Mission Telecom threw a lifeline to school bus Wi-Fi when the nonprofit broadband provider announced it is honoring the cost share of E-Rate for lines of service.
Last week’s announcement comes after the Federal Communications Commission last month retroactively ended school bus Wi-Fi and external hotspot eligibility under the federal discount program for school districts, libraries and health providers.
School districts nationwide had already applied to and started procuring equipment and services for a school bus Wi-Fi under the assumption they would be receiving anywhere between 20- and 90 percent discounts based the proportion of disadvantage students the district serves or if it’s a rural location. With school districts essentially holding the bag following the 2-1 FCC decision on Sept. 30, Mission Telecom is reselling access to the T-Mobile 5G network.
“Equipment’s already installed. Some of these bus Wi-Fi programs [have] been running for years, and [school districts] were counting on their E-Rate discounts in their budgets. And then, all of a sudden, they were told you’re not going to get those discounts,” commented Michael Flood, a school broadband consultant and owner of Alpine Frog, which advises Mission Telecom.
Mark Colwell, director of broadband operations for Mission Telecom, explained to School Transportation News in an email that the company holds seven wireless spectrum licenses in large U.S. cities and leases them to a subsidiary of T-Mobile. In exchange, he continued, Mission Telecom access T-Mobile’s 5G network and resells the lines of service to education, libraries and social-good organizations at affordable rates.
Also, a grantmaking organization, Mission Telecom’s nonprofit status allows it to provide the data service at no more than $20 per month.
“We do not rely on traditional benefactors or individual donors, our nonprofit model and partnerships allow us to reinvest every surplus dollar into other digital-equity initiatives, cost savings for our partners, and grant making programs,” he added. “Every connection we make helps expand affordable access, close the digital divide, and empower organizations to thrive in an increasingly connected world.”
Colwell said Mission Telecom is offering the unlimited 4G/5G wireless service
at the applicant school district’s post-discount share of case based on the approved E-Rate Form 471.
“Thus, we are matching the lines of service, not the equipment,” he noted.
Colwell provided the example of a school district that previously paid $30 per month for school bus Wi-Fi connectivity and received an 80 percent E-Rate discount. He said Mission Telecom will provide unlimited service for $6 per month through June 30, 2026.
He continued that the process for school districts is “fast and transparent with no red tape or lengthy reviews,” with eligible schools and libraries needing only to submit their existing E-Rate Form 471.
Flood, who also formerly worked for Kajeet, said school districts using AT&T or Verizon, for example, could still apply for the Mission Telecom service if they already use Cradle Point routers and are released from their contracts or determine the savings is worth breaking them.
“You just pop a new SIM card in and they’re good to go,” he added.
He also noted that the new discounts come without the strings attached to E-Rate. For example, the federal discounts only applied to the number of counted, registered students who accessed the Wi-Fi on home-to-school routes and back home again. With Mission Telecom, a school district could also use the Wi-Fi for sports activity and to power GPS location, student ridership and bus video transfer.
Gov. Tony Evers speaks to reporters in March 2025. Evers has written the Department of Energy urging officials not to cancel $1.5 billion in funds for Wisconsin projects. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)
With more than $1.5 billion in federal energy investments in Wisconsin at risk, Gov. Tony Evers is urging the Trump administration not to roll back previously awarded funds in the face of rising energy costs.
Evers’ response, in a letter to U.S. Department of Energy Secretary Chris Wright, followed multiplenewsreports in the last week about energy projects on target lists for cancellation.
The governor’s office hascompiled a list of 22 projects for which federal Energy Department funding totaling $1.56 billion has been marked for cancellation.
“Federal support plays a critical role in advancing the Wisconsin Idea and American innovation, lowering energy bills for families across America, supporting clean energy development to improve energy independence and resilience, creating good-paying jobs in innovative industries and sectors, and maintaining our nation’s leadership in science and technology,” Evers wrote Tuesday in hisletter to Wright.
“Given these clear benefits and the importance of these investments to Wisconsin’s and our nation’s economy, I was deeply concerned to see reporting last week containing a list of over 600 DOE funding awards that are potentially going to be targeted for termination with no clear reasoning or justification.”
Evers’ letter mentions several Wisconsin projects and companies on the target list, including several that the Wisconsin Examinerreported on this week.
The letter also notesforecasts of rising costs for electric power that the energy policy think tank Energy Innovation attributes to the tax and spending cut megabill that President Donald Trump signed July 4.
“Terminating these funding awards at a time of record-high energy demand and rising costs would be counterintuitive, reckless and ill-advised,” Evers concludes in his letter to Wright. “I urge you to reaffirm DOE’s commitment to honoring these funding awards and to continue supporting these investments that drive Wisconsin’s and the nation’s energy landscape forward.”
