair of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, told the Examiner during Crawford’s victory party. 

Wisconsin voters are not alone in recoiling from Musk as he takes a chainsaw to federal health care programs and Social Security, gleefully slashing the safety net to fund giant tax breaks for a handful of super-rich people like himself. In 10 Wisconsin counties where Trump won in 2024, voters rejected Musk’s entreaties to support Schimel, delivering a majority of votes to Crawford. That included Republican-leaning Brown County, where Musk campaigned in his cheesehead hat.

“I think the whole country is going to know unmistakably that Musk and Trump have crossed line after line after line, and the blowback has begun,” said Wikler. “Wisconsin is a bellwether state. Whoever wins Wisconsin probably wins the country, and Trump and Musk just lost decisively. At this point, every Republican who hasn’t yet spoken out against Elon Musk is going to have to think through whether they want to stay in public life or they want this to be their final term in office.”

But don’t count on Wisconsin U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson to do any of that sort of hard thinking. Johnson told Lawrence Andrea of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that Musk was “net beneficial” to Schimel, and that his 10-point loss might have been even bigger without Musk’s help. Likewise Wisconsin Right Now declared that there was no lesson to be learned from Schimel’s loss and chalked it up to the inevitable backlash by angry liberals to Trump and Musk’s bravery. 

That kind of analysis bodes well for Democrats.

After Tuesday, the liberal majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court is secure for another three years, just as it is poised to decide key cases on abortion, labor rights and Wisconsin’s gerrymandered congressional maps. Celebrating on stage with Crawford at the Park Hotel in Madison Tuesday night were the other women who make up that majority, including Justices Jill Karofsky and Janet Protasiewicz, who each won the last two Supreme Court elections by 10 points or more against a right-wing opponent, just as Crawford did. 

In all three races a key issue was Wisconsin women’s right to control their own bodies, with voters decisively rejecting candidates who embraced a dangerous near-total abortion ban. In all three races money also played an outsized role — a growing threat to voters’ ability to make their voices heard over the din of deceptive big-money ads. If we are going to reclaim the Court from the corrupting influence of self-interested donors like Musk — who is currently pursuing a lawsuit to try to overturn a Wisconsin law that prevents him from selling Teslas directly to consumers — we need to put an end to the campaign finance arms race.

But for now the most important lesson of the 2025 Supreme Court race is that voters can stand up to the mind-boggling spree of destruction by MAGA nihilists. 

Musk’s failure to buy a seat on the Court should encourage people across the country to believe in themselves and their ability to resist the authoritarian bullies who are targeting civil society, flouting the law, trampling our rights and trying to rule by intimidation and the sheer force of their money.

It didn’t work in Wisconsin. That’s a good sign.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

State Superintendent Jill Underly won a second term in office Tuesday evening. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Incumbent Jill Underly, who had the backing of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, won a second term as state superintendent on Tuesday, defeating education consultant and Republican-backed candidate Brittany Kinser. 

“I’m just deeply honored and humbled for the trust you have placed in me to continue as state superintendent for public instruction,” Underly told supporters at her Election Night party. “This victory belongs to all of us who believe in the power of public education, but for every educator, family, and most importantly, kids across our state.”

The Associated Press called the race at 10:05 p.m. with Underly leading by more than 5 points and with more than 80% of the votes counted.

Kinser’s campaign released a statement shortly before 10:30 p.m. in which she acknowledged the result was “not the outcome I had hoped for.”

“Our kids’ future shouldn’t rest on the politicization of our education system, but on the belief that our kids deserve so much better than they currently receive,” she said.

The state superintendent, a technically nonpartisan position, is responsible for providing guidance for the state’s 421 public school districts, leading the Department of Public Instruction (DPI)  — an agency responsible for administering state and federal funds, licensing teachers and developing educational curriculum and state assessments — and also holds a position on the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents. 

Underly received the endorsement from Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC), the state’s largest teachers’ union, and AFT-Wisconsin. The Democratic Party of Wisconsin contributed over $850,000 to her campaign. While Underly had the backing of the state Democratic party, Democrat Gov. Tony Evers refused to endorse in the race. 

WEAC said in a statement that the “victory inspires the public school educators who work with students every day to be even more visible and more involved in education policy deliberations to solve staffing shortages and the state funding crisis that forces communities to referendum every year to keep the schoolhouse doors open” and that the result is a rejection of “the school voucher lobby in favor of educators, so all students – no exceptions – have the opportunity to learn without limits and unlock their dreams.”

Kinser had never worked in a traditional Wisconsin public school and received criticism during the campaign for never holding a Wisconsin teachers’ license and allowing her administrator’s license to lapse, though she eventually updated it. She had also worked mostly in charter school circles in recent years, including as principal and executive director of Rocketship schools in Milwaukee and as a leader of the City Forward Collective, a Milwaukee-based advocacy group that has lobbied in favor of increasing funding for the state’s voucher program.

With her background, Kinser, who describes herself as a moderate, found support from Republicans and school choice advocates, receiving over $1.6 million in contributions from the Republican Party of Wisconsin.

While decisive, Underly’s victory was by a narrower margin than her first election in 2021, while Kinser did better than past DPI candidates who have run with the backing of the state’s powerful school choice lobby.

Underly said her takeaway from the closeness of the race is that “we need to just communicate better.” 

