Championed as one of the most consequential and bipartisan federal housing laws in decades, the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act enacted this month makes significant changes across federal housing policy.

Included in the 139-page law are a host of provisions that will restrict some institutional investors from buying homes, ease rules for manufactured housing and expand assistance for veterans. But some of its most notable provisions give local governments greater flexibility in using federal grants while introducing new financial rewards and penalties tied to housing production. 

This is especially important because states and cities — not the federal government — control most housing choices through zoning and land use regulations. So the law tries a new approach to nudge cities toward more housing.

The law allows certain federal block-grant funding to pay for new affordable housing construction, which previously had been forbidden. And for the first time, it provides incentives and penalties for cities to build faster.

“The federal government is going to give you a whole lot of carrots, a whole lot of support, and just a couple sticks, in order to encourage these communities to start building more housing,” said Ben Harrold, senior manager of public policy at the National Apartment Association.

The measure made it through a divided Congress in part because it “doesn’t actually come with a ton of new money for these programs,” said Andy Winkler, the managing director of housing and infrastructure policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center.  

“There’s not one huge idea that’s going to change the dynamics of the housing market, but there are tons of small bills and provisions and programs that collectively really could have an impact.” 

The most immediate impact of the law could be making existing federal housing dollars easier to use for municipalities. 

Mark Kudlowitz, senior policy director for the Local Initiatives Support Corporation — a national nonprofit that finances affordable housing and other projects in urban and rural communities — said localities can now make decisions on where to spend existing federal dollars to increase supply. They also can start readying their local policies for potential funds from new incentive-laden programs.

“When we make it easier for the jurisdictions to deploy the funding, it’s doing everyone a favor, from the jurisdictions that have to manage these dollars to the federal government and then the developers that are ultimately receiving it,” said Kudlowitz. “It’s just decreasing costs and creating more efficiencies within the process.” 

Although Hartford, Connecticut, Democratic Mayor Arunan Arulampalam wishes the law contained more new funding for programs, he praises a $200 million annual competitive grant program for municipalities that increase housing supply. He also welcomes a pilot grant project to help more municipalities convert vacant and abandoned buildings into housing. 

“The thing that this bill actually does is make existing federal dollars more efficient and maybe more useful,” Arulampalam said. 

The new Innovation Fund will reward communities that demonstrate increases in housing supply with $200 million in annual competitive grants from fiscal 2027 through 2031. The housing increases can come from local governments and tribes reducing parking requirements, revising minimum lot sizes and building height, creating incentives for dense development, changing zoning laws, streamlining regulatory and environmental requirements, or eliminating restrictions on accessory dwelling units. 

“The Innovation Fund for flexible spending, which I think is the core of what the federal government should be doing for communities like Hartford that are actually building housing, it’s an exciting program,” Arulampalam said.

Block grant changes

The new law also makes significant changes to the Community Development Block Grant program that could make it easier to use the money to build affordable housing. The CDBG program helps states, cities and counties finance improvements to housing, but funds also can be used for infrastructure, economic development and other projects that are geared toward low and moderate-income residents. 

The new law now allows some grants to be used for construction. And it will reduce the money given to cities that don’t meet certain construction thresholds.

Under the CDBG State Program, states receive federal money and distribute grants to eligible smaller communities. Jenna Pomponi, director of advocacy and federal programs at the Council of State Community Development Agencies, said cities under 50,000 residents and counties with fewer than 200,000 residents, known as non-entitlement communities, especially rely on state agencies to conduct environmental reviews and administer complicated federal requirements.

“In a lot of small communities, they don’t have the capacity to do all the compliance work that’s required for a government to review, so the state agencies do that for them,” Pomponi said. 

The new law now allows the construction of affordable housing to be eligible for CDBG grants, capped at 20% of the amount allocated to a recipient. Before the law, CDBG funds were used for public facilities and infrastructure, rehabilitation of existing housing, public services and economic development.  Congress provided $3.3 billion for the CDBG program in fiscal year 2026. 

“It streamlines some really outdated requirements that were adding administrative burdens onto administering these grants, so I think essentially it’ll just make the money that we have go further in communities,” Pomponi said. “In the past, folks mostly used CDBG just to repair older homes, but now they can construct new affordable housing.”

