Like two sides of a coin imprinted with the nation’s motto, “e pluribus unum” — out of many, one — America’s political factions are cast in opposition, but they are intrinsically bound together as parts of a larger whole.

From the beginning, the United States has aspired to build a more perfect union. When our founders convened the Constitutional Convention in 1787, they disagreed about the structure of government, the balance of power and the protection of individual versus collective rights. But when they debated — and they often did, with great conviction and intensity — they honed their arguments on what they thought was best for the entire country, guided by the shared vision of a new nation established on the ideals of individual freedom, equality and opportunity.

Today, that shared commitment to America’s founding creed is under strain.

Most Americans feel exhausted by politics, and a growing number are unhappy with the way the political system is working. Worse, this unhappiness is showing up in unhealthy ways, with low trust in government and each other — a sense that the other side is the problem. 

We are painfully aware that partisanship and distrust have grown. We see this too often, when people are reduced to disparaging labels, states are cast as simply red or blue, and the hostility in our politics produces no progress, leaving us all no better off, or worse than before. Our political parties appear deadlocked in a struggle for power, forgetting that they are inseparable sides of the nation’s democratic system, which depends not on who wins but on a shared commitment to the common good. Central to that commitment is a willingness to listen to opposing views, not simply to respond but to understand.

Disagreeing is one thing — it is rooted in our pluralist republic. But when we cannot find ways to work together, it becomes impossible to solve our problems. The founders understood this. They argued passionately, but they shared a deeper allegiance to the nation’s success and its posterity, and they were partners in creating and safeguarding a system that we all continue to rely on.

Whether we choose to engage in political warfare or civil debate is up to each of us. That’s as true in statehouses and city councils as it is at the family dinner table, in the community center, on the debate stage, or standing on opposite sides of a free speech zone. In each of these venues, we can choose to practice democracy by engaging in debate that is spirited, healthy and rooted in strong arguments rather than name calling — or worse, heeding the impulse to withdraw from political engagement altogether. 

There are glimmers of hope.

Here in Chicago, as part of the nation’s largest public policy gathering of state legislators and staff from all 50 states and U.S. territories, our organizations, the National Conference of State Legislatures and The Pew Charitable Trusts, are working together to build connections across the political spectrum and share policy ideas and best practices that strengthen legislatures and serve communities nationwide. This follows a series of events held around the country, including a February “America at 250 Forum,” to bring people with opposing views together to discuss issues that matter to everyone. All of the events demonstrate a serious commitment to strengthening our democratic muscles at this historic moment for the country.

Legislators from different parties sitting together to discuss not only their politics but also their human connection and shared belief in the country demonstrates that, despite the spotlight on our divisions, the time is ripe to unite for a common cause. We need to see more unity from our leaders — and be willing to try it ourselves.

Today, Americans must recognize that our political differences are not inevitably divisive, because our futures are fundamentally connected. Politics are difficult, yes, but they do not need to be ugly. Finding common ground is welcome, but at a minimum, Americans need to find the space to connect with one another and the courage to engage in healthy and substantive discussion. We can do that by building up state and local institutions where individuals get to know each other personally and by overcoming the silos and sides we’ve allowed to define us. A far better approach is to deal with people face-to-face and with respect, even when we profoundly disagree.

In a time when polarization and mistrust are treated as inevitable, we encourage all Americans to recommit to the principles and institutions that bind us together: a common belief in individual rights and equality, the rule of law, the legitimacy of representative democracy and our shared pursuit of national prosperity.

As America honors its 250th anniversary, it’s important to say, unequivocally and collectively, that we’re grateful to our country’s founders for starting this great experiment. We care about each other, and we want our fellow citizens to be successful. And we are proud to be part of this diverse, complicated and hopeful country.

Shared beliefs like these are central to the American experiment. E pluribus unum — out of many, one — if we so choose.

Tim Storey is the CEO of the National Conference of State Legislatures. Sue K. Urahn is the president and CEO of The Pew Charitable Trusts.