Throughout the campaign, Underly faced criticism from her opponent, Republicans and others for her recent approval of changes to state testing standards and poor communication with school districts. 

“There’s a lot that goes on at the agency that I think in years past, maybe state superintendents took for granted, but I think it’s important that we are communicating more,” Underly told the Wisconsin Examiner.

Underly said that the agency is working on rebuilding its relationship with legislators. 

“The Legislature and the relationship with the state superintendent hasn’t always been that great…,” Underly said. “We meet with them frequently. We meet with the governor’s office quite frequently also. I’m just going to go back to the fact that I hope that we all want the same things, regardless of where we are on the political spectrum.” 

Underly said that she also respected Evers’ decision not to endorse in the race and that her working relationship with his office is “fine.”

Throughout her campaign, Underly defended her decisions during her first term and said that she has served as “the No. 1 advocate for public education” and will continue to do so. Prior to being elected to the top DPI position, Underly worked as assistant director in DPI. She also previously served as a principal and superintendent of the Pecatonica Area School District and taught in public schools in Indiana.

Underly leaned on her advocacy for public schools while making the argument for her reelection. She introduced a budget request for the state that would have invested over $4 billion in public education, saying that it’s what schools deserved. Republicans and Evers both said it was too large. 

Democratic lawmakers said Underly’s victory is a sign of Wisconsinites’ support of public schools and will hopefully bode well for the future of securing improved funding for public education. 

Senate Minority Leader Dianne Hesselbein (D-Middleton) told the Wisconsin Examiner that Underly’s victory was a vindication of her first term in office.

“She’s had to make do with some really tough choices, and she’s done a great job for kids and for teachers,” Hesselbein said.

“We know public schools unite communities, and when we have strong public schools, we have strong communities,” Rep. Francesca Hong (D-Madison) said. “We’ve got a state superintendent who’s going to be looking out for every learner in our state, and so I’m also looking forward to the transparency and accountability that will come with ensuring that public dollars are for public schools.” 

Hong said that the lack of communication between Republican lawmakers and Underly is the fault of  lawmakers who are not interested in meeting the needs of students. She said that Underly’s win and “Republicans needing to answer to their communities who care about their public schools again” could encourage them to work across the aisle. She noted that Wisconsinites have repeatedly raised their property taxes to ensure schools have funding in lieu of reliable state investments. 

Hong also said that she thought Underly’s victory showcased that “public dollars going to private schools was a deep concern for a lot of Wisconsinites.” During her campaign, Underly criticized  her opponent for her lobbying for and support for Wisconsin’s school choice programs. She also expressed her opposition to the growth of those programs, saying it is not sustainable for the state to fund two school systems and that she would oppose dedicating more money to private school vouchers.

Underly said it’s clear that her opponent “cares about kids and she cares about kids learning,” and that something she would take away from the race is that “we all want the same things. Ultimately, we want kids to be successful.”

(Photo by Drew Angerer | Getty Images)

Wisconsin voters on Tuesday approved a constitutional amendment to enshrine the state’s already existing voter ID law into the state Constitution. 

The amendment was approved by 25 points. The Associated Press called the election less than 40 minutes after the polls closed. 

The Republican-authored referendum does not change the law that was already on the books in the state which requires that voters show an approved ID to register to vote and receive a ballot. Republican legislators said the amendment was necessary to protect the statute from being overturned by the state Supreme Court. In recent years, Republicans in the Legislature have increasingly turned to the constitutional amendment process to shape state law without needing the signature of Democratic Gov. Tony Evers. 

Democrats had accused Republicans of including the referendum on the ballot in this election as an effort to boost conservative turnout in the state Supreme Court election. 

Wisconsin’s voter ID law has been on the books for more than a decade. During debate over the law, Republican lawmakers discussed its potential to help the party win elections by suppressing the vote of minority and college-aged people who tend to vote for Democrats. 

Democrats and voting rights groups said the law amounted to a “poll tax.” A 2017 study found that the law kept 17,000 people from the polls in the 2016 election. 

Since its passage, a number of court decisions have adjusted the law, leading the state to ease restrictions and costs for obtaining a photo ID — particularly for people who can’t afford a high cost or don’t have proper documents such as a birth certificate. 

Republicans in Wisconsin and across the country have increasingly focused on photo ID requirements for voting since conspiracy theories about election administration emerged following President Donald Trump’s false claims that he was robbed of victory because of voter fraud in the 2020 presidential campaign.

While the law doesn’t change, the approved language of the amendment gives the Legislature the authority to determine what types of ID qualify as valid for voting purposes. Currently, approved IDs include Wisconsin driver’s licenses and state IDs, U.S. passports, military IDs and certain student IDs.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Dane County Judge Susan Crawford thanks supporters after winning the race Tuesday for the Wisconsin Supreme Court. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Dane County Judge Susan Crawford was elected to the Wisconsin Supreme Court Tuesday, solidifying liberal control of the body until 2028 and marking a sharp rebuke by the state’s voters of the policies of President Donald Trump and the financial might of his most prominent adviser, Elon Musk. 

Crawford rode massive turnout in Dane and Milwaukee counties and outperformed Kamala Harris’ effort last year in a number of other parts of the state to defeat her opponent, Waukesha County Judge Brad Schimel by about 10 points.