Under the law’s Build Now provision, which applies to cities and urban counties receiving CDBG entitlement funding, funding will be based on the rate at which housing has grown. Recipients at or above the median growth rate will receive bonuses, while recipients below the median generally will face a 10% reduction. 

Exemptions apply to municipalities that meet its thresholds for both lower rents and home values, places where rental vacancy rates are above the national average, areas recently impacted by a major disaster or emergency declaration within the previous three years, and those that lack legal authority to update zoning or permitting ordinances. 

“This is the first time to my knowledge that the federal government will condition resources on the actual construction of new homes,” said David Garcia, deputy director of policy at UC Berkeley’s Terner Center for Housing Innovation. “So this goes even a step further from other programs, which provide money to cities and states to just do reforms. This is actually tying money to outcomes.” 

Garcia said that the Build Now provision and changes to CDBG funding will make cities, notably bigger and high-cost cities, motivated to do what’s necessary to get housing production moving and avoid any loss of funding.

Ultimately, zoning can only go so far, as Garcia noted that economic conditions and the price of building could still make construction very costly.

“Cities don’t control interest rates, they don’t control tariffs, they don’t control the labor pool … so there may be instances where you actually have cities working in really good faith to try and get more homes out of the ground, but the broader economic conditions are just not in their favor.” 

Before the law passed, six organizations representing states, counties and local development agencies urged Congress to remove the Build Now provision, warning that tying CDBG dollars to short-term housing growth could make funding less predictable and that the metrics used to gauge growth could be slow and misleading. 

“The idea was to put the squeeze on local governments to play ball, so to speak, as far as, looking at some of their zoning reform or their local housing strategies,” said Jared Grigas, associate legislative director for community, economic and workforce development at the National Association of Counties, which signed the letter.

These funding conditions don’t factor in until fiscal year 2029 and remain in effect through fiscal year 2043.

Grigas said the final version of the law, with the three-year implementation window and exemptions, made the provision more agreeable.

“That gives us three years to get the word out to our folks that, ‘Hey, you might find yourself in this new universe where this might impact your CDBG allocations,’” Grigas said. “And here’s how you can plan ahead.” 

‘Next battle’

Federal funding for U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development staffing was reduced by 24% in fiscal year 2026. And the guidance and implementation of at least 35 new or updated programs and regulations from the new law will be assigned to HUD — including the Innovation Fund and the Build Now provisions, according to the Urban Institute. 

Winkler, from the Bipartisan Policy Center, said the “next battle” in the realization of the ROAD Act is swift implementation of the new law from HUD to the local agencies.

Some are skeptical that HUD — without new funding for staffing — can manage the workload that comes with such an expansive to-do list.

“A lot of this will hinge on HUD’s ability to implement this law,” Pomponi said. “Some of us are concerned because HUD cut back so much of their staff last year when the administration changed over, and now they’re being handed this huge law to implement.”

Arulampalam, the Connecticut mayor, said Hartford will continue pursuing options such as  office conversions and vacant lot development while waiting to see whether Congress funds the law’s new programs.

“We are coming up with as many creative solutions as we can to solving the housing crisis,” he said. “The thing that limits us the most is the dollars we can put into it.”

Stateline reporter Robbie Sequeira can be reached at rsequeira@stateline.org. 

A federal judge in Virginia ruled Thursday that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration did not sufficiently justify restrictions imposed in 2023 on a drug used to terminate early pregnancies, adding another layer of complexity to a string of legal cases with opposing goals that could affect future abortion access.  

The lawsuit was filed in 2023 by abortion providers in Kansas, Montana and Virginia to challenge the restrictions as excessive, unwarranted and inconsistent with other legal requirements. A similar case in Hawaii was already decided in October, with a federal judge also finding that the restrictions were arbitrary.

In Virginia, U.S. District Court Judge Robert Ballou, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, said the FDA failed to conduct an appropriate review of the 2023 restrictions on mifepristone, which include rules that prescribing pharmacies and clinicians must be specially certified and prescribers and patients must sign a form acknowledging the medication’s risks.

“The 2023 REMS modification is unlawful and must be remanded to the FDA for review,” Ballou wrote, using the acronym for the FDA’s Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies protocols.

Amy Hagstrom Miller, president and CEO of lead plaintiff Whole Woman’s Health Alliance, based in Virginia, said in a statement Friday that eliminating those three restrictions would help clinic staff focus on patient needs instead of “excessive paperwork.”

