The post Does your operation regularly refer to the National School Transportation Specifications and Procedures when questions arise? appeared first on School Transportation News.

Reading Time: 2 minutes

Artificial intelligence is a fraught topic for journalists — just ask the guy who <ahem> “wrote” this year’s summer reading list for the Chicago Sun-Times.

But for all its risks, AI also presents opportunities we are just now starting to understand. For example, Wisconsin Watch has been an early user and partner with Gigafact on an AI-powered tool they have built that can help analyze the thousands of hours of podcasts, social media videos and talk radio programs that could be spreading misinformation every day.

The tool, known as Parser, can process an hourlong audio file in a matter of minutes and not only provide a transcript, but also identify specific claims made during the audio segment and even the person making the claim.

Wisconsin Watch fact briefs reporter Tom Kertscher has been using Parser to make it easier to find surprising and dubious claims. Before Parser he would listen to those hourlong podcasts and radio shows himself, trying to pick up on what Wisconsin politicians were saying. In tracking how much time it took to produce a fact brief, we found in some cases almost half the time was spent just searching for a claim.

Parser has sped up that process, making it possible to scan through far more audio recordings of interviews.

“We can cover so much more ground with Parser, checking many more politicians and interviews than we could manually,” Kertscher said.

Gigafact began developing Parser after Wisconsin Watch provided that feedback on how much time it can take to stay on top of every claim that every politician makes. But the problem of misinformation is far bigger than just keeping tabs on politicians.

Last year the investigative journalism class at UW-Madison worked on a project about talk radio in Wisconsin. One of the key findings was the notable amount of misinformation being spread on the airwaves, especially among conservative pundits.

To do that project, students spent a significant amount of time listening to six radio hosts whose viewpoints spanned the political spectrum. They took four hours for each host from the week after the Super Bowl — 24 hours of audio total — and manually processed the audio into a database of claims. Even with a transcription tool, the process took easily over 100 hours to produce a list of claims to fact-check.

Earlier this year, I worked with Gigafact using Parser to process 24 hours from the same hosts the week after this year’s Super Bowl. We came up with a list of claims in two hours.

Wisconsin Watch and Gigafact presented that case study in using AI at a recent Journalism Educators Institute conference hosted by the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s School of Journalism and Mass Communication. We’ll present it again this week at the Investigative Reporters and Editors conference in New Orleans.

And if you haven’t read it yet, add our investigative journalism project Change is on the Air to your summer reading list. Unfortunately, for the students who devoted so many hours to listening and re-listening to those talk radio hosts, it was not produced using AI. But maybe next time.

How AI helps us fact-check misinformation on the air is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Getty Images

Just hours after Minnesotans learned that Democratic House leader Melissa Hortman had been assassinated, right-wing influencer Collin Rugg, who has 1.8 million followers on X, posted a report that hinted that she’d been killed because of a recent vote on ending undocumented adults’ ability to enroll in MinnesotaCare, a subsidized health insurance for the working poor.

Mike Cernovich, another right-wing influencer who has 1.4 million followers on X, took Rugg’s post and amped it up, but in the “just asking questions” style of many conspiracy theories:

“Did Tim Walz have her executed to send a message?”

They were deeply ignorant about the MinnesotaCare issue.

Walz and Hortman — who was instrumental in passing legislation allowing undocumented people to sign up for MinnesotaCare as speaker of the House in 2023 — negotiated a compromise with Republicans in the Minnesota Legislature to end eligibility for adults, but keep it for children. They did so to win necessary Republican support in the 67-67 House to pass a state budget. Without it, state government would have shut down on July 1.

Both Hortman and Walz signed the compromise agreement in mid-May. This week, Hortman spoke tearfully about how difficult the vote was for her, but she was bound to vote yes on the issue because of the prior agreement.

Rugg and Cernovich’s posts were shared widely and just the start of the disinformation.

Once law enforcement sources began revealing a suspect, right-wing influencers ran with an insignificant detail: That Vance Luther Boelter was a “Walz appointee.”