The former chief legal counsel for Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle who represented liberal groups such as Planned Parenthood and the Madison teacher’s union as a private practice attorney said during the campaign that she would look out for the rights of all Wisconsinites on the Supreme Court while repeatedly criticizing Schimel for his eagerness to show his support for Trump, his record as attorney general and the outside assistance his campaign got from Musk. 

Crawford’s victory marks the third straight Supreme Court election for Wisconsin’s liberals and maintains the 4-3 liberal majority that has been in place since Justice Janet Protasiewicz was elected in 2023. Crawford will replace retiring Justice Ann Walsh Bradley. 

Since gaining control of the Court, the new liberal majority has ruled that the state’s previous legislative maps were unconstitutional, ending the partisan gerrymander that had locked in Republican control of the Legislature for more than a decade, and accepted cases that will decide the rights of Wisconsinites to have an abortion. The Court is also likely to consider a challenge to Wisconsin’s 2011 law stripping most union rights from public employees within the next year or two. 

“I’m here tonight because I’ve spent my life fighting to do what’s right,” Crawford said after the race was called for her. “That’s why I got into this race, to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of all.”

Schimel said he got into the race because he was opposed to the “partisanship” of the liberal controlled Court but his effort to nationalize the race and show his support for Trump proved unsuccessful against a backlash to the second Trump term and voters’ distrust of Musk, who offered cash incentives for people who got out the vote for Schimel. 

Tuesday’s election was the first statewide race in the country since Trump won the presidency last fall. Trump narrowly won Wisconsin and in counties across the state, Schimel failed to match the president’s vote total. In La Crosse County, Crawford performed 11 points better than Harris did last year and Schimel didn’t even match Trump’s vote share in his home of Waukesha County. 

Schimel ran nearly even with former Supreme Court Justice Dan Kelly, who lost to Protasiewicz in the 2023 race. Wisconsin’s conservatives have now lost the past three Supreme Court elections by double digits.

The 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court race set the record for the most expensive judicial campaign in U.S. history, topping the $100 million mark. While Crawford received support from liberal billionaires including George Soros and Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, Musk dwarfed all other contributors, dumping more than $20 million into the race.

Musk’s money helped blanket the state’s airwaves with attack ads against Crawford’s record as a judge, often criticizing sentences she gave to people convicted of sexual violence. A Musk-associated PAC also hired people to knock on thousands of doors in an effort to turn out Trump’s base of Wisconsin voters, who have often sat out non-presidential elections. America PAC, a political action committee associated with Musk, paid door knockers $25 an hour, offered voters cash if they filled out a petition against “activist judges” and gave two people $1 million checks at a rally on Sunday. 

“But I’ve got to tell you, as a little girl growing up in Chippewa Falls, I never could have imagined that I’d be taking on the richest man in the world  for justice in Wisconsin,” Crawford said. “And we won.”

In a concession speech delivered shortly before 9:30 p.m., Schimel told supporters they “didn’t leave anything on the field,” and when a few began to complain said “no, we’ve gotta accept this.”

“The numbers aren’t going to turn around. Too bad. We’re not going to pull this off,” he said. “So thank you guys. From the bottom of my heart. God bless you. God bless the state of Wisconsin. God bless America. You will rise again. We’ll get up to fight another day, it just wasn’t our day.”

The Democratic Party of Wisconsin, harnessing voters’ alarm at the actions Musk has been leading from his federal DOGE office to cut government programs and fire thousands of public employees, held People v. Musk town halls across the state where residents said they were worried about the effect those cuts would have on services they rely on like Medicaid, Social Security, veteran’s benefits and education funding. 

Gov. Tony Evers said that Wisconsin “felt the weight of America” in this election, which proved Wisconsinites “will not be bought.”

“This election was about the resilience of the Wisconsin and American values that define and unite us,” Evers said. “This election was about doing what’s best for our kids, protecting constitutional checks and balances, reaffirming our faith in the courts and the judiciary, and defending against attacks on the basic rights, freedoms, and institutions we hold dear. But above all, this election was as much about who Wisconsinites believe we can be as it was about the country we believe we must be.”

Democrats and Crawford accused Musk of trying to buy a seat on the state Supreme Court, partially to influence a lawsuit his company, Tesla, has filed challenging a Wisconsin law that prohibits car manufacturers from selling directly to consumers. Musk said he was focused on the race because the Court could decide the constitutionality of the state’s congressional maps, which currently favor Republicans and help the party hold a narrow majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. 

At the victory party, Democratic Party of Wisconsin Chair Ben Wikler compared the effort against Musk and Trump to Gov. Robert “Fighting Bob” La Follette’s fight against the oligarchs of the early 20th century, adding that Republicans’ association with Musk will be an “anchor.”

“I think what Susan Crawford did by making clear that Elon Musk was the real opponent in this race, what voters did by responding to Elon Musk, it made clear that Elon Musk is politically toxic, and he is a massive anchor that will drag Republicans from the bottom of the ocean,” he said. “And that’s a message that I hope Republicans in Washington hear as fast as possible. Not only will they lose, but they will deserve to lose resoundingly and they will be swept out of power in a wave of outrage across the nation.”

On the campaign trail, Crawford sought to tie Schimel to Musk — she called her opponent “Elon Schimel” at the only debate between the two candidates — while portraying herself as the less partisan candidate. Throughout the nominally non-partisan race, both candidates lobbed accusations of extreme political views at the other. 