“I have worked in abortion care for over 30 years, and I can attest that these regulations serve no medical purpose, nor do they add value to our patients’ experience of abortion,” Hagstrom Miller said in the statement.

The FDA did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Stateline on Friday.

Ballou did not give a timeline for a review of the restrictions, but the FDA has said it is conducting a broader safety review and has sought to dismiss cases related to mifepristone regulation until it completes that review. Trump administration officials told the Wall Street Journal in June that the review was expected to take about six months, meaning it would conclude after the national midterm elections.

Katie Keith, founding director of the Center for Health Policy and the Law at the Georgetown University Law Center, said the Virginia and Hawaii decisions mean the FDA has been ordered by two courts to reconsider its restrictions and more thoroughly explain why they are necessary.

“They’re going to have to look at everything these various courts are telling them to look at,” Keith said.

But the two rulings come at the same time the administration is receiving pressure from anti-abortion groups to further restrict access to mifepristone, even in states where abortion is legal.

The 2023 rules, which were decided under the Biden administration, also eased restrictions to allow mifepristone to be dispensed without an in-person provider for the first time. That helped expand national access to the medication, which is one of two drugs typically used to end a pregnancy before 10 weeks and to treat miscarriages, and allowed people who live in one of the 13 states with near-total abortion bans to continue to receive it by mail.

That expanded access prompted three other lawsuits from attorneys general in states with abortion bans that are still pending in federal courts. In Louisiana, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is considering whether to strike down the provision allowing telehealth prescriptions, and will hear oral arguments in the case in September.

The 5th Circuit initially granted an emergency request from Louisiana to block telehealth access to the medication, but after drug manufacturers appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, the justices reversed the circuit court ruling. That stay from the high court will remain in place as the case continues.

Two other cases with different implications for the future of mifepristone are ongoing. One is in Missouri, joined by attorneys general from Idaho and Kansas, where they have asked the court to return all of the restrictions to what they were in 2016. The other is in Texas, joined by Florida’s attorney general, asking the federal court to revoke the drug’s approval entirely.

Stateline reporter Kelcie Moseley-Morris can be reached at kmoseley@stateline.org.

The Trump administration has a new plan for teenagers learning about pregnancy: Beginning this summer, it will steer millions of dollars toward organizations that focus on anatomy, fertility tracking, hormonal production and “reproductive goals counseling.”

The plan will also emphasize abstinence from sex and the importance of marriage. 

In doing so, it will pivot away from programs that serve populations in areas with the greatest need and that use particular evidence-based programming to reduce teen pregnancies — and some say the new language puts a greater focus on planning for pregnancy rather than preventing it.

The new grant application terms are consistent with an approach called restorative reproductive medicine that has become popular among conservative groups, including those who identify with Make America Healthy Again initiatives.

The approach discourages the use of any type of contraception and instead focuses on fertility awareness methods, usually in the context of couples trying to get pregnant without medical intervention such as in vitro fertilization or other treatments. That typically means not using any birth control and instead tracking indicators such as cervical mucus, body temperature and other physical symptoms to monitor the menstrual cycle. 

Academic studies have repeatedly shown that abstinence-only approaches result in higher rates of teen pregnancy and births, even after adjusting for other socioeconomic factors.

Congress created the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program in 2010, and has renewed funding for it on a bipartisan basis over the past 16 years, including the 2026 budget bill, despite President Donald Trump’s office targeting the program for defunding. 

During that time, teen birth rates declined by about 72%, according to federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, and much of the drop in the overall national birth rate is because teen birth rates have fallen so sharply. Experts say more comprehensive sex education, better access to contraception for girls and general behavioral trends around sex explain that shift. 

Amy Friedrich-Karnik, director of federal policy at the reproductive rights-focused Guttmacher Institute, said the new language in the teen pregnancy program is similar to the new funding opportunity released for Title X, which is a more than 50-year-old grant program designed to help low-income populations receive reproductive healthcare.

“We do think that fertility awareness-based methods should be explained to patients and they should have the right to understand what those options are,” Friedrich-Karnik said, describing the administration’s approach. “But (patients) need to also be aware of the full options that are available and the pluses and minuses of every option that is out there.”

Body literacy modules

The intent of the program, according to the original law, was for grants to fund “medically accurate and age-appropriate programs that reduce teen pregnancy” and then to continue the programs shown to be most effective through rigorous academic evaluation. According to the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Population Affairs, those programs were developed for children and young adults between the ages of 10 and 24 and the people in their lives who support them.