Electric power lines. Clean energy projects, including several that involve improving the efficiency of electric power grids, are at risk of losing federal funding that was promised during the Biden administration. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Federal fallout
As federal funding and systems dwindle, states are left to decide how and
whether to make up the difference.
More than $130 million in Wisconsin clean energy-related projects are at risk as the Trump administration moves to cut up to $24 billion in projects originally approved by the Biden administration.
The projects are on a list that covers three groups of cuts proposed in May, on Oct. 2 and this past week. The online news outlet Semaforreported the third set of proposed cuts, which alone totals $12 billion, on Tuesday, Oct. 7, and published alink to a list that covers all three groups.
“However, it’s not clear whether, or when, the full list of cancellations will be enacted, or if President Donald Trump is instead looking to use them as leverage in negotiations over the [federal government] shutdown,” Semafor reported.
The Wisconsin grants on the list are a mix of projects that help boost energy efficiency, including supporting the expansion of energy storage battery systems. One potential casualty is more than $1 million to prepare young people to enter apprenticeships in the skilled trades.
Clean energy holds the promise of addressing air pollution and climate change as well as revitalizing the state’s industrial base, said John Imes, director of the Wisconsin Environmental Initiative (WEI), a nonprofit that advocates policies benefiting the environment and the economy.
“These are all win-win that all of us want regardless of our political affiliation,” Imes told the Wisconsin Examiner. “This is all bottom-line stuff.”
Rolling back projects that enhance cleaner and more efficient use of energy will likely increase the cost of energy, Imes said.
“It means higher electric bills, higher energy bills, fewer choices and lost jobs,” he said. “We’re going to lose momentum.”
Battery power and rural grid upgrade
The two largest Wisconsin projects on the Department of Energy list of targets involve one company, Alliant Energy. They account for more than half of the Wisconsin funds targeted for cancellation.
A rendering of the EnergyDome carbon dioxide-based battery storage structure that Alliant Energy will build near Portage, Wisconsin. (Image courtesy of Alliant Energy)
“We understand the Administration and Department of Energy (DOE) are working through their budgets and have notified some businesses of changes to grant announcements,” said Cindy Tomlinson, Alliant senior manager for communications, in an email message last week.
“At this time, we have not been made aware of any changes to the announced DOE grants for our Alliant Energy projects,” Tomlinson said. “We are optimistic the value and viability of these projects is clear and that they will remain fully funded. These projects deliver economic and customer benefits.”
The electrical grid upgrade project received a conditional commitment from the energy department in December, but a final award agreement hasn’t been executed, Tomlinson said, and no federal funds have been received or spent.
The federal grants accounted for about one-third of the total planned investment for each project. If the grid upgrade grant is canceled, the project is still expected to go forward, Tomlinson said, “however at a slower, more gradual pace than the fast, concentrated fashion outlined in our grant application.”
Other potentially affected grants include $28.7 million for Johnson Controls, based in the Milwaukee suburb of Glendale, to support the company in its expansion of heat pump manufacturing.
The grant’s total value was $33 million at the time it was awarded to the company. According toUSAspending.gov, a federal site that tracks the status of federal outlays, the business has received $4.4 million of the total.
Johnson Controlsannounced the grant in November 2023, part of an investment to scale up heat pump manufacturing at plants in Texas, Kansas and Pennsylvania and increase production by 200%, the company said at the time.
The company did not respond to inquiries Thursday and Friday by email and by telephone about the status of the grant or its planned heat pump manufacturing expansion.
Energy efficiency and innovation
Another Wisconsin recipient with grants on the list that are slated for elimination is Slipstream, a Madison-based nonprofit that provides consulting services on energy efficiency and innovation.
“We’re trying to make our energy systems more efficient and better so everybody’s paying less for energy,” said Scott Hackel, Slipstream’s vice president for research.
Hackel said Slipstream is working with other organizations on the list of targeted projects, and some of those organizations have been notified of grant terminations.
Slipstream also has two direct grants on the list, but has not received any notification that those grants are being terminated, Hackel said.
Slipstream had been awarded $5.2 million for work on equipping buildings with technology that enables them to automatically manage their power demand — reducing the building’s electrical load when demand on the grid is high and amping up the load when broader demand eases.
The organization is in the middle of a project implementing demand management technology in a group of buildings. The information gained from that test could be used to develop incentive programs for building owners to adopt that kind of technology, Hackel said.
If that gets cut off before it’s finished, other buildings in Wisconsin “would not have this example to look to,” he said.
A second grant awarded to the organization, $4 million, is to be used to train inspectors, building designers and others in how to effectively comply with and make the best use of building codes, particularly energy codes.