Like many states, but even more so here, Minnesota is home to hundreds of nonpartisan and bipartisan boards and commissions, which are composed of thousands of people who typically win the appointment by simply volunteering. There are currently 342 open positions on Minnesota boards and commissions. Boelter was appointed to the Workforce Development Council by Walz’s predecessor Gov. Mark Dayton and reappointed by Walz.

It was the equivalent of calling a Sunday school volunteer an “appointee of the bishop.”

No matter, the Murdoch media machine, specifically the New York Post, had their headline: “Former appointee of Tim Walz sought….”

Cernovich had his greasy foil hot dog wrapper and began constructing a hat:

“The Vice President candidate for the Democrat party is directly connected to a domestic terrorist, that is confirmed, the only question is whether Tim Walz himself ordered the political hit against a rival who voted against Walz’s plan to give free healthcare to illegals.”

Walz had no such plan. He had signed an agreement to end eligibility for undocumented adults.

Joey Mannarino, who has more than 600,000 followers on X, was more crass:

“Rumor has it she was preparing to switch parties. The Democrats are VIOLENT SCUM.”

It was a ridiculous “rumor.” One of the last photos of Hortman alive was an image of her at the Democratic-Farmer-Labor’s big annual fundraising event, the Humphrey-Mondale dinner, which took place just hours before her assassination.

No matter, Cernovich wanted his new friends in federal law enforcement to act:

“The FBI must take Tim Walz into custody immediately.”

Finally, fresh off his humiliating defeat at the hands of President Donald Trump, world’s richest man Elon Musk quote-tweeted someone again falsely alleging Hortman was killed by “the left”  and added:

“The far left is murderously violent.” 

The suspect’s “hit list,” according to an official who has seen the list, comprised Minnesotans who have been outspoken in favor of abortion rights. CNN reported that it also included several abortion clinics, which doesn’t sound like the work of “the left.”

Right-wing influencers marred Hortman’s death and smeared Walz on a pile of lies.

In a different, saner world, they would be humiliated and slink away. But the smart money is that during the next moment of national crisis and mourning, they will again lie for profit.

Minnesota Reformer is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Minnesota Reformer maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor J. Patrick Coolican for questions: info@minnesotareformer.com.

A decision is imminent in three of the four cases that will determine whether individual health information for legal reproductive care remains protected by a 2024 federal rule.

Dr. Eve Espey has many stories she can tell about patients who travel to her clinic in New Mexico from their homes in Texas, where abortion laws are some of the most restrictive in the country.

In one recent case, Espey said a patient flew from Texas to Albuquerque for an abortion after her doctor advised that an autoimmune disease she has made being pregnant incredibly dangerous. At the same time, she had an IUD placed as future contraception.

Shortly after returning home, the patient had some cramping and discomfort that prompted her to have the placement of the IUD checked and make sure it hadn’t moved. But her doctor turned her away because she’d had an abortion.

“She flew back to New Mexico to get her IUD examined,” Espey told States Newsroom.

In this case, Espey’s patient voluntarily told her doctor that she’d had an abortion. But if a rule exempting reproductive health information from law enforcement investigations is struck down or altered by one of three federal cases brought by Republican attorneys general from more than a dozen states, that information could become mandatory to disclose.

A decision is imminent in three of the four cases that will determine whether individual health information for legal reproductive care remains protected by a 2024 federal rule under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), including a case in Texas before the same judge who tried to revoke government approval of an abortion drug.

The plaintiffs in the cases, which include 17 states that heavily restrict or outright ban abortion, say the rule undermines their state rights to investigate waste, fraud and abuse. Chad Kubis, spokesperson for Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, told States Newsroom via email that the office could not comment because of the ongoing litigation. But the complaint in the case led by Tennessee said, “The final rule will hamper states’ ability to gather information critical to policing serious misconduct like Medicaid billing fraud, child and elder abuse, and insurance-related malfeasance.”