Most of the grants that were canceled this year were programs implementing the methods proven effective in reducing teen pregnancy, while others were more research based, in which additional strategies are tested and refined. Several of those programs were canceled as well in states such as Louisiana, Texas and Washington.

A separate federal grant program called Sexual Risk Avoidance Education exists for abstinence-only programs, but the evidence-based criteria for Teen Pregnancy Prevention is much higher, said Rachel Fey, vice president of policy at national reproductive rights advocacy organization Power to Decide. She sees the new funding opportunity for teen pregnancy prevention as an extension of the sexual risk avoidance program — one of the pillars of the new description tells grantees to “incorporate sexual risk avoidance education.”

The funding notice requires applicants to pass an “alignment review” with agency priorities that is conducted by political appointees, a new process that the U.S. Office of Management and Budget is trying to implement for federal financial assistance across the government.

Applicants for the new teen pregnancy program are required to teach body literacy, including two distinct modules about anatomy and reproduction for girls and boys. 

Grace Stark, editor-in-chief of a Texas-based nonprofit called Natural Womanhood that promotes fertility awareness and restorative reproductive medicine, told Stateline by email that the new funding opportunity’s focus could be helpful, as it “encourages young people of both sexes to consider their reproductive goals now and in the future, and how their current health and lifestyle choices can impact those future goals.”

The female module must include instruction about the menstrual cycle and the patterns and key indicators of the phases of the cycle, and recognize ovulation as the “central event and primary indicator of hormonal health and fertility.” It must also include the advantages and disadvantages of “ovarian suppression” compared to approaches that address “root causes.” 

Restorative reproductive medicine focuses on identifying underlying conditions that contribute to infertility or other reproductive health-related problems, according to the International Institute of Restorative Reproductive Medicine. It refers to conventional approaches that use treatments that “suppress normal physiology,” such as various forms of birth control, and claims that RRM works with the body to treat problems. 

Republican U.S. Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi introduced a bill in Congress in 2025 that would have directed federal health agencies to promote such training for medical students and professionals through existing funding opportunities in Title X and the HHS Office of Population Affairs. That bill didn’t advance.

Joely Pritzker, who has been a family nurse practitioner for more than 20 years and is the senior director of healthcare for Power to Decide, said the “ovarian suppression” language likely refers to one of the most common ways birth control works, which is to temporarily suppress ovulation. Typically, in medical practice, ovarian suppression refers to lowering the estrogen produced by the ovaries, sometimes to prevent or treat breast cancer.

Pritzker said most people in the reproductive health world would support the idea of teaching young people about their bodies, but said it comes down to how that information is interpreted and applied, and that the new program design is unclear about those intentions. Not wanting to use hormonal birth control is different from discouraging the use of it entirely, she said.

“I genuinely don’t know what (body literacy) means to the folks who wrote these proposals, other than based on everything else we know, there is an assumption that if people knew more about their bodies, they would choose not to use, for example, hormonal birth control,” Pritzker said, adding that the assumption is false.

Stark, of Natural Womanhood, said body literacy can help young people notice signs of reproductive health issues,“which (restorative reproductive medicine)-trained healthcare professionals can help diagnose and treat to improve current health and protect future fertility — and future reproductive health plans.”

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists warns against leaning on restorative reproductive medicine in fertility discussions, saying it can be “ineffective and redundant” and unnecessarily delay a patient in seeking medical treatment when it is presented as the sole or best approach. 

The male health module, according to the federal grant funding notice, includes an emphasis on understanding how testosterone is a hormone that is responsive to sleep, physical activity and environmental factors. Instruction must include the physiology of arousal, and address how “repeated or artificially stimulated arousal may affect neural development and behavior over time,” seemingly referring to masturbation.

Testosterone has been a heavy focus of the Trump administration. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. frequently refers to lower sperm counts among men, including teen males, despite no scientific evidence backing up those claims when it comes to young men. He cites it as a reason for birth rates that have remained flat or lowered slightly every year since 2015, though experts say the lower national birth rate is actually because of the lower teen pregnancy and birth rates. 

U.S. Department of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth also announced last week that military men over the age of 30 would receive annual testosterone level checks, which doctors say could actually be counterproductive to military readiness and could risk infertility. 