With Crawford’s victory and the retention of the Court’s liberal majority, the body is expected to rule on cases that ask if Wisconsin’s Constitution grants women the right to access an abortion, the legality of the Republican-authored law that restricts the collective bargaining rights of most public employees, how Wisconsin’s industries should be regulated for pollution and the legality of the state’s congressional maps. 

Heather Williams, a spokesperson for the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, said in a statement that Democrats were offering a better vision for the country than the one promised by Schimel, Trump and Musk. 

“Despite Republicans’ best efforts to buy this seat, Wisconsin voters showed up for their values and future,” Williams said. “While Trump dismantles programs that taxpayers have earned, support, and are counting on, voters across the country are turning to state Democrats who are delivering on promises to lower costs and expand opportunities.”

This story was updated Wednesday morning with current vote totals.

Members of SEIU and Voces de la Frontera arrive at the Capitol Tuesday | Wisconsin Examiner photo

Online rumors warning of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) patrols around polling places in Milwaukee and Madison appear to be unfounded. The reports circulated on social media claiming that there would be “more than 5,000 ICE agents patrolling the areas” in the two cities, as voters went to the polls to cast ballots in the April 1 election for candidates running for  Wisconsin Supreme Court, state superintendent, and referendum questions focusing on voter ID. 

Anxieties about ICE activities have been heightened under the Trump Administration. Recent weeks have seen videos showing plain-clothes, masked ICE agents detaining people on the street. Some of the detainees had been arrested after participating in activist activities, such as protests calling for an end to the war in Gaza. Fears of ICE raids have increased  in Milwaukee and Madison, as in other cities. 

Spokespersons for Milwaukee and Madison city government told Wisconsin Examiner that they have not heard any reports, complaints, or notifications about ICE agents at polling places. A spokesperson for the ICE office in Milwaukee said, “due to our operational tempo and the increased interest in our agency, we are not able to research and respond to rumors or specifics of routine daily operations for ICE.”

Meanwhile, turnout in Milwaukee has been so high that local news outlets are reporting that polling sites across the city have run out of ballots. The city’s Election’s Commission is arranging for fresh ballots to be sent to polling stations. In Tuesday’s election Republican-backed Supreme Court candidate and former Wisconsin attorney general Brad Schimel is facing off  against Dane County Judge Susan Crawford, who has the backing of state Democrats. In the  state superintendent’s race, incumbent Jill Underly is facing challenger Brittany y Kinser. Wisconsinites will also get to decide whether the state’s constitution should be amended to codify a voter ID requirement.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Voters at the Wilmar Neighborhood Center on Madison's East side cast their ballots. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)

Wisconsin’s spring election takes place Tuesday, with voters across the state weighing in on the races for state Supreme Court and superintendent of schools, a constitutional amendment and local offices.

Polls open at 7 a.m. and close at 8 p.m. Voters who are already in line to vote when polls close should remain in line and will still be able to cast their ballots. Absentee ballots must be returned by the time polls close and can be returned to a voter’s polling place or municipal clerk’s office. Information on polling places can be found at MyVote.WI.gov. 

Hundreds of thousands of Wisconsinites have already cast their ballots, surpassing the early vote turnout of the 2023 Supreme Court race when 1.8 million people voted. On the Monday before the election that year, more than 409,000 ballots had already been cast. This year, more than 644,000 votes have already been cast, with Dane and Milwaukee counties each seeing the most turnout. More than 100,000 votes have already been cast in both counties. 

While the lower turnout of spring elections means results usually come faster than in presidential elections, state law still doesn’t allow election officials to begin processing absentee ballots until polls open on Election Day. Last year, Republicans in the state Senate killed a bill that would have allowed absentee ballots to start being processed on the Monday before the election. This means that especially in Milwaukee, where all absentee ballots are processed and counted at one central count location, results may take longer to come in. 

Supreme Court race

The race for Wisconsin Supreme Court is the most consequential on the ballot on Tuesday, with the ideological balance of the body up for grabs. Liberal-backed Dane County Judge Susan Crawford is taking on conservative-backed Waukesha County Judge Brad Schimel. The winner will replace retiring Justice Ann Walsh Bradley. 

Wisconsin is holding the first statewide election in the country since President Donald Trump was elected last November. That opportunity to test the voting public’s mood, and the $20 million that Trump adviser Elon Musk has pumped into the race to support Schimel, has turned the race into a referendum on the first months of the second Trump administration. 

Musk appeared at a rally in Green Bay on Sunday night to advocate for Schimel, give $1 million to two attendees and hype up his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which has been making drastic cuts to federal agencies and programs. 

Schimel has said he is running to remove partisanship from the Court and that if elected he would  treat Trump like any other litigant in a case. But he also told a group of canvassers associated with Trump-aligned Turning Point USA that he’d be a “support network” for Trump on the Court and, the Washington Post reported, told a group of Republicans in Jefferson County that Trump was “screwed over” by the Court when it ruled against Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of  the 2020 election. 

Democrats and Crawford’s campaign have accused Musk of attempting to buy a seat on the state Supreme Court. They point to Musk’s current litigation in Wisconsin challenging a state law that prevents Tesla from selling cars directly to consumers. Democrats have held People v. Musk town halls across the state where attendees said they were worried about DOGE’s cuts to Social Security, Medicaid and education. 

At the only debate between the two candidates in March, Crawford called her opponent “Elon Schimel.” Crawford has said if elected she’ll be a justice who seeks to protect the rights of all Wisconsinites while Schimel has said he’s running to counter the alleged partisanship of the Court since liberals won a majority in 2023. 