HIPAA is a federal law passed nearly 30 years ago to protect the privacy and security of patient health information, especially as that information travels between clinics in an increasingly all-digital world. It includes some exceptions under limited conditions, such as law enforcement investigations. After the 2022 Dobbs decision returned abortion regulation to the states, prompting more than a dozen to pass abortion bans, advocates worried that such records could be used by state officials and law enforcement to investigate and prosecute patients seeking an abortion and those who help them.

Former Democratic President Joe Biden’s administration sought to remedy those concerns by adding a rule to the HIPAA law in 2024 restricting disclosure of the information. Meanwhile, states with legal abortion passed their own shield laws to protect providers and patients from out-of-state investigations.

In New Mexico, doctors like Espey are protected by a shield law that covers patients, providers and those who help someone obtain an abortion. Even with that, Espey worries and makes sure she’s careful with the notes she puts into writing. Lawmakers in New Mexico have considered going further with the shield law to require patient consent for any release of reproductive health records, but that could become an issue in emergencies.

“That is a colossal barrier to a provider,” Espey said. “Somebody could come into the ER and you can’t access the fact that they had an abortion two days ago.”

Lauren Paulk, senior research counsel for If/When/How, a nonprofit that offers legal support to those seeking reproductive health care, said the rule is important to keep intact because it helps patients and providers feel safe. Without it, more people will be turned away from clinics and hospitals, she said.

“Since Dobbs, there have been documented cases of at least seven people who have died in part because they were afraid to seek care or were denied care. We know that patients see these stories too,” Paulk said. “We also run a help line, so we hear people calling in every day who are scared to seek health care.”

For many years, people have considered health privacy to be a basic right, Paulk said, and have taken it for granted that when they see a doctor, the information shared will be confidential. But she said it’s vital that it stays that way.

“Having the state involved in health care poisons the well of the patient-provider relationship,” Paulk said. “When I go to my health care provider and I can’t be frank with them, it means I’m not going to get care to the extent that I need.”

Since Republican President Donald Trump’s administration took office in January and Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is now at the helm of U.S. Health and Human Services, the agency that administers the rule, the suits have become more complicated, including how the government is responding to each case.

They are:

State of Missouri v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Republican Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey filed this lawsuit in January, claiming that the rule infringes on state powers to investigate fraud, abuse and public health violations. U.S. District Judge John A. Ross, who was appointed by former Democratic President Barack Obama, is weighing the Trump administration’s request to dismiss the case for lack of standing. 

State of Tennessee v. HHS: Republican Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti filed this lawsuit in January, also claiming that the rule infringes on state powers of investigation. Republican attorneys general in 14 other states joined as plaintiffs. U.S. District Judge Katherine A. Crytzer, an appointee of Republican President Donald Trump, has been asked by the Trump administration to dismiss the case for lack of standing or grant the states’ request to block the rule. 

Purl, M.D. v. HHS: Dr. Carmen Purl, the sole owner of Dr. Purl’s Fast Care Walk In Clinic in Dumas, Texas, sued in October because she said the rule creates a conflict with the laws requiring her to report child abuse. The case is before U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, an appointee of Republican President Donald Trump. Kacsmaryk granted a preliminary injunction, but is expected to rule soon on a permanent injunction. 

State of Texas v. HHS: Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued in September, claiming the 2024 rule violates state investigative authority. Paxton argued the underlying 2000 HIPAA rule should be struck down as well — a move that could open many more avenues for state investigations if it is granted. U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix, a Trump appointee, has given the federal health agency two extensions of time to decide whether they want to rescind and rewrite the rule.

The judges presiding over the cases in Missouri and Tennessee, as well as the Purl case in Texas, could issue decisions at any time Missouri filed its lawsuit alone, while 14 other states with Republican attorneys general joined Tennessee’s lawsuit as plaintiffs: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota and West Virginia. All but three of those states either heavily restrict or outright ban abortion, and if the lawsuits are successful, records kept by doctors and pharmacists in other states could be subpoenaed.