The teen pregnancy prevention programs must also include counseling on reproductive goals, and “should affirm marriage and parenthood as meaningful and value components of adult life,” the federal description says.

New recipients could include crisis pregnancy centers 

Ginger Mullaney, CEO of former youth services grantee Healthy Futures of Texas, said its nearly $2 million grant funded 11 programs that served various populations, including young in foster care, and runaway and unhoused youth. The grant was cancelled, which shocked her, she said, because the group had already adapted all of its materials and programs to comply with new executive orders around diversity, equity and inclusion and other administration priorities. The new curriculum had been approved.

“We felt like we had already made all the necessary changes to comply,” Mullaney said.

Earlier this month, Healthy Futures was still deciding whether it would apply for the new round of funding. It’s not an easy task, she said, in part because the government documents no longer include a list of approved programs that qualify for the funding. Mullaney said there used to be a list of more than two dozen programs that the agency approved because they had been academically evaluated for effectiveness, but that list is gone now. However, the instructions still tell applicants they must use an evidence-based program. 

“We don’t know what (programs are) considered evidence based,” Mullaney said.

The new funding opportunity also awards more points to applicants that have never been awarded funds before.

Alison Macklin, director of public affairs at sex ed advocacy group SIECUS, said based on what she has seen at the local level, the new funding opportunity is paving the way for crisis pregnancy centers to apply for and receive federal dollars. 

Crisis pregnancy centers are anti-abortion organizations that typically offer free ultrasounds, pregnancy tests and parenting classes with a religious mission, and most often do not provide or refer for contraception. States Newsroom found earlier this year that the centers have received nearly $500 million in taxpayer dollars from state and federal sources since the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022.

“They’ve been given an inch, so they’re trying to take a mile, is what it seems to me,” Macklin said.

‘Losing trusted relationships’

In mid-May, staff at Children’s Aid said they expected their $936,700 Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program grant to be renewed for another year after meeting with U.S. Health and Human Services and receiving nothing but positive feedback about their program. It was eligible for funding through 2028.

But at the end of June, they received another letter letting them know the grant was canceled, effective immediately.

“It was an overnight shutdown with no transition period for staff, or for young people that were relying on these resources,” said Rhonda Braxton, vice president of health and wellness at Children’s Aid, a 170-year-old organization in New York City.

It was one of 53 grantees that received letters from the federal government agency notifying them that their funding had been terminated without notice. Most were told their programs were now misaligned with federal agency priorities and that they normalized sexual activity for minors. Three affected grantees and SIECUS: Sex Ed for Social Change filed a lawsuit challenging the action on July 14. 

Braxton said the abrupt termination is expected to result in nine people losing their jobs, six of whom worked full time, and will affect the 1,200 young people who were served each year in areas such as the South Bronx, Harlem and Washington Heights. A group of high school-aged peer educators also found themselves suddenly without the summer job they’d planned to have with Children’s Aid.

“These young people are losing trusted relationships in an era of misinformation and distrust,” Braxton said.

She said they’ve made the decision not to apply for the new funding because it seems to be aligned with promoting abstinence-only initiatives, and, “Our experience has been that that’s not evidence-based programming.”

Stateline reporter Kelcie Moseley-Morris can be reached at kmoseley@stateline.org.

Seeking to stop a “flood” of court cases freeing immigrants from mandatory detention, the Trump administration is asking an appeals court to put three immigrants back in detention.

The immigrants were freed by Texas federal judges in February and March in a case that was upheld by an appeals court panel for Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, which found that such immigrants have the right to bond hearings within 90 days of being detained. That decision was reversed by the full 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which will hold a full hearing on the case in September. 

In court papers filed earlier this month, the Trump administration noted the thousands of recent court cases, called habeas petitions, in which judges determined that the mandatory detention policy violates the U.S. constitution. In many cases, those determinations were made even by judges appointed by Trump.

“This flood of habeas petitions has inflicted a devastating toll on U.S. Attorneys’ Offices as well as district courts — draining those Offices’ resources and impeding numerous other significant priorities,” administration attorneys wrote in the filing. The administration asked for a decision by Monday, July 20, that would put the three men back into immigration detention as a precedent for other judges to follow.