Small wonder nearly half of voters haven’t decided who to back in the Democratic primary for Wisconsin’s next governor. If you sent in your ballot early, you might have voted for the candidate who won the straw poll at the Democratic party convention only to flail her way through a dramatic public scandal, run out of money and quit. The latest Marquette Law School poll, released this week, still had her name as a candidate, but didn’t include the candidate who dropped out two weeks ago before getting back in the race with Gov. Tony Evers’ endorsement. 

Meanwhile, the frontrunner in poll after poll, as Baylor Spears reports, is Francesca Hong. 

Some Democrats are so sure Hong, as a democratic socialist, will lose in a general-election matchup with Republican Tom Tiffany they’re desperately hopping from horse to horse, searching for an alternative. One of those horses, Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez, stumbled badly and collapsed. Now we’ve got Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, whose late endorsement by Evers generated a backlash against the “Democratic establishment.”

Whoever’s running the “establishment’ might be overbearing, but they sure don’t seem to be adept at picking winners. Days after his reentry, Crowley is struggling with negative stories about crude posts to an old Twitter account.

The problem Democrats in Wisconsin face is less about party bosses behind the scenes calling the shots than it is lack of any organization. A little leadership from Evers earlier in the process might have staved off disaster.

At a minimum, he could have made up his mind to back Crowley before Crowley dropped out. He could have had painful but necessary conversations with Joel Brennan, Sara Rodriguez and Missy Hughes, the other members of his administration who campaigned at least partly on their association with him. “Look, I see a bright future for you in politics, but I’ve decided to go with Crowley in this race,” he might have said. Then Crowley (or whoever Evers decided to support) could have built some strength over the course of the campaign.

Instead, we have the current mess.

Wisconsin’s messy primary is also a symptom of Democrats’ general disarray. Unable to come up with a plan to effectively counter the frightening power of a violent, kleptocratic regime in Washington, they are waffling between trying not to alienate swing voters by sounding too radical versus tapping into the energy and outrage of the anti-Trump electorate.

Looking over their shoulders at the Republicans, several Democratic campaigns point to the millions of dollars in TV ads the Republican Governors Association bought featuring light criticism of Hong. The ads appear to be a transparent effort to boost Hong in the primary, since Republicans think they can beat her in the general election. So what? Hong appears to be winning the primary anyway, with or without the RGA boost, through her straight talk, superb social media strategy, grassroots ground game and the enthusiasm she’s generating, especially from young voters who don’t trust normal politicians and institutional Democratic party politics. 

That doesn’t mean she’s the best candidate to beat Tiffany. But instead of buying into the Republican political analysis, or as one Democrat did, running an ominous attack ad trumpeting that Hong is a “proud socialist!” (the horror!), Democrats should be trying to steal a page from Hong. That ugly ad, featuring photos of the three candidates of color, labeling them all unelectable, and then toggling to Joel Brennan, the only white guy in the race, is a good example of what Democratic primary voters want to reject.

It’s no surprise Hong is catching fire. People like candidates who say what they mean and aren’t afraid to be themselves, as opposed to candidates who seem to be trying to tell them what they want to hear or pretending to be just like them. They want to see courage and conviction in the face of bullying and corruption. They do not particularly like seeing Democrats tearing each other apart — especially not by drawing on the kinds of smug, bigoted attacks made by the other side. 

Imagine a Democratic party that includes democratic socialists and more middle-of-the-road candidates, promoting an uplifting message about protecting a decent society, functional government and human rights. 

That’s the vision people are hungry for. Wisconsin Democrats should not be afraid to serve it up. 

In a recent guest column, I argued that Wisconsin’s clean energy future is about affordability, jobs, manufacturing and economic competitiveness.

The next question is equally important:

How should we build that future?

Not one regulatory docket at a time.

Wisconsin stands at one of the most consequential energy crossroads in its history. Artificial intelligence, advanced manufacturing and electrification are driving electricity demand faster than anyone anticipated. The Public Service Commission’s draft Strategic Energy Assessment projects peak demand could increase by more than 40 percent by 2032, with more than 70 percent of that growth tied to just three proposed hyperscale data centers.

Those investments present tremendous economic opportunities. They also require smarter planning.