“Everything we’re doing is trying to make buildings and homes more affordable to live in with lower utility bills,” Hackel said. “If we’re not able to do that, that’s also a cost to people in Wisconsin.”
Two Universities of Wisconsin grants,one for $10 million andthe other for $2.9 million, are on the list. Both involve projects to test technology innovations, according to the federal grant information documents.
‘Electric city’ upgrades and a job-training program
A grant for the city of Kaukauna, Wisconsin, to install battery storage and make related electrical grid upgrades is also on the list. The original grant totaled $3 million, and so far $59,362 has been paid out, according toUSAspending.gov, leaving $2.95 million that could be canceled.
One of the hydropower plants operated by the Kaukauna Utilities to generate electricity in Kaukauna, Wisconsin. (Photo via Kaukauna Utilities Facebook page)
The storage system is to bolster Kaukauna’s hydroelectric power generation operation, whichdates to 1913 and led to the community’s adoption of “Electric City” as its nickname.
“Collateral damage from the Trump administration’s remarkably poor governance record continues to collect, this time in Kaukauna,” said Outagamie County Executive Tom Nelson. “I can’t think of something more insulting than making the electric grid of a place known as ‘Electric City’ less safe or efficient.”
Also on the list is the Wisconsin Regional Training Partnership, a Milwaukee nonprofit that provides training and certification to prepare people to enter apprenticeships in the skilled trades. WRTP was awarded a $1.5 million grant for training in skills related totransportation electrification. So far $112,470 has been paid out.
Dan Bukiewicz, head of the Milwaukee Building Trades Council and co-chair of the WRTP board of directors, said that the board hasn’t been notified that its grant might be at risk of being taken away by the Trump administration.
“I won’t say we’re surprised,” however, Bukiewicz said. “They’re just trying to roll back a lot of the green energy and infrastructure [investments]. … It’s trying to make time stand still, and it just won’t if the United States is going to compete globally.”
WRTP students typically come from underserved communities and are the most in need, Bukiewicz said. The program’s training emphasizes job safety, introduces students to the construction industry, equips them with basic skills that an apprenticeship will build on, and acquaints them with how the industry and the technology are changing and where they might find a place that suits them.
If the federal grant is pulled, “these dollars are irreplaceable,” Bukiewicz said. “It’s not just taking money away and eliminating classes. It’s eliminating opportunities and a chance for generational change for people who really need it.”
The front entrance of the E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 3, 2023. (Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)
WASHINGTON — Judges on a federal appeals court panel seemed skeptical that the Trump administration’s expanded use of a fast-track deportation procedure didn’t violate the due-process rights of immigrants during oral arguments Monday.
The hearing before judges Patricia A. Millett, Neomi Rao and J. Michelle Childs of the D.C. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals comes after a lower court struck down the expedited removal policy used to bypass judicial review in the quick removals of migrants far from the southern border. The expanded policy is a pillar in the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign.
“This is a critical tool of immigration enforcement,” U.S. Department of Justice attorney Drew Ensign said. “This is not a small deal. The ability to conduct expedited removal is one of the executive’s most important tools for maintaining border control and not being overwhelmed.”
For decades, presidential administrations have applied expedited removal to immigrants apprehended at the southern border who cannot prove they have remained in the country for more than two years. If they cannot produce that proof, those immigrants are then subject to deportation without appearing before an immigration judge.
In January, the Trump administration expanded expedited removal to apply nationwide, rather than only within 100 miles of the southern border.
Childs said the Trump administration can still use expedited removal, along with other enforcement tools, for its immigration policy.
“So what are you losing, other than (applying expedited removal to) millions of other people, to go inward into the U.S.?” Childs asked.
Former President Barack Obama appointed Millett, former President Joe Biden appointed Childs, and President Donald Trump appointed Rao in his first term.
Policy lacks procedure
Arguing on behalf of the immigration advocacy group that brought the suit, Make the Road New York, attorney Anand Balakrishnan said the new policy “brings to bear against this new class of people an entire system of expedited removal that is not procedurally adequate.”
The judges also questioned the legality of the Trump administration’s expanded use of expedited removal.
Ensign argued that the Trump administration doesn’t believe the expansion violates due-process rights because those affected are not U.S. citizens.
“It has been well-established that aliens who are not lawfully admitted into the country are only entitled to whatever procedures the political branches provide, and that the plaintiffs cannot rely on the due-process clause to impose additional procedural requirements,” Ensign said.
Balakrishnan said that when the Trump administration expanded the use of the policy in January, there were no new procedures put in place, meaning immigrants wanting to challenge their removal under the new policy would have no way to do so.