If the underlying 2000 HIPAA privacy rule is somehow altered by court rulings in Texas, it could have even more effects, Paulk said. If/When/How receives phone calls from therapists living in states with abortion bans who are afraid of facing criminal charges just for talking about abortion with a patient, or for not reporting a person considering an abortion to the police, she said. That’s not true under existing laws, but if privacy rules change, records like therapy notes could also be subject to investigation.

“It’s clear to me that the folks who are pursuing the overturn of these laws and the folks who are in states where they’re trying to get access to health information are seeking to criminalize people and further stigmatize health care like abortion and gender-affirming care,” Paulk said. “They want people to be afraid to access care and providers to be afraid to provide it, and they’re using this specter of punishment to do that.”

DOJ asked two courts to dismiss Republican-led lawsuits

Democracy Forward, a nonprofit legal organization, is representing the cities of Columbus, Ohio, and Madison, Wisconsin, and Doctors for America, and has attempted to intervene in all four cases — Kacsmaryk denied the request, but the other three are still pending. If any of the motions are granted, attorneys for Democracy Forward could defend the rule, because they do not think the DOJ attorneys will adequately defend it, said Carrie Flaxman, the nonprofit’s senior legal adviser.

The cities and Doctors for America filed a friend-of-the-court brief after Kacsmaryk’s denial, arguing that HIPAA is vital to protecting patient confidentiality, including the 2024 rule.

At the end of March, Trump’s Department of Justice attorneys asked the federal courts in Missouri and Tennessee to dismiss the cases for lack of standing, saying the states have not demonstrated any harm.

“Missouri’s complaint vaguely alleges that the rule impedes state investigations and requires the state to expend resources to comply with the rule’s requirements,” the motion to dismiss says. “But absent from the complaint are any concrete facts supporting these conclusory assertions of harm, which one would expect to see if the rule truly posed the risks that the state alleges.”

In Texas, Kacsmaryk ordered the Department of Justice to provide an update about the health services agency’s review of the Biden-era rule in May, and asked if they wished to pause the court proceedings while they conduct that review. Acting Assistant Attorney General Yaakov Roth told the court in a brief that the rule remains “under consideration” but no imminent action on the rule is expected. He added that they were not requesting any pause in the case.

That response differed in Paxton’s suit, which was already on hold. DOJ attorneys asked for more time to “evaluate the agency’s position in this case and determine how best to proceed.” The judge granted the extension, and another update is expected in July.

“Blocking either or both of these rules could pave the way for government investigations by Attorney General Paxton or others and threaten the foundations of medical privacy that we all rely on,” Flaxman said. “Patients nationwide should be concerned about investigations … into the most personal of their medical records.” 

Maryland Democratic U.S. Rep. Glenn Ivey, who represents the district where Kilmar Abrego Garcia and his wife live, led the chant “bring him home” outside the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland shortly before a hearing in Abrego Garcia’s case on Friday, May 16, 2025. (Photo by Ariana Figueroa/States Newsroom)

GREENBELT, MARYLAND — A federal judge said Friday the Trump administration has “pretty broadly” invoked the state secrets privilege to withhold information on its efforts — or, the judge indicated, a possible lack of effort — to return a wrongly deported Maryland man from a prison in El Salvador.

President Donald Trump’s administration moved last month to invoke the so-called state secrets privilege to shield information about its process to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the United States after a top immigration official admitted his removal to a prison in El Salvador was an “administrative error.”

The judge handling the case, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, granted an expedited discovery process after she found last month that “nothing has been done” by the administration to return Abrego Garcia.

She did not make a public order regarding the state secrets privilege Friday afternoon before closing her courtroom to the public to discuss sensitive matters with attorneys for Abrego Garcia and the Department of Justice.

The state secrets privilege is a common-law doctrine that protects sensitive national security information from being released. The Trump administration has argued the need to invoke it in this case to protect diplomatic relationships.