Today, the PSC is evaluating the Foundry Ridge and Red Oak Ridge methane gas plants alongside transmission projects, data center tariffs, utility investments, and other major infrastructure. Each proceeding examines a single project. None asks the broader question:

Taken together, are these investments the lowest-cost, lowest-risk path to Wisconsin’s energy future?

Without comprehensive resource planning, regulators have little opportunity to compare alternatives before committing customers to decades of infrastructure costs.

Affordable electricity is economic development.

The decisions made today will determine what Wisconsin families, businesses, manufacturers, and farmers pay for electricity for decades. They will also affect water resources, public health, and our state’s long-term competitiveness.

This is not an argument against growth. Wisconsin will continue to attract investment in advanced manufacturing, artificial intelligence, and data centers. The question is not whether growth occurs, but whether it is planned responsibly so that large energy users pay the costs they create rather than shifting risks onto everyone else.

Planning should begin by comparing complete portfolios of resources instead of evaluating projects in isolation.

Before approving new methane gas plants, regulators should determine whether expanded battery storage, demand response, distributed energy resources, energy efficiency, and additional wind and solar generation can provide the same reliability at lower long-term cost and lower financial risk.

The cleanest megawatt is often the one that never has to be generated.

Demand response is infrastructure. Every megawatt shifted away from peak demand reduces pressure on the grid and can delay or eliminate the need for costly new power plants. Large customers, including data centers, have enormous opportunities to shift demand through operational flexibility and advanced controls.

Battery storage also deserves greater attention. Increasingly, it competes directly with natural gas by providing reliability during periods of peak demand while avoiding decades of fuel costs and emissions.

Water belongs in this conversation as well.

Both data centers and methane gas plants can require substantial water for cooling. The proposed Red Oak Ridge facility alone could consume hundreds of thousands of gallons each day. In rural Wisconsin, where farms, private wells, trout streams, wetlands, and local economies depend on reliable water supplies, those impacts deserve careful scrutiny before permits are approved.

Natural gas will likely remain part of Wisconsin’s energy mix during the transition. But every new gas plant also commits customers to decades of fuel-price risk driven by commodity markets, pipeline constraints, extreme weather, LNG exports, and geopolitical uncertainty. Clean energy resources, by contrast, have no fuel costs and are often the lowest-cost, fastest-to-deploy options available.

Reliability and clean energy are not competing goals.

Modern planning can deliver both.

Wisconsin should also modernize its regulatory framework by evaluating the cumulative impacts of related infrastructure investments. Generation, transmission, data centers, water use, and utility planning are interconnected. They should be planned together, not approved one docket at a time.

Wisconsin has everything it needs to lead: world-class manufacturers, innovative businesses, skilled workers, abundant renewable resources, productive farmland, and a clean energy economy that already employs more than 75,000 people.

Wisconsin does not have an electricity shortage.

It has a planning challenge.

Planning reduces costs. It improves reliability. It protects water resources. It strengthens economic competitiveness.

Most importantly, it allows Wisconsin to build an energy system designed for 2050, rather than one modeled in 1990.

Instead of approving Wisconsin’s energy future one docket at a time, let’s build it through one comprehensive plan.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has made its position clear. The agency refuses to require its agents to follow Milwaukee’s law banning masks. Since it is unable to come to this common sense conclusion itself, the remedy is for Milwaukee City Attorney Evan Goyke to sue. This is how we keep secret police at bay.

Goyke has taken the first step. In a July 17 letter to the U.S. Department of Justice, he defends the ICE out MKE ordinance, stating that masked law enforcement “increases the risk of dangerous interactions with the public, undermines accountability and police community relations, and stokes confusions, fear, and intimidation.”

Milwaukee prohibits ICE agents from wearing masks. The Department of Homeland Security staunchly refuses to follow this sensible rule despite a Milwaukee Police Department standard operating procedure that models this basement level of transparency. We need to know what ICE is doing. We need to know who you are. We need to see your faces.

DHS claims that it won’t follow Milwaukee’s ordinance because of the Supremacy Clause. Their claim asserts that municipalities cannot create rules that prevent employees from performing federal duties and, in most cases, the Supremacy Clause makes sense.