“The procedures that have been on the books, in some cases are not tailored for this radically new class to which it’s being applied, and in other cases, are insufficient to deal with the unique challenges placed by them and the liberty interests of this new group,” Balakrishnan said.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement offers up to $100,000 for vehicle purchases to local law enforcement agencies that assist ICE in apprehending unauthorized immigrants.
ICE announced Sept. 2 that its 287(g)Program also offers other local incentives, including salary and benefits reimbursement for ICE-trained officers and quarterly payments of $500 to $1,000 per officer for finding unauthorized immigrants identified by ICE.
As of Oct. 2, 13 Wisconsin sheriff’s departments, including Brown and Waukesha counties, were working with ICE on unauthorized immigrants in their jails and/or serving immigration warrants on individuals.
The $100,000 is offered to “task force” members. One Wisconsin police department, Palmyra in Jefferson County, is participating. The chief has said his focus is pursuing “criminals.”
ICE says its program targets criminal unauthorized immigrants. Research shows unauthorized immigrants crossing the U.S. border are not more likely than native-born Americans to commit crimes.
This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) awarded almost $5 billion less in research grants to U.S. institutions in the 2025 fiscal year than the year prior, a 13.6% reduction, according to an Association of American Medical Colleges report released in August.
The NIH committed $30 billion for research from July 2024 through June 2025, down from the $34.7 billion it obligated from July 2023 to June 2024. More than $3.5 billion of that funding difference was specifically in medical research and development while another half-billion was lost in career training for scientists.
Wisconsin’s share dropped by $84.4 million, or about 14%.
Disruptions in NIH research support have caused most states to lose tens and even hundreds of millions of dollars. They have also halted multiple clinical trials and research projects, including studies on post-tuberculosis lung disease and reducing infectious diseases spread by water.
This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.
A student walks along the campus of Howard University, an HBCU, on Oct. 25, 2021 in Washington, D.C. Howard is an HBCU. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s administration said Monday it will redirect $495 million in additional funding to historically Black colleges and universities as well as tribal colleges.
The U.S. Education Department’s announcement came just days after the administration decided to gut and reprogram $350 million in discretionary funds that support minority-serving institutions over claims that these programs are “racially discriminatory.”
The department last week said it would cease funding for seven grant programs that go toward institutions that serve students who are Black, Indigenous, Hispanic and Asian, as well as initiatives for minority students pursuing science and engineering careers.
The agency argued that these programs “discriminate by conferring government benefits exclusively to institutions that meet racial or ethnic quotas.”
Charter schools, civics education
Meanwhile, the department is also diverting $60 million toward grants for charter schools, and will award a total of $500 million for these schools, which receive public funds and are a form of school choice. The umbrella term “school choice” centers on programs that offer alternatives to one’s assigned public school.
The agency also said it’s investing more than $160 million total in American history and civics grants — a $137 million increase in the funds Congress previously approved.
In its announcement, the agency said “these investments will be repurposed from programs that the Department determined are not in the best interest of students and families.”
Education Secretary Linda McMahon said her department “has carefully scrutinized our federal grants, ensuring that taxpayers are not funding racially discriminatory programs but those programs which promote merit and excellence in education,” in a statement Monday.
She added that the administration “will use every available tool to meaningfully advance educational outcomes and ensure every American has the opportunity to succeed in life.”
There was no breakdown made available Monday as to which programs or individual institutions would gain funding.
HBCU ‘godsend’
Lodriguez V. Murray, senior vice president for public policy and government affairs at UNCF, which supports historically Black colleges and universities, said the extra funding is “nothing short of a godsend for HBCUs,” in a statement Monday.
“We are grateful to have worked with the Trump Administration, Secretary McMahon, and her Department of Education team in achieving this one-time infusion of grant funding,” Murray said.
Murray noted that “HBCUs are currently and have been underfunded since their inception” and “while we are grateful for these funds, we are still under-resourced.”
The National Center for Education Statistics noted that in 2022, there were “99 HBCUs located in 19 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.”
The E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse in Washington, D.C., home of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, pictured on July 14, 2025. (Photo by Jacob Fischler/States Newsroom)
WASHINGTON — A Friday lawsuit from a civil rights group accused the Trump administration of bypassing deportation restrictions on immigrants slated for removal by sending them to Ghana and having the West African nation deport them to their countries of origin, despite credible findings they could face harm there.
The move violates not only the due process rights of immigrants, but circumvents deportation restrictions placed by immigration judges who determined those immigrants could not be returned to their home country, attorneys from the Asian Americans Advancing Justice, wrote in their suit.
“Defendants know that they may not, consistent with U.S. immigration law, directly deport non-citizens to countries from which they have been granted fear-based protection,” according to the brief. “As an end-run around this prohibition, Defendants have enlisted the government of Ghana to do their dirty work.”
