The Trump administration suddenly withdrew its federal policy change reducing funding for permanent supportive housing on Monday, Dec. 8, 2025. (Photo by Nadia Engenheiro, Half Street Group)
An hour before a scheduled court hearing on two federal lawsuits over recent changes to a key federal homelessness and housing funding program, the Trump administration withdrew the funding notice that prompted the litigation.
The move came as a surprise to the attorneys for plaintiffs who were initially scheduled to make their case for a temporary restraining order before Rhode Island Judge Mary S. McElroy.
“It feels like intentional chaos,” McElroy said.
In a message to Continuum of Care networks, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced Monday afternoon that officials rescinded its Nov. 13 Notice of Funding Opportunity for federal fiscal 2025 grants to “make appropriate revisions.” The notice had set Jan. 14 as the deadline for applications for Continuum of Care funds, which address homelessness.
Rhode Island’s Continuum of Care gave the state’s homeless care a deadline of Dec. 12 to get their applications done to give to HUD, according to one of the lawsuits.
“We received notice first through our providers and [electronic filing], not through opposing counsel,” Zane Muller, assistant attorney general for the state of Washington, said during the 25-minute virtual hearing that began at 3:30 p.m.
HUD’s policy rescission too was news for McElroy, who called it a “haphazard approach to administrative law.”
“There’s a process and procedure that’s laid out,” said McElroy, a first-term Trump appointee. “It’s not by tweets or by last-minute orders or last-minute withdrawals.”
Pardis Gheibi, a U.S. Department of Justice attorney representing HUD, told McElroy the notice was filed with the court as soon as it was published. She did not have the answer when McElroy wanted to know who at HUD made the decision to rescind the funding notice and when.
“We didn’t have the chance to confer with plaintiffs’ counsel — but the rescission happened this afternoon,” Gheibi said.
The Trump administration had planned to slash the amount of grant funds that can be spent on permanent housing — subsidized units that provide a stable residence for formerly homeless people, often those who have experienced mental illness or spent years on the streets — and instead focus on transitional housing.
There’s a process and procedure that’s laid out. It’s not by tweets or by last-minute orders or last-minute withdrawals.
– Rhode Island U.S. District Court Judge Mary S. McElroy
Grant rules also would have eliminated funding for diversity and inclusion efforts, support of transgender clients and use of “harm reduction” strategies that seek to reduce overdose deaths by helping people in active addiction use drugs more safely.
HUD wrote in its update that it still intends to make changes to the policy for awarding funds for addressing homelessness.
A coalition of states co-led by Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha filed suit over HUD’s latest Notice of Funding Opportunity on Nov. 25. On Dec. 1, a group of cities and nonprofits led by the National Alliance to End Homelessness and the National Low Income Housing Coalition filed a separate 85-page lawsuit.
Both complaints had similar requests for the court to declare the new conditions unlawful and reinstate language from prior funding notices, which is why McElroy opted to combine them into one hearing.
But with the funding notice now withdrawn, Gheibi argued there was no need for immediate relief.
Kristin Bateman, an attorney representing local communities and nonprofits and a senior counsel with Democracy Forward, argued court action is still needed. She said HUD’s rescission still leaves a critical funding gap for homeless services starting early next year since most federal fiscal 2024 grants start to expire in January.
“Those gaps in funding mean that they will not have the money to continue supporting the permanent housing that they fund for people to live in,” Bateman said. “People are going to be displaced, put back into homelessness in the middle of winter and face all the harms that come with that.”
McElroy scheduled the next hearing for 10 a.m. Friday, Dec. 19. She also tasked HUD with producing the administrative record on the grant funding policy, ideally within a week — though Gheibi had asked if it could wait until after the holidays.
McElroy said if the administration could work quickly to rescind the funding notice, they can work quickly to give the court the documents she requested.
“People can work overtime if they need to,” McElroy said. “I do, they do, I’m sure you do.”
This story was originally produced by Rhode Island Current, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Wisconsin Examiner, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 9, 2024. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)
The U.S. Supreme Court said Friday justices will hear a case to decide if President Donald Trump’s order to end birthright citizenship is constitutional.
The court agreed to hear a case, before it is decided in a lower court, that deals with the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to almost everyone born in the United States. The amendment’s birthright citizenship clause has been used to give citizenship to the children of immigrants in the country without legal authorization or on a temporary basis.
While a schedule for arguments has not yet been released by the court, it’s likely the case would be heard sometime in early 2026.
The Trump administration argued in its petition to the court that the amendment, which was adopted in 1868, was meant to apply to newly freed slaves. It was not meant to provide citizenship to the children of immigrants without legal status, Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote.