We wouldn’t want a city ordinance to keep the U.S. Census Bureau from collecting population data. We wouldn’t want municipalities to prevent the National Weather Service from studying tornados. At the same time, identifiable and transparent federal law enforcement is not at odds with the rule of law. 

Clarity and accountability is at the heart of our Fifth Amendment’s promise of due process. The Supremacy Clause does not supersede our Constitution’s protections. The clause itself is a component of our Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) and no article or clause may violate the Bill of Rights. 

The Mask-Free MKE ordinance took time to create. Over and over again, our church members returned to the Common Council’s galley seats as the rule was amended, re-written and reviewed by our city attorney, Evan Goyke. Goyke’s job is to make sure that the proposed ordinance is constitutional and enforceable. Goyke’s verdict is that the people of Milwaukee can prohibit masked law enforcement.

Consider the current situation of Giovanni Sosa, a 20-year old with no criminal record. Gio came to the United States when he was 4 years old. Recently, he was snatched by masked ICE agents, leaving his wife Litzy without her husband and his 2 year old daughter without her father.

Gio has worked construction jobs since he was 14 and has never run afoul of law enforcement. Last week, while heading to the barber, his car was surrounded and blocked. His window was smashed and he was handcuffed and dragged to  detention. As he was shoved into a government car, Gio had the presence of mind to yell out his mother’s phone number. Had he not done so, he simply would not have returned home from the errands he was running. Who took him? Where was he? Was his detention legal? Was the use of force necessary?

Our Constitution protects us from having to ask these questions. The Fifth Amendment states that “no person” shall be deprived of life or liberty without protections against arbitrary government actions. Surely, masks cross this line.

DHS claims that it must allow its employees to wear masks for their safety. Lauren Bis, a DHS spokesperson, states, “Sanctuary politicians attempting to ban our federal law enforcement from wearing masks is … a flagrant attempt to endanger our officers.” 

The Trump administration’s immigration enforcers fear that without masks, their employees’ actions would instigate such a strong public outcry that they would be forced to hold officers accountable. They don’t want the public to identify officers responsible for using excessive force. How can DHS officials be opposed to basic transparency before the public it serves?

This is where City Attorney Evan Goyke can help. DHS has convinced itself that the Supremacy Clause supersedes the Constitution. Its insistence that secrecy and obfuscation is a means to serve the people is a slippery rationalization that leads to a secret police force. City Attorney Goyke should sue ICE and require the agency to comply with the law. It is for the good of the residents of Milwaukee, for ICE’s own agents, for MPD officers and for our democratic heritage. This moment of trial will turn our commitment to defend our rights into steel. Our’s is a nation without a secret police. Masks cross a line. At this pivotal hour, Milwaukee must lead.

Last week, for a brief, beautiful span of days, all three of our young-adult daughters were immersed in nature, reveling in the delicious freedom of summertime. One, a camp counselor, was leading a group on a two-week trek through Yellowstone National Park. She sent us photos of the mountains, campfires, sweaty, grinning campers, a herd of bison they encountered by the side of the road. The other two sisters were on a canoe trip in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. They paddled from lake to lake, fell asleep to the sound of loons, woke up early to plunge in the crystal clear water.

Just as all three girls were ending their trips, more than a dozen wildfires swept through the Superior National Forest, prompting the Forest Service to close all entry points to the Boundary Waters. Some visitors were stranded. Eight Forest Service rangers paddled in to rescue people throughout the 150-mile stretch of wilderness on the U.S.-Canadian border. Our daughter who led the trip to Yellowstone returned to her base camp in Grand Marais, Minnesota, to learn that further trips have been canceled. A group of campers who were stuck in the Boundary Waters had to be rescued by helicopter. The smoke was chokingly thick. “It feels like the apocalypse,” she texted.

In Madison we woke up Thursday morning to the stinging haze of wildfire smoke blanketing the city, drifting down on us from the same forest fires.