The race for Supreme Court has set the record for most expensive judicial campaign in U.S. history. The race recently surpassed the $100 million mark, nearly doubling the record set by Wisconsin’s 2023 Supreme Court election when more than $50 million was spent in the race between Justice Janet Protasiewicz and former Justice Dan Kelly. 

While the race has been nationalized, the winner will hold a deciding vote in cases that could decide how Wisconsin’s congressional maps are drawn, how pollution is regulated, the collective bargaining rights of the state’s workers and if Wisconsin women have the right to access an abortion.

Superintendent of Schools

Also on the ballot on Tuesday is the race for superintendent of schools. The race is between incumbent Jill Underly, supported by the state Democratic party, and Brittany Kinser, an education consultant who’s been backed by the state Republican Party. 

The two candidates appeared together at just one virtual forum, with Underly declining to attend a number of proposed events. Kinser has criticized Underly’s effort to change the standards used to assess student progress and advocated for more support for the state’s “school choice” programs including taxpayer-funded private school vouchers. 

Underly is endorsed by the state’s teachers union and says she will defend  public schools against privatization efforts by school choice advocates such as Kinser. 

Voter ID amendment

Voters will also weigh in on a proposed constitutional amendment to codify the state’s voter ID law. The Republican-authored proposal would require that voters provide a photo ID to register to vote, which is already the law. Republicans say the amendment is necessary to prevent the state  Supreme Court from striking down the voter ID requirement. Republicans have increasingly used the constitutional amendment process in recent years as a way to shape state law, avoiding Democratic Gov. Tony Evers’ veto.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

New Poll: American Voters Support Federal Investments in Electric Vehicles Broad, Bipartisan Support for EV Investments and Incentives that Lower Costs, Expand Access, and Help the U.S. Beat China in the Race for Auto Manufacturing WASHINGTON, D.C. – A new bipartisan national poll conducted by Meeting Street Insights and Hart Research finds broad public support …

The post Support for Electric Vehicles appeared first on Alternative Energy HQ.

GREEN BAY, WISCONSIN - MARCH 30: Demonstrators protest outside the KI Convention Center before the start of a town hall meeting with Elon Musk on March 30, 2025 in Green Bay, Wisconsin. The town hall was held ahead of the state’s high-profile Supreme Court election between Circuit Court Judge Brad Schimel, who has been financially backed by Musk and endorsed by President Donald Trump, and Dane County Circuit Court Judge Susan Crawford. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Days before Wisconsinites go to the polls to decide which candidate will win an open seat on the state Supreme Court, the richest man in the world, Elon Musk, gave oversized $1 million checks to two Wisconsin voters.

Appearing on stage in front of more than 1,000 people and wearing a cheesehead hat, Musk, who has spent more than $20 million supporting the candidacy of conservative-backed Waukesha County Judge Brad Schimel, gave out the money at a rally in Green Bay Sunday night. From the stage, Musk  said the race, which will decide the ideological balance of the Court, could “affect the entire destiny of humanity.” 

Aside from the two checks he gave out on Sunday, America PAC, the political action committee Musk has used to funnel money into the race, offered Wisconsin voters $100 each to fill out a petition against “activist judges” and provide contact information. Musk’s money has also been used to hire people from out-of-state to knock on doors on behalf of Schimel and blanket the state in ads. The group has also sent texts to voters in an effort to recruit canvassers that offer $20 for each person they get to vote. 

Democrats and Schimel’s opponent, Dane County Judge Susan Crawford, have accused Musk of trying to buy a seat on the Court, pointing out that Musk’s company, Tesla, is currently fighting a lawsuit against the state of Wisconsin over its law that prevents car manufacturers from selling directly to consumers. 

Musk said the $1 million giveaway was a strategy to get attention on the race. 

“We need to get attention,” he said. “Somewhat inevitably, when I do these things, it causes the legacy media to kind of lose their minds.”

Wisconsin state law includes provisions that make it illegal to offer people money in exchange for voting. In an initial post on his social media site, X, Musk said that the winners of the money would need to prove they had voted. He later deleted that post and updated the contest so that people only had to complete the America PAC petition. 

Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul sued to block the giveaway, alleging that it violated state law against election bribery. Judges at the circuit, appellate and Supreme Court levels declined to step in. 

Musk’s involvement in the race has become one of the campaign’s major issues as voters are about to head to the polls. The state Democratic party has held People v. Musk town halls across the state as liberals worry about Musk’s involvement in the election and his DOGE agency’s work to cut funds at a variety of federal agencies.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The Wisconsin Capitol on spring election day, April 7, 2020. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)

Election administration experts say that President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to require that people prove their U.S. citizenship to register to vote is unlikely to survive legal challenges, but even if it did, it would not apply to Wisconsin’s April 1 election. 

On Tuesday, Trump signed the order that purports to pull federal funding from the Election Assistance Commission for states that do not require that voters prove their U.S. citizenship to vote in federal elections. The order also attempts to give Elon Musk’s DOGE access to states’ voter registration lists and gives the Department of Homeland Security the authority to verify the citizenship status of voters and make the prosecution of non-citizen voting a priority at the Department of Justice. The order also demands that election administrators use paper ballots or paper ballot trails.