“Long after the Clause’s adoption, the mistaken view that birth on U.S. territory confers citizenship on anyone subject to the regulatory reach of U.S. law became pervasive, with destructive consequences,” Sauer wrote in the September petition.
The petition also sought Supreme Court review of a related challenge to the order by the states of Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon. Friday’s court order did not grant a hearing on that case.
Trump signed an executive order on Jan. 20 seeking to redefine the birthright citizenship clause to exclude the children of immigrants in the country without legal authority or only temporarily. Democratic-led states and advocacy groups swiftly sued.
Courts have largely blocked enforcement of the order, although the Supreme Court in June allowed it to go into effect in the states that had not sued to preserve the right.
In a Friday afternoon statement, the American Civil Liberties Union, a leading civil rights group, noted that several federal judges had blocked enforcement and predicted the Supreme Court would preserve birthright citizenship.
“No president can change the 14th Amendment’s fundamental promise of citizenship,” Cecillia Wang, ACLU’s national legal director, said. “For over 150 years, it has been the law and our national tradition that everyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen from birth. The federal courts have unanimously held that President Trump’s executive order is contrary to the Constitution, a Supreme Court decision from 1898, and a law enacted by Congress. We look forward to putting this issue to rest once and for all in the Supreme Court this term.”
Prisoners look out of their cell as Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem tours the Terrorist Confinement Center, or CECOT, in Tecoluca, El Salvador, on March 26, 2025. (Photo by Alex Brandon-Pool/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice acknowledged in a court filing that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem made the call to continue removals of Venezuelans to a brutal Salvadoran prison, despite a federal judge’s order to stop the deportations.
The Tuesday filing noted that Noem was advised by top officials at the Justice Department she did not need to comply with the March 15 judicial order to halt the deportations because it had been issued after the flights took off. The Venezuelan nationals were deported under an obscure wartime law called the Alien Enemies Act.
“After receiving that legal advice, Secretary Noem directed that the AEA detainees who had been removed from the United States before the Court’s order could be transferred to the custody of El Salvador,” according to the DOJ filing. “That decision was lawful and was consistent with a reasonable interpretation of the Court’s order.”
Noem’s decision sent 137 Venezuelan men to a mega-prison for months until the Venezuelan government could broker a prison swap with El Salvador and the United States to have the men returned.
In an emergency March 15 order, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg said the planes carrying the Venezuelans had to return to the United States.
They did not have the opportunity to challenge their removal, which was a violation of their due process rights, the American Civil Liberties Union has argued in its case against the Trump administration.
Tuesday’s filing represents a shift in legal strategy from the administration, which had initially argued that because Boasberg’s order was verbal and not written, his temporary restraining order carried no weight.
Contempt probe
The filing comes after Boasberg resumed a contempt investigation to identify the Trump administration officials involved in authorizing the Venezuelans’ removals.
Last week, Boasberg ordered the administration to submit filings on how to proceed with the contempt inquiry.
“I certainly intend to find out what happened that day,” Boasberg said last week.
Tuesday’s filing argued that contempt proceedings are not needed and that “the Government maintains that its actions did not violate the Court’s order.”
The ACLU, which is representing the deported men, in its filing on the contempt issue urged Boasberg to request testimony from nine current and former officials from the Homeland Security and Justice departments.
The ACLU also said the government should identify “all individuals involved in the decision… regardless of whether they were the ultimate decision-maker or had direct input into the decision, as well as all those with knowledge of the decision-making process.”
Once those people had been identified, Boasberg could determine in what order testimony should be gathered.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development headquarters. (Photo by HUD Office of Public Affairs)
Nineteen attorneys general and two governors filed suit in Rhode Island on Tuesday to stop the Trump administration from shifting nearly $4 billion in housing grants they say could place as many as 170,000 formerly homeless people back out on the streets.
The group co-led by Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha is accusing the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development of violating “congressional intent” in its plan to dramatically reduce the amount of grant funds that can be spent on permanent housing, along with other conditions placed in its latest Notice of Funding Opportunity for Continuum of Care grants.
Enacted Nov. 13, HUD’s new policy instead shifts Continuum of Care funding toward transitional housing and other short-term interventions to the nation’s ongoing homelessness crisis. Only 30% of funds from the $3.9 billion grant program would be allowed to be used for permanent supportive housing — units that provide a subsidized, stable residence for formerly homeless people, often those who have experienced mental illness or spent years on the streets.
HUD has previously directed approximately 90% of Continuum of Care funding to support permanent supportive units as part of its “Housing First” philosophy, according to the 55-page lawsuit.