‘He’ll never walk free in the United States’

During the public portion of Friday’s hearing, Xinis pressed the Department of Justice attorneys about Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s comment that Abrego Garcia “will not return” to the U.S.

“That sounds to me like an admission that your client will not take steps to facilitate the return,” Xinis said. “That’s about as clear as it can get.”

DOJ attorney Jonathan D. Guynn disagreed and said the Trump administration is complying with court orders. He said Noem’s comment meant that if Abrego Garcia was back in U.S. custody he would be removed either to another third country or back to El Salvador.

“He’ll never walk free in the United States,” Guynn said.

He added that the Trump administration is “currently complying and we plan to comply.”

Xinis said she disagreed, and then she clashed with Guynn over the legality of Abrego Garcia’s removal.

Guynn said that he was lawfully deported.

Xinis answered that she found months ago that Abrego Garcia was unlawfully detained and removed from the U.S.

Few documents produced

One of the attorneys for Abrego Garcia, Andrew J. Rossman, said the Trump administration has invoked the state secrets privilege for 1,140 documents relating to the case. From that request, Rossman said his team received 168 documents, but 132 were copies of court filings and requests made by him and his team.

Xinis seemed visibly stunned by Rossman’s report and had to clarify that his team had only received 36 new documents, which Rossman confirmed.

Rossman said that none of the documents for which the government is invoking the state secrets privilege are classified.

“There’s ways to do this right, and they haven’t done it,” he said, noting that he has attorneys on his team who have security clearances and can review classified and sensitive information.

Rossman said that he and his team are seeking answers to three questions: the status of Abrego Garcia, what steps the Trump administration has taken, if any, to facilitate his return, and the steps the federal government will take, if any, to comply with court orders.

Guynn said the Trump administration received an update from El Salvador on Thursday that Abrego Garcia was in “good health” and had “even gained weight.”

The U.S. Supreme Court ordered that the Trump administration must “facilitate” the return of Abrego Garcia.

Rossman, said that it’s “deeply disturbing” that administration officials, including the president, have made public statements that contradict court orders directing the government to return Abrego Garcia to the U.S.

President Donald Trump has said he could easily pick up the phone and order El Salvador to return him but won’t because he believes Abrego Garcia is a member of the MS-13 gang.

Noem was pressed at a May 14 congressional hearing about a photo that appears altered to add letters across Abrego Garcia’s knuckles to indicate his inclusion in the gang. She said she was unaware of it.

A federal judge in the District of Columbia, in a separate case regarding Trump’s use of an archaic wartime law for deportations, questioned Department of Justice attorneys on the president’s claim that he could order Abrego Garcia to be returned. The attorney admitted that the president sometimes overstates his influence abroad.

El Salvador prison

Abrego Garcia has had protections from deportation since 2019, but he was one of nearly 300 men on three mid-March removal flights to a notorious prison in El Salvador known as CECOT.

Abrego Garcia has been moved to a lower security prison, according to Maryland Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen, who traveled to the country last month to meet with Abrego Garcia and inquire with Salvadoran officials about why he is being held there.

Those officials said Abrego Garcia was being held because of the agreement between the United States and El Salvador.

The U.S. has a $15 million agreement with El Salvador’s government to house immigrants removed from the U.S., mostly Venezuelans removed under the wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.

The Trump administration has argued that Abrego Garcia is a national of El Salvador and in that country’s custody and the U.S. cannot force another government to return him. 

Hours before Friday’s hearing, dozens of protestors gathered outside the court, calling for Abrego Garcia to be returned to the U.S., as well as criticizing the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown. 

U.S. Rep. Glenn Ivey, who represents the area in Maryland where Abrego Garcia and his family live, appeared outside the court and led chants calling for the release of Abrego Garcia from El Salvador.

“The president has to obey the orders of the Supreme Court,” Ivey said. “The Supreme Court has spoken here, and it’s time for him to follow it and bring him home.”