In recent years, Trump and Republicans have become increasingly focused on alleged non-citizen voting. Since Trump’s false claims that the 2020 election was stolen, Republicans in Congress have worked to pass the SAVE Act, which contains similar provisions to the Trump order. Last year in Wisconsin, voters approved a Republican-authored constitutional amendment to prevent non-citizens from voting in local, state or federal elections — despite it already being against the law for non-citizens to vote. 

Voting rights advocates have frequently cautioned that the provisions included in the Trump order and the SAVE act would potentially disenfranchise millions of married American women who have a different last name on their current ID than on proof of citizenship documents like a birth certificate. Estimates say this could prevent more than 69 million women from voting. 

“Let’s keep it real: this order is not about protecting elections; it is about making it harder for voters — particularly women voters — to participate in them,” Celina Stewart, Chief Executive Officer of the League of Women Voters of the United States, said in a statement. “This executive order is an assault on our republic and a dangerous attempt to silence American voters. The President continues to overstep his authority and brazenly disregard settled law in this country. To be very clear — the League of Women Voters is prepared to fight back and defend our democracy.”

Trump issued the order just one week before Wisconsin’s April 1 election and days after he endorsed Waukesha County Judge Brad Schimel in the race for a seat on the state Supreme Court. 

“President Donald Trump’s sudden, overbroad and sweeping executive order issued yesterday, just one week before Wisconsin’s nationally important and closely watched State Supreme Court election on April 1st is likely unconstitutional and destined to be rejected by federal and state courts and the U.S. Congress in part or completely,” Jay Heck, executive director of Common Cause Wisconsin said after the order’s release. Heck also sent out a press release telling Wisconsin voters that the order does not apply to the April 1 election.

Ann Jacobs, the Democratic chair of the Wisconsin Elections Commission, wrote on social media that there are a number of reasons why the order won’t apply to the election next week. The order only applies to federal elections and there are no federal offices on the ballot — only elections for state and local offices. And the order is not set to go into effect for 30 days, long after April 1. 

Jacobs also said that the order focuses on provisions on the National Voting Rights Act (NVRA). Also known as the “Motor voter” law, the NVRA requires most states to offer people the ability to register to vote at state motor vehicle agencies, by mail or at certain state or local offices. The law also requires states to maintain up-to-date voter registration lists. 

Wisconsin is one of six states that is exempt from the NVRA because it allows people to register to vote in-person at the polls on Election Day, so, Jacobs said, any provisions of the Trump order purporting to use the authority of the NVRA aren’t applicable to Wisconsin. Jacobs also pointed out that Wisconsin is prohibited from even using an NVRA-specific voter registration form because of a Waukesha County court ruling against its use. 

Jacobs added that Wisconsin already uses paper ballots or paper voting trails to keep a record of every ballot cast in the state. 

“It is disappointing that the federal government is attempting to make people worry about voting this close to an important election,” Jacobs wrote. “I hope this is not a ham-fisted attempt to shore up a failing bid for the [Wisconsin Supreme Court] by the candidate currently behind in the polls.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Supreme Court candidates Susan Crawford and Brad Schimel debate at Marquette Law School Wednesday evening, March 12. (Photo by Henry Redman/Wisconsin Examiner)

The race for an open seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court continues to draw  record-breaking campaign donations, with both candidates receiving contributions from billionaires and out-of-state donors. 

With less than a week left in the race that will decide the ideological balance  of the Court between Dane County Judge Susan Crawford and Waukesha County Judge Brad Schimel, observers believe the total amount raised will reach $100 million by Election Day on April 1. That amount makes the race the most expensive state court election in U.S.history and far surpasses Wisconsin’s record of $56 million, which was set when Justice Janet Protasiewicz defeated former Justice Dan Kelly in the 2023 race. 

On Monday, the Crawford campaign announced that it had raised $17 million since early February and $24 million since she entered the race last summer. 

Full campaign finance reports of the reporting period are not yet available, but late contribution reports filed on Monday show Crawford’s campaign received more than $1.2 million in just the last few days, including more than $600,000 of in-kind donations from the Democratic Party of Wisconsin. 

The report also shows a number of contributions to Crawford of more than $1,000 from donors across the state and the U.S., including a $5,000 donation from the actor Kevin Bacon and $1,000 from former state Department of Revenue Secretary Peter Barca. 

Schimel’s late-filing report showed he received about $1.2 million from the Republican Party of Wisconsin. 

State law puts a $20,000 limit on individuals’ donations to a judicial campaign, however both candidates are benefiting from a workaround that allows unlimited donations to both political parties, which can in turn transfer unlimited amounts of cash to the campaigns. 

Schimel’s campaign has also received $13 million in outside support from a political action committee associated with Elon Musk. Musk has been an outspoken supporter of Schimel, and Musk’s America PAC, which he used to back President Trump during the 2024 election, has offered Wisconsin voters $100 to sign a petition opposing “activist judges” and has sent staff to knock on doors in Wisconsin.  Schimel was also endorsed by President Donald Trump over the  weekend. WisPolitics reported last week that Musk had also given $2 million to the state Republican party, the largest contribution ever recorded to the state GOP.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

As Congress considers cuts to Medicaid, advocates warn that proposals will hike state costs or reduce services for people with no other resources. (Getty Images)

Of the laundry list of proposed Medicaid cuts circulating on Capitol Hill, policy watchers say some stand out as the most likely to be implemented because they’ve either been tried before, frequently embraced, or both.