“Addressing the crisis requires urgent action from our communities, institutions, and government,” the lawsuit states. “But instead of investing in programs that help people stay safe and housed, the Trump Administration has embraced policies that risk trapping people in poverty and punishing them for being poor.”
HUD’s latest Continuum of Care grants opportunity is open though Jan. 14, 2026. Grant awards are expected to be made May 1.
The new grant rules also eliminate funding for diversity and inclusion efforts, support of transgender clients and use of “harm reduction” strategies that seek to reduce overdose deaths by helping people in active addiction use drugs more safely.
“Individually, these conditions are unlawful and harmful,” the 55-page lawsuit states. “Together, they are a virtual death blow to the CoC Program as it has operated for decades and will lead to predictably disastrous results.”
If the policy isn’t blocked, Neronha warned the cuts would “further exacerbate already dire conditions for homeless Rhode Islanders.” Indeed, Rhode Island’s homeless care providers project a little over 1,000 formerly unhoused people across the state could wind up back on the streets under HUD’s new funding focus.
“This administration continues to punch down by targeting the most vulnerable Americans, and unfortunately this most recent attack on homeless individuals is consistent with their modus operandi,” Neronha said in a statement. “The president and his administration don’t care about making life easier or better for Americans; they only care about political capitulation, consolidating power, and further enriching the wealthy.”
The HUD Press Office said the agency stands by its Continuum of Care reforms in an emailed statement, calling Biden era homelessness assistance policies “an abject failure.”
“In fact, Biden’s policies harmed the vulnerable people that HUD intends to serve through the grant program,” the statement reads. “This new framework is the first step toward righting those failures with increased funding for those high performing programs that have demonstrated real success and accountability. HUD is dismayed that the plaintiffs have chosen to misuse the Courts and pursue this delaying tactic to serve their own personal political agenda at the expense of the homeless individuals, youth and families now living on our Nation’s streets. Their use of the courts for political means seeks to prevent nearly $4 billion of aid to flow nationwide to assist those in need. HUD intends to mount a vigorous defense to this meritless legal action. HUD is confident that it will prevail in Court and looks forward to implementing the new Continuum of Care framework after it has done so.”
In addition to Neronha, Washington Attorney General Nick Brown and New York Attorney General Letitia James are co-leading the lawsuit.
Also joining the complaint are the attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, Wisconsin, along with the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania.
The coalition is asking Judge Mary S. McElroy, who was appointed to the bench during Trump’s first term, to declare the new conditions unlawful and reinstate language from prior funding notices.
But the lawsuit filed Tuesday argues that Congress created the Continuum of Care program to ensure stability so providers can reliably serve people whose lives depend on it. The coalition says HUD’s changes are arbitrary and capricious because officials offered no explanation for abruptly reversing longstanding policies.
“HUD has failed to supply any rational explanation for these newly proposed conditions that are entirely unrelated to (and in some cases even inhibit) the statutory purpose of addressing homelessness,” the lawsuit states.
5:31 pmUpdated with a statement from the HUD Press Office.
This story was originally produced by Rhode Island Current, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Wisconsin Examiner, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.
An emergency room nurse tends to a patient at Houston Methodist The Woodlands Hospital in Texas. States, counties and nonprofits are striving to continue their work to close racial health disparity gaps but are struggling amid a loss of federal dollars. (Photo by Brandon Bell/Getty Images)
Racial health disparities may widen as states, universities and nonprofits grapple with federal funding cuts to programs that were aimed at filling gaps in care, public health experts say.
As part of its federal restructuring and crackdown on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs, the Trump administration has been shuttering federal offices and rescinding grants dedicated to addressing worse health care access and outcomes for racial minorities.
The shake-up has caused some state agencies and nonprofits to pause programs and some groups and universities to apply for foundation grants instead.
Hundreds of grants have been terminated for state, local and territorial health departments as well as nonprofits and universities, many of which addressed health equity across rural, low-income and communities of color.
The nation’s racial health disparities were laid bare during the COVID-19 pandemic, when the virus killed Black, Hispanic and Indigenous people at higher rates than white people. The police murder of George Floyd in May 2020 also fueled a racial reckoning across the nation, prompting efforts by states, universities, health systems and the federal government to address racial health disparities.
Those approaches ranged from targeted vaccine campaigns and efforts to enroll more people of color in clinical trials to corrections of diagnostic tests that relied on inaccurateinformation about race and biology.
COVID revealed the impact of health disparities to individual health — as well as how not addressing these disparities undermines the health system for everyone.
– Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association
Communities of color have long had less access to health care, increased exposure to environmental pollutants and higher rates of certain chronic illnesses and cancer deaths. They also have more diabetes-related amputations because of a lack of access to care. And specific genetic diseases, such as sickle cell disease, disproportionately affect Black people.
“COVID revealed the impact of health disparities to individual health — as well as how not addressing these disparities undermines the health system for everyone,” said Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association.
Now, many of the programs trying to address health disparities are being rolled back.
As a result, health policy experts, clinicians and researchers fear those disparities will widen as states, universities and nonprofits grapple with lost federal dollars while the administration continues to limit federal funding for DEI programs. In July, the U.S. Department of Justice released guidance saying such initiatives should not receive federal funding, alleging they are “discriminatory.”
Entities that receive federal funds “must ensure that their programs and activities comply with federal law and do not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, or other protected characteristics—no matter the program’s labels, objectives, or intentions,” the news release said.
Several state and local health officials were reluctant to speak with Stateline on the record about how the federal administration’s DEI crackdown has left them in a bind, fearing retaliation or targeting by the federal government. The White House did not respond to Stateline’s request for comment.
“My concern about what the administration is doing is that they are, in effect, making these disparities worse,” Benjamin said. “Everybody’s health is not the same. … It’s important to know that the disparities are really profound.”
Benjamin added that the cumulative effect of disparities means more late-stage disease — costing both patients and health systems more.
“There’s a trope or misunderstanding out there that DEI is a ‘woke’-related agenda. DEI is not a ‘woke’ agenda. DEI is an American agenda, because it’s really one that is the same thing as ‘rising tides lift all boats,’” said Brandon Wilson, senior director of Health Innovation and Public Health at Community Catalyst, a health equity advocacy organization. “When you cut [resources] off, you’re actually disproportionately impacting those who are already impacted.”
‘Increasing need’
The administration canceled billions of dollars in grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Health and Human Services.
Many of the grants helped recipients create solutions tailored to their communities’ needs and strengths.
At least three dozen state, local and territorial health departments have had pandemic-era grants that addressed health equity terminated. While originally focused on COVID-19, agencies have since used that grant money for other public health efforts: testing and contact tracing for a wide range of diseases, better data reporting, and community partnerships that address social and environmental effects on health.
The money was part of a $2.2 billion national health equity initiative that aimed to address vulnerabilities and protect those communities ahead of the next outbreak.
The Department of Health and Human Services told media such cancellations were due to the pandemic emergency ending in 2023.
At NIH, the administration terminated more than 5,400 NIH research grants, although about 2,800 were reinstated. Canceled grants included research toward illnesses like HIV and AIDS, which disproportionately affect Black and Hispanic people as well as gay and transgender people.
The Trump administration has also gutted federal offices dedicated to fighting disparities, including the Offices of Minority Health under the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the Department of Health and Human Services.
At the state level, the Arkansas Department of Health recently shut down its own minority health-focused office. Ashley Whitlow, a spokesperson for the department, said in a statement that it “relies on federal grant funding to support a variety of public health programs.”
“The recent reduction in program staff reflects the Arkansas Department of Health’s ongoing efforts to operate more efficiently with the resources available. Despite these changes, ADH remains fully committed to serving communities across the state,” the statement said.
Meanwhile, Maryland’s Department of Health said its minority health office is funded through state general funds and not directly impacted by the federal cuts.
The nation has seen a spike in congenital syphilis cases, which disproportionately occur among Black and Indigenous families.
“Regardless of whether you’re at the highest risk, any outbreak that’s not controlled can spread widely and broadly, and you can see that that’s what’s happening with measles,” said Dr. Julie Morita, former executive vice president of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and former health commissioner Chicago Department of Public Health.
But states likely can’t replace all the lost federal dollars.
“You’ve got declining capacity, and increasing need — which is a formula for problems,” said Richard Frank, director of the Brookings Institution Center on Health Policy.
“It’s impossible to make all that up with state and local dollars,” he continued. “You’re going to see programs that serve real people getting pulled back.”
Frank and Wilson also expressed concern about the Medicaid changes included in the broad tax and spending law President Donald Trump signed in July. The law is projected to cut federal Medicaid spending by an estimated $911 billion over the next decade, largely because new work requirements will push people off the rolls. Data shows the majority of Medicaid enrollees already work, and experts say many will be kicked off the rolls due to difficulties in states’ reporting processes. Black and Hispanic people are disproportionately represented on the Medicaid rolls.
OB-GYN Dr. Versha Pleasant, a clinical assistant professor at the University of Michigan, directs the Cancer Genetics and Breast Health Clinic at Von Voigtlander Women’s Hospital. She treats patients at high risk for breast and ovarian cancers. Black women have an almost 40% higher risk of death from breast cancer than white women.