The Department of Homeland Security and government of Ghana did not respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment.
Ghana President John Dramani Mahama confirmed to Business Insider Africa this week that the country struck a deal with the U.S. to accept a group of 14 deportees and send some back to their countries of origin.
The attorneys argued that immigration judges granted their five plaintiffs fear-based deportation protections to their home country under the Immigration Nationality Act and Convention Against Torture.
They are asking U.S District Judge Tanya Chutkan to require the return of the plaintiffs to the U.S.
Chutkan sits on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. She was appointed by former President Barack Obama.
The plaintiffs are nationals of Nigeria and The Gambia.
Third-country removals
A deportation protection, such as a “withholding of removal,” doesn’t create blanket protections from removal. It requires the U.S. to find what is known as a third country that will accept the deportee.
Certain other requirements do apply. The government must notify the deportee of the country of removal and give them a chance to object if they fear persecution there.
The U.S. government must ensure that a third country that accepts a deportee won’t then conduct a removal to their home country, where U.S. immigration officials have found they could face harm.
The suit says that none of the plaintiffs were notified they would be removed to Ghana and instead they were placed on a U.S. military plane and none were given a credible fear interview of being sent to the West African country.
They were placed in straitjackets and remained on the plane for 16 hours, according to the suit.
The plaintiffs are referred to by initials in court documents.
One, referred to as K.S., “is hiding and fears for his life” in The Gambia.
K.S. was granted protections under the Convention Against Torture, a United Nations treaty, because he is bisexual and fears returning to The Gambia where he could face harm, according to court records. The Ghanaian government deported him to The Gambia on Wednesday, according to the suit.
Four others are detained in Ghana. They are referred to as D.A., T.L., I.O., and D.S in court documents.
Ghana is planning to remove them to their countries of origin by Friday, according to court records.
“The comments by U.S. officials on the plane on the way to Ghana, combined with news reports about Ghana’s involvement in a deal with the U.S. about repatriating non-citizens to their countries of origin in Africa, indicate that the U.S. is deporting people to Ghana with the intention that they be deported to their countries of origin,” according to the suit.
File photo of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, which is among the nation's largest Hispanic-serving institutions. Hispanic-serving institutions and other colleges and universities serving students of color will lose funding under a recent U.S. Education Department decision. (Photo by Hugh Jackson/Nevada Current)
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Education announced it will withhold $350 million of congressionally approved funds to minority-serving colleges and universities and divert the funds elsewhere, saying that the institutions’ admissions quotas are discriminatory.
The move eliminated fiscal 2025 discretionary funding for institutions that serve students who are Asian, Black, Indigenous and Hispanic, as well as a program for students of color pursuing careers in science and engineering. It’s consistent with President Donald Trump’s longstanding objective to eliminate programs that center on diversity, equity and inclusion.
“To further our commitment to ending discrimination in all forms across federally supported programs, the Department will no longer award Minority-Serving Institution grants that discriminate by restricting eligibility to institutions that meet government-mandated racial quotas,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement.
McMahon cited a July opinion from the U.S. Justice Department that it was unconstitutional for federal funds to go to Hispanic-serving institutions based on the student body makeup.
That opinion reversed a decades-long record of the federal government setting aside funding for higher education institutions that have a significant portion of students from racial or ethnic minority backgrounds.
The schools affected by Wednesday’s announcement are Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-serving institutions; Black institutions; Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-serving institutions; Native American-serving nontribal institutions; and institutions receiving Minority Science and Engineering Improvement grants.
The announcement was vague about where the money would go instead, saying only it would be diverted “into programs that do not include discriminatory racial and ethnic quotas and that advance Administration priorities.”
Up to 800 schools affected
Democrats swiftly condemned the move, which is likely to face legal challenges.
Rep. Bobby Scott of Virginia, the ranking member on the U.S. House Education and Workforce Committee, said in a statement that the move undercut efforts to help students of color reach financial stability.
“These institutions are effective engines of economic mobility because they meet students where they are and are dedicated to educating the whole person,” Scott said in a statement.
Roughly 5 million students are enrolled in the more than 800 minority-serving institutions across the country. The schools aim to help students of color and students from low-income backgrounds pursue higher education.
Most of the minority-serving schools receive funding based on racial quotas, except for Black institutions and tribal colleges, whose designations are based on their historical missions to educate Black or Native American students.
The Department of Education will also reprogram funds from a program to develop Hispanic-serving institutions and from a program promoting postbaccalaureate opportunities for Hispanic Americans.
McMahon argued that because most minority-serving institutions require that a percentage of the student body reflect the racial background the institutions serve, it violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protections.
Administration cites equal protections
McMahon pointed to the Justice Department’s July memo saying it would not defend a suit brought by the state of Tennessee against Hispanic-serving institutions.