Advocates argue that none of the ideas will actually help the program do a better job of its central mission: make it possible for poor and low-income people to get either primary or long-term health care. Instead, they contend, the outcome would be to transfer the costs to states unwilling to cut services or kick people off the rolls who have no other health care resources.

Broad outlines of the proposed Medicaid wish list for Congressional Republicans were outlined in a U.S. House memo that Politico published in mid-January, along with 50 pages of details. The memo is the basis for a summary of those proposed cuts from policy analysts and advocates at the Georgetown University Center for Children and Families.

Among the proposals that have garnered the most attention and concern are:

• Instituting work requirements for Medicaid recipients.
• Capping the current federal contribution to a state’s Medicaid budget, also known as turning Medicaid funds into a state block grant.
• Lowering the federal government’s minimum share of the cost of Medicaid, currently 50%.
• Ending the increased federal government match for states that have adopted Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act (ACA)

Additional proposals would make other changes to how the federal matching rate is calculated or applied and reverse several Biden administration rules that made Medicaid enrollment easier and broadened access to benefits, according to the Georgetown summary.

Medicaid is funded by a combination of federal and state money. Proposals that lower the federal share would require states to pick up a larger share of the cost to avoid reducing coverage.

“The scale of the cuts Congress is contemplating is so large it really will cause fiscal peril for the state,” says Tamara Jackson of the Wisconsin Board for People with Developmental Disabilities.

Medicaid work requirements

The congressional proposals include imposing work requirements for “able-bodied” people as a condition of receiving Medicaid.

The congressional memo specifies that work requirements would not include “pregnant women, primary caregivers of dependents, individuals with disabilities or health-related barriers to employment, and full-time students.” It pegs the savings from a work requirement at $100 billion over 10 years.

According to KFF, a nonpartisan, nonprofit health policy research organization, however, more than two-thirds of Medicaid recipients are working, and those who aren’t would largely fall into the groups the memo says would be exempt.

The first Trump administration approved state Medicaid program waivers that included work requirements, while the Biden administration withdrew its approval. Among them was a requirement in Wisconsin dating from the administration of former Gov. Scott Walker.

The GOP majority in the Wisconsin Legislature passed a bill in 2022 that included a Medicaid work-requirement variation, but it was vetoed by Gov. Tony Evers.

According to KFF, a Congressional Budget Office analysis of a 2023 U.S. House proposal to institute Medicaid work requirements found that while it would save the federal government $109 billion, it would also increase the number of uninsured people by 600,000 without increasing employment. An Arkansas work requirement instituted in 2018 but later found unlawful by a federal court led 18,000 people to lose coverage.

“What we know is, even though people are working or would be technically subject to exemptions, there are very significant administrative burdens on enrollees to prove that or be found ineligible,” says Richelle Andrae, associate director of government relations for the Wisconsin Primary Health Care Association. The organization represents federally qualified health centers that serve low-income patients, including those on BadgerCare Plus and those who are uninsured.

“More time-sensitive paperwork and steps that are hard for people to understand or do and lots of people trying to complete administrative tasks at the same time are a recipe for mistakes, by individuals and government agencies that must do the work,” says Jackson. “That is how policies like work requirements and more frequent eligibility checks save money. Eligible people lose coverage or struggle to get in.”

Block grants

Currently Medicaid pays states at least 50% of all Medicaid costs, with states paying the balance.

In President Donald Trump’s first term, his administration attempted to replace that long-standing guarantee with a block grant — a fixed amount of money per Medicaid beneficiary in the state, regardless of the actual cost.

That per-patient cap on federal funds “would instead radically restructure Medicaid financing,” according to the Georgetown summary.

The cost would be felt across the board, from long-term care in nursing homes or in the community home care to primary health care through BadgerCare Plus, health care providers say, to the detriment of patients.

“Whatever the proposals are that are at the federal level — changing the formula, [per-patient] caps, at the end of the day they they’re all aimed at reducing funding for the Medicaid program, and it really is a vital lifeline for long-term care services and support,” says Lisa Davison, executive director of LeadingAge Wisconsin. The organization represents nursing homes and assisted living providers in the nonprofit, publicly owned and for profit sectors.

Reducing support would send some patients who now have Medicaid coverage back into the pool of uninsured people, says Patricia Sarvela, chief development officer for Partnership Community Health Center, a federally qualified health center in the Fox Valley that serves uninsured people as well as BadgerCare recipients.

Lacking health insurance, people are likely to put off addressing symptoms until their condition worsens enough for them to go to the emergency room, Sarvela says.

Directly or indirectly, taxpayers will likely wind up having to cover the cost of that care, however. “There might be short-term federal savings but ultimately at the end of the day it’s going to cost the taxpayers a lot more because patients will then not have health insurance,” Sarvela says.

Changes to federal match

Several proposed changes relate to the amount of the federal Medicaid match or how it’s calculated.

A proposal published by the Paragon Institute in July 2024 calls for reducing the federal match below 50% of the costs. The Paragon Institute has close ties to the Heritage Foundation, which produced Project 2025, the 900-page document that, although disavowed by Trump last year, has been echoed in numerous actions since he took office.

In 10 states the federal match is at the minimum and would likely be lowered, the Georgetown summary says, adding: “These states would likely have to make deep cuts to their Medicaid programs in response.”

The states are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Washington and Wyoming.