The abrupt end of summer’s idyll is a heartache, not just for the immediate shock, but for what it means — a world on fire, a feeling of dread of the losses to come. There is no escape from the rapidly accelerating disasters caused by climate change. All of us are touched by it in our interconnected world. Yet somehow, we can’t get our act together to respond. As a country, we seem determined to kid ourselves about what we are seeing with our own eyes. Wisconsin U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, the Republican candidate for governor, has called warnings about extreme weather triggered by climate change “doomsaying, sky-is-falling rhetoric.”

Last summer, Tiffany and fellow Wisconsin Republican U.S. Rep. Glenn Grothman, along with three of their Republican colleagues from Minnesota wrote a letter to the Canadian embassy to complain that wildfire smoke was ruining summer across the Midwest.

“In our neck of the woods, summer months are the best time of the year to spend time outdoors recreating, enjoying time with family, and creating new memories, but this wildfire smoke makes it difficult to do all those things,” Tiffany and his colleagues wrote, demanding to know what the Canadians planned to do about it. Tens of thousands of Canadians were being displaced by raging fires at the time. “With all the technology that we have at our disposal, both in preventing and fighting wildfires, this worrisome trend can be reversed if proper action is taken,” Tiffany and his colleagues wrote.

Wildfires are getting worse because of climate change. The problem is particularly acute for Canada, where the Arctic region is rapidly warming and hotter, drier summers are turning forest land into a tinderbox, where a stray lightning strike can start a conflagration. The same thing is happening in the Superior National Forest this summer, where the fires are caused by lightning and the hot, dry conditions that are not letting up.

Instead of working to mitigate the threat, the Trump administration has dismantled the arm of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that researches wildfires and other climate-related threats, as well as the Forest Service’s firefighting teams. In 2025, the Forest Service lost nearly 6,000 employees. Trump’s fiscal year 2027 budget aims to cut the Forest Service budget by 75%. 

Tiffany’s scolding letter to Canada aside, the policies he has supported under Trump have directly increased fire hazards. To the eight rangers now searching the Boundary Waters for people trapped by the fires, the Forest Service office in Minnesota is hoping to add back some of the staff they’ve lost to Trump’s ill-advised reorganization and cuts. 

“We are actively trying through our existing staff to reach out to former staff that have retired or moved to another position off-forest that still have firefighting skills and credentials,” Forest Service spokesperson Christine Kolinski told the Minnesota Star Tribune. 

This summer’s fires are more than just a wake-up call. They are a five-alarm emergency alert. We are losing so much so fast. We all have a stake in facing it and acting now. It does no good to pretend the disaster isn’t happening or to blame our neighbors, as if they could fix things for us by getting out their rakes. The least we can demand of our political leaders is that they stop dismantling the only tools we have to fight the incineration of our world. We owe that much to every kid who looks forward to every future summer.

I’m no political consultant, but I don’t think I would make “fraud” the theme of the Trump administration’s midterm election campaign push. 

At least not while the reflecting pool disaster remains in the news, the White House is doubling down on sticking with its no-bid contract for the company that oversaw the algae-infested, peeling pool mess, and President Donald Trump is making headlines for raking in $2.2 billion since he came back into office, including $1.4 billion from the Trump family’s cryptocurrency scheme.

“We have got to have a governor who takes fraud as seriously as the President of the United States,” Vice President JD Vance declared Wednesday in Milwaukee during a speech apparently intended to boost Wisconsin Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Tiffany.

Vance’s remarks, delivered ahead of a $10,000-per-couple fundraiser ($35,000 if you wanted a photo with the VP), could be read in different ways. 

One way is in the context of the poster-sized photo Vance displayed of a Black woman “with the smug look and a Louis Vuitton bag,” as Vance put it —  one of the people who owned prenatal care coordination businesses that a 2022 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel investigation found had defrauded Medicaid, costing the state more than $15.5 million among them between 2019 and 2022. 

Vance, although he was elaborately praised by other Republicans at the Wednesday event in Milwaukee for leading the Trump administration’s crackdown on healthcare fraud, had nothing to do with uncovering the prenatal care scandal in Milwaukee. That was the dogged work of the Journal Sentinel reporters whose efforts led the state Department of Justice to investigate, cut off Medicaid to the fraudulent businesses and pursue criminal charges — all of that years before Vance took office. But Vance saw an opportunity in Milwaukee to connect various Trump administration claims about fraud to a picture of someone Ronald Reagan would have called a “welfare queen.” In his speech, Vance moved directly from that photo to the Trump administration’s efforts to “kick illegal aliens out of our country.” 