“That, to me, is unacceptable,” she said, adding that such disparities speak to the need for ongoing programs to “provide everyone with a fair chance at leading a long and healthy life.”
“If we don’t make a special effort to save the most vulnerable lives … where does that leave us?” she continued. “The changes that we’re seeing are only going to magnify preexisting challenges.”
Data and dollars
Dr. Sarah Rudman, acting public health officer at the Santa Clara County Public Health Department in California, and others have told Stateline that federal officials are informing health agencies that race and ethnicity data are no longer required to be reported.
“We are being asked to change the way we collect our own data here and report it,” Rudman said, adding that her county is going to continue collecting data to “understand who is here, who’s experiencing what health outcome and what they need.”
Many families, in the shadow of the county’s Silicon Valley, still struggle with poverty — more than 27,000 children suffer food insecurity, United Way Bay Area says.
“It is sometimes surprising and striking to people to understand how much poverty and other types of vulnerability are hidden among the more visible wealth of Silicon Valley, and that’s where we’ve dedicated our resources,” Rudman said.
“It’s hard to even imagine what my colleagues in smaller areas of California or in other parts of the country are experiencing,” she added about lower-income counties. “We are feeling extremely strained and already in our second round of layoffs, knowing that many more are likely. So I think that the hits are going to be that much more significant in areas who have less resources than we do.”
Federal officials also canceled the county’s $5.7 million grant to address COVID-19-related disparities, used to shore up vulnerable communities ahead of the next disease outbreak, natural disaster or heat wave, Rudman said. The money helped the county conduct basic laboratory testing and vaccine outreach for a wide range of diseases, not just COVID-19.
This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Wisconsin Examiner, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.
Kilmar Abrego Garcia speaks to a crowd of people who held a prayer vigil and rally on his behalf outside the Immigration and Customs Enforcement building in Baltimore on Aug. 25, 2025. Lydia Walther Rodriguez with CASA interprets for him. (Photo by William J. Ford/Maryland Matters)
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration Friday identified the West African nation of Liberia as the location for the removal of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, noting his deportation could come as soon as Oct. 31.
In a Friday court filing in the District of Maryland, the Department of Justice argued that Liberia is a close partner with the United States and that the federal government has received assurances from Liberia that Abrego Garcia will not be harmed if he is deported there. They added that Abrego Garcia, who has a wife and family in Maryland, has not expressed fear of being removed to Liberia.
“Although Petitioner has identified more than twenty countries that he purports to fear would persecute or torture him if he were removed there, Liberia is not on that list,” according to the filing.
Abrego Garcia’s attorneys in his Maryland case could not be immediately reached for comment.
The new filing comes shortly after attorneys for Abrego Garcia in a separate case in Tennessee this week requested to subpoena Trump DOJ official Todd Blanche in connection with Abrego Garcia’s claim that his criminal case by the Trump administration is vindictive. That hearing is set to start Nov. 4.
Abrego Garcia has pleaded not guilty to those charges, which accuse him of the human trafficking of immigrants in an incident stemming from a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee.
Detention challenged
Abrego Garcia, whose wrongful deportation cast a spotlight on the president’s aggressive immigration crackdown, is challenging his detention on the grounds that the Trump administration is using his imprisonment as punishment rather than for the purpose of removal.
Abrego Garcia has stated he is willing to be deported to Costa Rica, which has agreed to accept the longtime Maryland man as a refugee.
Because Abrego Garcia has deportation protections from his home country of El Salvador, the Trump administration must find a third country that is willing to accept him and a country where Abrego Garcia believes he will not face harm or persecution.
The Trump administration so far has floated sending Abrego Garcia to one of three nations in Africa — Ghana, Eswatini and Uganda.
Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis found little evidence the Trump administration has made any effort to remove Abrego Garcia either to the southern African nation of Eswatini or Costa Rica.
At that hearing, Abrego Garcia’s attorneys told Xinis they have not received an answer from the federal government as to why officials won’t remove Abrego Garcia to Costa Rica.
Detained in Pennsylvania
Xinis is currently mulling whether or not to order the release of Abrego Garcia, who is detained at a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Pennsylvania.
Any indefinite stay would likely be unconstitutional, per a 2001 Supreme Court ruling that does not allow for immigrants to be detained longer than six months if the federal government is making no efforts to remove them.
In March, Abrego Garcia was wrongly deported to a notorious mega-prison in El Salvador, where he detailed his experience of psychological and physical torture.
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.
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