The Supreme Court has explained that ‘[o]utright racial balancing’ is ‘patently unconstitutional,’” U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote to House Speaker Mike Johnson.
“And its precedents make clear that the government lacks any legitimate interest in differentiating among universities based on whether ‘a specified number of seats in each class’ are occupied by ‘individuals from the preferred ethnic groups,’” Sauer wrote.
The U.S. Supreme Court case that Sauer cited in his letter to Johnson is the 2023 decision to strike down affirmative action in college admissions that found two prominent universities’ consideration of race in acceptances violated the U.S. Constitution.
David Mendez, the head of the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities, an advocacy group, said in a statement that the loss in funding is “an attack on equity in higher education.”
“Cutting this funding strips away critical investments in under-resourced and first-generation students and will destabilize colleges in 29 states,” Mendez said. “The funds granted to HSIs have never supported only Latino students. These funds strengthen entire campuses, creating opportunities and resources that benefit all students, especially those pursuing (science, technology, engineering and math) fields, as well as enhancing the communities where these colleges and universities are located.”
That includes Medicaid (low-income people), Medicare (age 65 and over) and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). And they aren’t eligible to buy coverage through the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) marketplaces.
Federal Medicaid can reimburse hospitals for providing emergency care to unauthorized immigrants, but that is not coverage for individuals.
Vice President JD Vance said Aug. 28 in La Crosse, Wisconsin, that health care benefits can’t be sustained “if you allow tens of millions of people” into the U.S. without authorization “and give them those benefits.”
White House spokespersons did not return requests for comment.
This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.
Reading Time: 9minutesClick here to read highlights from the story
Responding to an order from President Donald Trump, several federal agencies are seeking to block undocumented immigrants and some immigrants with legal status from accessing programs that provide literacy classes, career education, medical and mental health care, substance abuse treatment, free preschool and more.
A range of institutions — including colleges, government agencies and nonprofits — manage the affected programs.
The order has caused widespread confusion about which organizations must check immigration status of the people they serve and how they could do that. Parts of the order appear to conflict with federal law.
Wisconsin joined 20 other states in a lawsuit challenging the new restrictions.
A group of federal agencies announced in July that at least 15 federally funded health, education and social service programs would exclude undocumented immigrants and some who are living in the country legally.
Responding to President Donald Trump’s February executive order to “identify all federally funded programs currently providing financial benefits to illegal aliens and take corrective action,” the departments of Education, Health and Human Services, Justice and Labor listed programs that provide literacy classes, career education, medical and mental health care, substance abuse treatment, free preschool and more.
In Wisconsin alone, the state Department of Justice estimates the new federal restrictions “put at risk more than $43 million each year in substance abuse and community mental health block grants that fund services in all 72 counties, 11 Tribal nations, and approximately 50 nonprofit organizations.”
Wisconsin Watch contacted more than a dozen Wisconsin organizations, government agencies and national experts to learn about the new policy’s effects. But we found more questions than answers. Most are unsure who is subject to the new rules or how to comply.
While we were reporting this story, Wisconsin joined 20 other states in a lawsuit challenging the new restrictions. That suit is still pending, but the parties have agreed to a deal that would delay most of the restrictions in those states until September.
Confusion created by the guidance could have serious consequences, experts say. Some providers might delay or cancel programs unnecessarily out of an abundance of caution, while some immigrants may avoid services for which they remain eligible, such as health care and education.
While much remains unclear, here’s what we know so far.
Which immigrants would be barred?
A 1996 law already prohibited certain immigrants from receiving 31 “federal public benefits,” including Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security and cash assistance. The Trump administration’s new guidance bars the same immigrants from additional programs, according to the National Immigration Law Center.
Those ineligible include:
People with Temporary Protected Status (TPS).
People with nonimmigrant visas, such as student visas, work visas and U visas for survivors of serious crimes.
People who have pending applications for asylum or a U visa.
People granted Deferred Enforced Departure or deferred action. This includes Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients — those who entered the country as children.
Undocumented immigrants.
Lawfully present immigrants who don’t fall into categories below.
People in the following groups would remain eligible:
Lawful permanent residents (green card holders).
Refugees.
People who have been granted asylum or withholding of removal.
Certain survivors of domestic violence.
Certain survivors of trafficking.
Certain Cuban and Haitian nationals.
People residing under a Compact of Free Association with Palau, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands.
Why the confusion?
A range of institutions — including colleges, government agencies and nonprofits — manage the affected programs. Many did not previously check the immigration status of the people they serve; creating a process to do so may add costs and logistical challenges. It could prove especially daunting for organizations like soup kitchens and homeless shelters, which provide urgent services to people without easy access to documents.