Black people, immigrants and people who receive food assistance and Medicaid are the “fraudsters,” according to Vance and Republican Reps. Tiffany, Derrick Van Orden and Bryan Steil, who joined Vance on stage in Milwaukee. They denounced Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers for not sharing sensitive personal data on SNAP recipients with the Trump administration. Vance called Evers’ refusal “borderline criminal.” 

“Why won’t Tony Evers turn over the SNAP rolls? ‘Cause he’s cooked the books!” Van Orden hollered.

Steil connected claims about fraud in SNAP and Medicaid to discredited allegations of voter fraud, calling the federal takeover of elections Trump has been trying to force on Congress as “total common sense.” 

When a reporter asked Vance about Milwaukee Mayor Cavalier Johnson’s request to talk to him about the harassment of election workers by FBI agents deployed to Milwaukee to “investigate” nonexistent voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election, Vance implied that Johnson is trying to cover up the fraud. 

All of this hype about fraud and repeated assertions by the GOP chorus in Milwaukee that the Trump administration had saved the taxpayers of Wisconsin billions of dollars by rooting it out, is meant to cover up a much, much bigger problem.

Medicaid cuts pushed by the Trump administration and supported by Tiffany, Van Orden and Steil, coupled with the same Republicans’ refusal to renew Affordable Care Act tax credits, have already pushed about 22,000 Wisconsinites off their health insurance. A new KFF report shows that insurers on the ACA marketplace are planning another double-digit increase in rates this year, driven by inflation and the loss of the tax credits, which will cause even more people to lose coverage. Altogether, more than 258,000 Wisconsinites will lose health coverage by 2034  because of Trump administration policy changes, according to an analysis by the Joint Economic Committee Democrats using data from the Congressional Budget Office. 

While Van Orden was yelling from the stage in Milwaukee about people who are ineligible for SNAP allegedly signing up for the program and “literally taking the food out of the mouths of hungry babies,” Wisconsinites know that he voted for SNAP cuts and changes to eligibility rules that led to 15,500 Wisconsinites losing food assistance. 

Instead of adequately funding healthcare, food and a decent society, Republicans pushed through trillions of dollars in tax giveaways to corporations and the very rich, tens of billions of dollars for a domestic paramilitary organization that is conducting violent arrests of people who pose no public safety risk, and hundreds of millions of dollars for an obscene White House ballroom and no-bid contracts for Trump’s vanity projects on the national mall. That is the real fraud.

Republicans are screaming about “waste, fraud and abuse” to try to distract voters from all of this destruction and graft. But their “fraud” talk just reminds people of the stunning theft of public resources they’ve enabled and are now trying to cover up with flimsy, slanderous lies.

What does it mean to celebrate freedom from tyranny and the birth of a government founded on equal rights and the consent of the governed amid the current ICE surge? Over the last several days, as Isiah Holmes reports, masked federal agents have been snatching people off the streets in Milwaukee and Madison, breaking car windows, separating families, spreading fear and violently arresting people who have no criminal record.

This is the backdrop to the Fourth of July holiday this year.

A few days after the fireworks, on July 8, former Milwaukee Judge Hannah Dugan faces sentencing for her conviction of obstructing federal agents who came to her courtroom to arrest Eduardo Flores Ruiz, a man who appeared before her on misdemeanor charges last April. Objecting to federal immigration arrests inside the courthouse, which had been disrupting proceedings for weeks, Dugan confronted the agents, then quickly ended Flores Ruiz’s hearing and led him out a side door. He was arrested outside the courthouse minutes later. For her defiant act, Dugan was subjected to a campaign of intimidation and public humiliation. She was arrested, handcuffed, shackled, perp-walked through the courthouse, and had her picture plastered all over social media by FBI director Kash Patel and then-Attorney General Pam Bondi. Now, federal prosecutors argue, she should be sent to prison for 15-21 months.