Other states receive a higher federal match; Wisconsin gets 60% of its costs covered. It’s not clear whether those states’ matches would also be reduced under the proposal or other Medicaid reduction proposals.

Medicaid expansion

Another likely cut would be to reduce the additional federal match for Medicaid recipients whose incomes are between 100% and 138% of the federal poverty line.

The additional match was included in the Affordable Care Act, enacted in 2010. Originally Medicaid expansion was mandatory under the act, but a subsequent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that upheld the ACA made Medicaid expansion voluntary.

States that have accepted the expansion got a 90% federal match for the added beneficiaries. The Congressional memo proposes ending the higher match, and some states that have expanded are already considering ending expansion if that happens.

Wisconsin never accepted Medicaid expansion, however, so that change would not directly affect the state. Although Evers first ran in 2018 on a vow to accept Medicaid expansion after Walker rejected it, he’s been blocked from doing so by the GOP majority in the Legislature.

As he has with every budget he’s proposed since taking office, Evers has included accepting Medicaid expansion in his 2025-27 budget proposal.

In an interview with the Wisconsin Examiner last month after a visit with constituents in Port Washington to promote his budget, Evers said he didn’t consider leaving out Medicaid expansion, despite predictions that it would be pulled back by Republicans.

“First of all, we don’t know if it’s going to go away,” Evers said. Under the current 90% match, he said, Wisconsin would get about $2 billion in additional federal money every two years and the additional people covered in the state “would get better health insurance, so it’s a win-win-win.”

Evers acknowledged that in the current Congress, there’s a risk for sharp reductions in Medicaid.

If that happens, “it would be disastrous,” Evers said. “We have lots of people on Medicaid in the state of Wisconsin.”

Among states, Wisconsin’s Medicaid profile is “pretty average,” he added.

“There are places in the country where Medicaid is a huge, huge player, and if they would get rid of Medicaid, our health care system would implode. There’s just no question about that. That’s the thing that concerns me.”

This story is Part Three in a series.

Read Part One: Wisconsin patients, families are wary as Congress prepares for Medicaid surgery

Read Part Two: How Medicaid fuels an economic engine for caregivers, family members and patients

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

In the overview of our January 2020 Global Cleantech 100, we welcomed readers to the “Roaring 20s,” predicting a decade of cleantech growth,...

The post 2025 Global Cleantech 100 Trend Watch appeared first on Cleantech Group.

The December Farm Foundation Forum, Tax Year 2025: Potential Impacts and Opportunities for Farmers and the Agriculture Sector, covered the possible outcomes and impacts for farms and the greater agricultural sector from potential changes to taxation policy in 2025 and beyond. Some key aspects discussed included the impact of expiring tax provisions, and specific issues like estate tax and bonus depreciation. 

The conversation was moderated by Todd Van Hoose, president and CEO of Farm Credit Council, and included input from Mark Albright, public affairs specialist in tax outreach partnership and education at the Internal Revenue Service; Kent Bacus, executive director of government affairs at National Cattlemen’s Beef Association; Tia McDonald, research agricultural economist with USDA Economic Research Service; Paul Neiffer, agribusiness and business advisor with Farm CPA Report; and Elizabeth Swanson, national tax senior manager with Pinion. 

Below are some of the main points presented by the panel. 

1. Expiring Tax Provisions: Expiring tax provisions, including key provisions from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) and the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), will impact farm households. These include the child tax credit, earned income tax credit, estate tax exemptions, and bonus depreciation, set to expire by the end of 2025. 

2. Impact on Tax Liabilities: Expiring provisions are expected to increase tax liabilities by nearly $9 billion, with $650 million coming from the estate tax exemptions. The most significant increase will come from the expiration of changes to federal income tax rates, the removal of the state and local tax cap, and the reinstatement of the personal exemption. 

3. Qualified Business Income (QBI) Deduction: The QBI deduction, which allows farm businesses to deduct 20% of their income, will be affected by expiring provisions. Larger farms benefit more from this deduction, but moderate-sales farms face the highest percentage increase in taxes due to the expiration of this provision. 

4. Estate Tax and Exemptions: A major concern for farm households is the estate tax exemption, which will be halved in 2026, potentially leading to higher estate tax liabilities for farm families.  

5. Concerns Over Bonus Depreciation: The phase-out of bonus depreciation, which allows faster write-offs of equipment costs, poses a risk to farm businesses that rely on capital-intensive equipment. The expiration could lead to significant tax burdens unless replaced with alternative provisions. 

6. CTA Compliance and Penalties: The Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) mandates reporting beneficial ownership information for entities like LLCs. Failure to comply with CTA filing requirements can result in significant penalties. However, on December 3, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas entered a preliminary injunction suspending enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) and its implementation of regulations nationwide. 

7. IRS Resources for Farmers: Various IRS resources are available to farmers, including the Farmers Tax Guide, tax tips for farmers, and an online Agricultural Tax Center. These tools help farmers navigate tax complexities, especially regarding crop insurance, disaster payments, and updated provisions like mileage rates and self-employment tax thresholds. 

The two-hour discussion, including the audience question and answer session, was recorded and is archived on the Farm Foundation website.  

Please note: This summary was created with the help of ChatGPT. Please refer to the recorded session for full details. 

The post Farm Foundation Forum Detailed Possible Impacts of Upcoming Changes to Taxation Policy appeared first on Farm Foundation.