Meanwhile, entities that administer these federal funds include nonprofits and federally funded community health centers, which operate under laws that conflict with the guidance.
Health and Human Services said its settlement with the suing states “will permit the agency to consider, as appropriate, whether to provide additional information” about the restrictions it announced.
How would the changes affect health care in Wisconsin?
Wisconsin has 16 federally qualified community health centers serving patients at 217 sites. They receive money from Congress to provide primary care to all, regardless of their ability to pay. Nationally, such clinics serve more than 32 million patients, making up 1 in 10 people in the United States and 1 in 5 people in rural America, according to the National Association of Community Health Centers.
Aside from emergency rooms, they are often the only care options for undocumented immigrants or those with limited English proficiency, said Drishti Pillai, director of immigrant health policy at KFF, a national nonprofit providing information on health issues.
Federal law requiring those clinics to accept “all residents of the area served by the center” contradicts the Trump administration guidance.
Layton Clinic is shown on May 9, 2018, in Milwaukee. Wisconsin has 16 federally qualified community health centers serving patients at 217 sites. New Trump administration rules seek to bar certain immigrants from such services, but they appear to contradict federal law. (Andrea Waxman /Milwaukee Neighborhood News Service)
The national association said in a July 10 statement that it’s working with experts and legislators to understand the impact of the new rules and ensure centers “have the information and resources needed” to continue serving their patients.
Access Community Health Centers, a nonprofit that provides medical, dental and mental health care at five south central Wisconsin clinics, will make “adjustments” if further federal guidance comes, CEO Ken Loving said.
“We don’t have the information we need to understand how this is going to impact us and how we can adapt to help our patients,” he said.
How would the changes affect education in Wisconsin?
The Wisconsin Technical College System has followed 1997 guidance that said public benefit restrictions did not apply to such educational services, spokesperson Katy Petterson said. She’s not sure how the updated guidance might affect the system, which will “wait to learn the impact of the lawsuit.”
If community-college-operated programs begin checking immigration status, ineligible immigrants may remain able to take federally funded classes through nonprofits that are subject to different rules.
A textbook lies on a table during a Literacy Network of Dane County English Transitions class at Madison College’s Goodman South Campus on July 9, 2025, in Madison, Wis. Some adult education services are on the list of federally funded programs that the Trump administration is targeting for immigration status checks, but the effects of the new rules are unclear. (Joe Timmerman / Wisconsin Watch)
The nation’s 1,600 Head Start agencies, which provide free early childhood education and family support services for low-income families, fall under the restrictions announced in the Department of Health and Human Services notice. But the document doesn’t say whether Head Start staff must verify the immigration status of children, parents or both.
“It’s very ambiguous about who this impacts. … If you read the language, it’s 26-plus-ish pages of legal jargon, and it’s shifting,” said Jennie Mauer, executive director of the Wisconsin Head Start Association, which supports the state’s roughly 300 Head Start service sites.
One thing Mauer wants families to know: Children already enrolled in Head Start won’t be forced out.
“We want to follow the rules, but Head Start is not required to redetermine eligibility,” Mauer said, noting it has never been required to do so in 60 years. She’s been telling the center directors to sit tight, even as worried parents ask questions.
One entity that won’t start checking immigration status: K-12 schools. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1982 that denying education to undocumented students violated their constitutional rights.
Must nonprofit providers start checking immigration status?
Probably not. The 1996 law restricting public benefits says nonprofit charities are not required to “determine, verify, or otherwise require proof of eligibility of any applicant for such benefits.”
At Literacy Network, a nonprofit offering a variety of free ESL and basic education classes in Madison, staff aren’t planning changes based on the new rule.
“It could certainly impact many of our students in other areas of their lives and therefore their ability to participate in our programs, but not who we can serve,” spokesperson Margaret Franchino said.
Still, guidance from the Department of Education is vague. It states that the exemption for nonprofits is “narrowly crafted,” and “the Department does not interpret (it) to relieve states or other governmental entities … from the requirements to ensure that all relevant programs are in compliance.”
Ryan Graham is the homeless systems manager at Wisconsin Balance of State Continuum of Care, a nonprofit that supports agencies responding to homelessness across most of the state.
As his agency discusses updates with partner agencies, it is preparing for an “increased administrative burden on already stretched staff.”
“We don’t yet know whether there will be delays caused by having to check or validate someone’s citizenship status, especially in emergency situations where time is critical,” Graham said.
When do the new rules take effect?
The notices published in July took effect immediately, though some federal agencies said they would likely not enforce them for about a month. The Trump administration later agreed to pause enforcement until Sept. 3 in the 21 states that sued.
The Department of Health and Human Services, meanwhile, has voluntarily stayed enforcement of its directive in all states until Sept. 10.