“This was a serious offense, and it warrants a correspondingly serious sentence,” they wrote in their sentencing memorandum.

Dugan’s crime is particularly grave, federal prosecutors write, because “she used her position to interfere with the lawful administration of justice. That betrayal magnifies the seriousness of the offense.”

Her conduct “undermined public confidence in the judicial process,” they continue, and only a serious sentence can “reaffirm a foundational principle of our criminal justice system: no one is above the law.”

That last, high-minded sentence comes directly from a gloating social media post by Bondi, which drew responses inducing: “except for J6ers and Donald Trump.”

The heavy-handedness of the Dugan arrest came before the much more traumatic ICE surges in Chicago and Minneapolis and the cold-blooded killings of U.S. citizens Renee Good and Alex Pretti by federal agents.

What does it mean, given everything that has happened just over the last year, when federal prosecutors argue that punishing Dugan beyond the loss of her reputation, her livelihood, her home — she moved out after receiving serious threats — and her ability to go out in public, is a matter of “the need to promote respect for the law”?

“Respect for the law” under President Donald Trump is a one-way street. It means respect for the unfettered authority of his administration. His own complete lack of respect for the rule of law or Americans’ constitutional rights is clear.

The actions of the Trump administration ring a bell on the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, which, among its enumerated grievances against the King of England, lists having “kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures” and “protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States”. 

There has still been no disciplinary action, investigation or even apology from the U.S. government for the shootings of Renee Good or Alex Pretti.

Dugan’s colleague, Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Joseph Wall, in a letter to the court included in the defendant’s sentencing memorandum,, describes Dugan’s “career-long commitment to the poor and the powerless,” including her pro bono work for Legal Action, Catholic Charities and at the Immigration Legal Services Program, as well as “founding, staffing and leading no less than ten programs and projects that provided legal services and other assistance to immigrants, the poor, and the unrepresented.” 

She has already been punished enough, Wall writes. Instead of more than a year in prison, he suggests Dugan’s sentence should be time served. That happens to be the same sentence given to Eduardo Flores Ruiz, the man she was convicted of trying to help escape.

Of Dugan’s public arrest at the courthouse, where she was paraded in front of her colleagues in handcuffs and shackles, Wall writes, “Of course, none of that was necessary. It was all meant to humiliate her. It was meant to humiliate her in the eyes of her colleagues and the general public.”

It was also meant to strike fear in the hearts of other judges and public officials who might dare to stand up to the Trump administration.

Dugan’s lawyers rebut the prosecution’s argument that her imprisonment would serve as a deterrent to future crime, pointing out that not only has she been an exemplary member of her community with no prior criminal record, she is no longer a judge and cannot possibly repeat the particular act of which she was convicted. 

As for other judges taking the wrong lesson and going rogue, in their sentencing memo, Dugan’s lawyers point out that the Trump administration’s aggressive ICE policy of conducting arrests inside of courthouses has been blocked by a federal judge in a recent class action suit. 

In his decision, U.S. District Court Judge Casey Pitts  called the Trump administration’s reversal of a policy that previously avoided arrests in courthouses  “arbitrary and capricious,” and pointed to ICE’s previous guidance stating that courthouse arrests “disincentivize” immigrants from attending their hearings.

This was precisely the concern judges in Milwaukee were actively discussing last April, when Dugan confronted the agents outside her courtroom and then led Flores Ruiz out a side door. 

The prosecution, in demanding a heavy sentence, also claims that Dugan “put others in danger” by forcing agents to resort to making an arrest outside the courthouse after a foot chase, where they might have been hit by a car. “None of this would have happened but for the defendant’s interference with law enforcement officers who were merely attempting to do their duty in a peaceful and safe manner.”

The assertion that federal immigration agents deploying extraordinarily aggressive new tactics are “peaceful and safe” flies in the face of every image of home invasions, broken windows, reckless driving, and, of course, deadly shootings on previously peaceful residential streets. ICE prefers to make arrests at courthouses because they are soft targets and therefore “safe” for armed, masked agents. So, too, are many of the people they are going after. In June, Diana Socha Torres and her 8-year-old son were grabbed by ICE agents from their home in the Wisconsin Dells. They are currently sitting in a jail-like detention center in Dilley, Texas, notorious for overcrowding and shortages of food, water and medicine. Socha Torres has committed no crime. She has been living and working  in the U.S. for years while pursuing an asylum claim based on what her lawyer says is her legitimate fear of violence in Colombia. She has never missed a court date until recently. Missed court dates have become common, her lawyer told Wisconsin Public Radio, as immigration courts rapidly change dates and many clients are unaware that their appearances have been rescheduled. For this paperwork infraction, the U.S. government is keeping Socha Torres and a little boy in a dangerous South Texas jail. 

This is the type of repression that sparked a revolution 250 years ago. Real patriotism means standing up to it today. 

As America prepares to celebrate its 250th birthday, my son and I recently spent a week driving across the country, visiting Rocky Mountain, Arches, Great Basin, and Yellowstone National Parks. The trip reminded me that despite our differences, Americans share a common responsibility: to leave our country stronger and more prosperous than we found it.

Wherever we traveled, people wanted many of the same things: good-paying jobs, thriving communities, affordable energy and opportunities for future generations.

Those hopes are shaped by many decisions, but few are more important than how we produce, deliver and pay for energy.

Most families are not thinking about climate policy. They are thinking about utility bills, housing costs, job opportunities and whether their communities can compete in a changing economy.

A recent Wisconsin Conservation Voters poll found that 84% of Wisconsin voters are concerned about rising electricity costs — ranking utility bills alongside groceries as a financial stress.

Wisconsin families want affordable energy, reliable electricity, good-paying jobs and a stronger future for their children. Clean energy helps deliver all four.

More than 75,000 Wisconsinites already work in clean energy. Wisconsin manufacturers supply components used across the country. Electricians, engineers, construction workers, and skilled tradespeople are modernizing our energy system while helping businesses and homeowners lower energy costs.

This is not tomorrow’s economy. It is today’s.

Clean energy is an economic development strategy, a manufacturing strategy, a workforce strategy and an affordability strategy. Communities embracing innovation are attracting investment, creating jobs, and becoming more competitive.

Unfortunately, federal policy is moving in the opposite direction.

The Trump administration recently announced a $700 million taxpayer-funded effort to keep aging coal plants operating, including one in Wisconsin. At the same time, it has proposed spending approximately $2.5 billion to buy out offshore wind leases representing roughly 13 gigawatts of generating capacity while redirecting support toward fossil fuel development.

These decisions matter because they directly affect affordability, health and our future.

Americans are increasingly being asked to support aging coal plants through both their electric bills and their tax dollars. Extending the life of outdated infrastructure delays investment in newer technologies that are often less expensive and more reliable.

We are already doing this with coal plants in Oak Creek, Sheboygan and Beloit. We cannot keep repeating that mistake.

Wisconsin also faces another challenge.

Artificial intelligence is creating unprecedented demand for electricity. Two proposed data centers alone could require nearly four gigawatts of power, more electricity than every Wisconsin household combined.

Data centers can create jobs and economic opportunity. But they also require new power plants, transmission lines and grid upgrades.

The question is simple: Who pays?

Wisconsin families, farmers and small businesses should not shoulder those costs.

Large energy users should pay the full cost of the infrastructure they require. Utilities should be transparent, regulators should protect ratepayers and communities deserve a meaningful voice before billions of dollars are committed.

This is not a choice between economic growth and environmental responsibility.

The strongest energy policies lower costs, strengthen energy independence, improve reliability, create jobs and protect the resources that make Wisconsin such a great place to live.

Wisconsin has everything it takes to lead: innovative businesses, talented workers, world-class manufacturers and practical problem-solvers.

As America approaches its 250th birthday, we should remember that every generation is called upon to build something lasting.

For ours, that means building an energy system that is affordable, reliable, resilient and capable of powering Wisconsin’s economy for decades to come.

The clean energy transition is not happening because it is partisan. It is happening because it works.

The question is whether Wisconsin will build it, power it and prosper from it.