What is the basis of legal challenges?
The multistate lawsuit argues the Trump administration failed to follow proper procedures in implementation and that it can’t retroactively change the rules after states accept grants to administer programs. Requirements to check the immigration status of every person served would unreasonably burden program staff and possibly force programs to close, the states argue.
Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul speaks at a press conference at the F.J. Robers Library in the town of Campbell, outside of La Crosse, Wis., on July 20, 2022. Kaul joined 20 other states in a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s efforts to require more federally funded programs to check clients’ immigration status. (Coburn Dukehart / Wisconsin Watch)
States “will suffer continued, irreparable harm if forced to dramatically restructure their social safety nets and render them inaccessible to countless of the States’ most vulnerable residents,” the plaintiffs wrote.
The American Civil Liberties Union and Head Start groups nationwide had already sued before the Trump administration published new guidance. That suit argued staffing cuts, funding delays and bans on diversity efforts threatened to destabilize Head Start — a long-standing, congressionally mandated program. A hearing in that suit was held Aug. 5 on a request to temporarily block the Health and Human Services notice.
What does the Trump administration say?
The 1996 public benefits ban exempted federal programs that offered services available to all people on the grounds that they were “necessary for the protection of life and safety.”
Trump calls that exemption too broad.
“A surge in illegal immigration, enabled by the previous Administration, is siphoning dollars and essential services from American citizens while state and local budgets grow increasingly strained,” the White House said.
Citing studies from congressional committees and groups that seek to severely curtail immigration, the White House argues that allowing broad access to federal resources incentivizes illegal immigration and costs U.S. taxpayers. The recent federal spending package also eliminated access to Medicaid, Medicare and food stamps for some authorized immigrants, including refugees and asylees.
Experts worry the confusion about the new rule could have a chilling effect, leading even eligible immigrants to stop using services.
Pillai of KFF noted that the restrictions on community health centers, alongside congressionally approved changes “that limit health coverage to a smaller group of lawfully present immigrants,” will likely make immigrant families even more reluctant to seek health care and social services.
The changes “may increase their reliance on emergency room care, which can be more costly in the long term,” she added.
Graham, the homeless systems manager, believes the Trump change will create “a direct barrier to safe and stable shelter for undocumented individuals and mixed-status families” and qualified immigrants or citizens who “may not have identification or the means to attain identification after fleeing a dangerous situation or crisis.”
It could also prompt administrators of some programs not covered by the rule to start screening participants as a precaution, or shut down programs to avoid screening challenges.
That has happened before. When Trump issued an executive order in January saying the administration would no longer “fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support” gender-affirming health care for people under 19, some providers stopped offering those services even though state law protected them.
Braden Goetz, who worked for more than 20 years in the U.S. Department of Education and now works as a senior policy adviser at the New America Foundation’s Center on Education and Labor, said it’s unusual for federal guidance to be so sparse and ambiguous.
“Maybe that’s the intention: to confuse people and chill services to people who are not citizens or not legal permanent residents, and scare people,” Goetz said.
Five things to know about the new public benefits rule
The rule bars some immigrants with legal status, as well as all undocumented immigrants. That includes people with TPS, DACA, guest worker visas or pending asylum applications.
Children already enrolled in Head Start can continue attending, regardless of their immigration status. That’s because Head Start programs aren’t required to redetermine eligibility, according to Wisconsin Head Start Association executive director Jennie Mauer.
Nonprofit charitable organizations appear to be exempt from the new requirement. That means immigrants barred from services under the new guidelines may still be able to get services through nonprofit organizations.
Community Health Centers are required by law to accept all people in their area. It’s not clear how the new rules, which state that these federally funded health centers should only be available to “qualified immigrants,” will work with that law.
The new rules do not affect access to K-12 education, which the U.S. Supreme Court has found to be a right of every child regardless of immigration status.
Natalie Yahr reports on pathways to success in Wisconsin, working in partnership with Open Campus. Sreejita Patra is statehouse reporting intern for Wisconsin Watch.
Federal law prohibits students in the country without authorization from receiving federal financial aid.
Two Clinton-era laws — the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act and the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act — require all students to provide a valid Social Security number or otherwise demonstrate lawful-presence status to receive federal aid.
The Federal Student Aid website confirms that unauthorized students — including DACA recipients — are ineligible for federal student aid. However, it notes that unauthorized immigrants can still seek financial support through other channels, such as state grant programs, institutional aid, and private scholarships.
The American Journal of Economics and Sociology points out that although there are alternative avenues, they are often limited and inconsistent. Even when available, it is last-dollar aid, covering only remaining costs after all other aid is applied. As a result, this rarely meets the total cost of tuition, fees, and living expenses.
This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.
Login