Rebecca Cassler, a senior litigation attorney with the American Immigration Council, which represents the three men, told Stateline the men were all pulled over in traffic stops, have no criminal record and have children who are U.S. citizens, and have each lived in the U.S. more than 10 years. They are subject to the Trump administration’s mandatory detention policy because they crossed a border illegally. 

“This is a highly irregular motion to file at this stage of the case, and it would work tremendous hardship on the clients and their families,” Cassler said. 

In immigration detention, the men “experienced rotten food, inadequate medical care, maggot- and fungus-ridden mattresses, and devastating separation from their families,” according to court papers filed Friday by the American Immigration Council. 

Stateline reporter Tim Henderson can be reached at thenderson@stateline.org.

Janesville’s SHINE Technologies this year secured a $263 million DOE loan to build America’s first molybdenum-99 facility after decades of it coming from overseas.

The post A Wisconsin company is using fusion technology to beat supply chain bottlenecks appeared first on WPR.

The 60-year lease will allow C. Reiss, the owner of the coal piles, to store salt at a former power plant site, while the existing coal piles would deplete over time.

The post Brown County leaders sign lease, paving the way for Green Bay coal pile relocation appeared first on WPR.

President Donald Trump has shown the immense power of the executive branch to stymie offshore wind development, as nearly all projects are in waters where federal agencies operate as the landlord.

Now, as the feds block new permits and dangle billion-dollar buyout offers to convince developers to walk away from their projects, state leaders are hoping some companies share their conviction that the industry can be revived after Trump leaves office.

“Any honest assessment of where we need to be to meet our climate goals depends on a thriving offshore wind sector,” said New York state Sen. Andrew Gounardes, a Democrat.

New York and many other East Coast states have set aggressive targets for offshore wind power, both to meet rising energy demands and transition to clean energy sources. But Trump’s attacks on the industry threaten to scare off companies from making the massive long-term investments required to pursue offshore wind projects.

“If there’s no business opportunity here, then they’re not going to stay here and invest here,” Gounardes said. “They’re not going to lay around with good intentions doing nothing, and we’re going to lose out because of that.”

Federal opposition

Last week, Trump’s Department of the Interior announced a $129 million deal with Duke Energy to relinquish its lease to build an offshore wind farm off the coast of North Carolina. The company pledged to reinvest the money into other forms of energy.

Since March, Trump officials have struck four such agreements totaling more than $2.5 billion to get developers to give up on their offshore wind plans. Some analysts say the federal government’s ability to blockade pending projects has caused some companies to reconsider their investments.

“If you have a lease that appears to be going nowhere for at least the next three years, you want to pivot to other options,” said Timothy Fox, managing director at ClearView Energy Partners LLC, an independent research firm. “There’s still a lot of leases out there, but the Trump administration has made this aggressive push, and we think there could be future similar announcements.”

According to Fox, developers hold leases for roughly two dozen other offshore wind areas, agreements that could be targeted for similar buyout deals.

While developers consider buyout offers from the federal government, state leaders say such deals are illegal. Seven states filed a lawsuit earlier this month saying the administration lacks the authority to cancel the leases and pay out funds, focused on a March deal with TotalEnergies to block a project off of New York.

The lawsuit challenges the administration’s use of a federal fund set aside to pay court judgments and settlements of lawsuits against the government. The deal, state attorneys general argue, “is not the result of a compromise settlement between adverse parties, but rather an agreement resulting from [federal officials’] pretextual national security concerns and TotalEnergies’ desire to receive unauthorized compensation for an expensive offshore wind lease.”

The state of California has also announced that it intends to file a lawsuit over another buyout targeting a lease area off the state’s Pacific coast.

Since taking office, Trump has halted permits and leases for other planned offshore wind projects, canceled hundreds of millions in funding to support manufacturing and ports and ended clean energy tax credits. His administration also issued stop-work orders for five offshore wind projects that were already under construction, but courts have overturned those orders and allowed work to resume.

Aside from the five wind farms currently being built, progress on dozens of other pending projects has ground to a halt.

“There’s little to be done if the federal government still controls the permits, leases and pace of development,” said Fox, the researcher.

State goals

The clash comes as many East Coast states have been counting heavily on the maturation of the offshore wind industry to meet their energy needs. Eight Atlantic states have committed to building more than 45 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2040 — enough to power more than 30 million homes. They’ve made major investments in ports, manufacturing facilities, transmission infrastructure and workforce training.

In addition to their climate goals, many states are facing surging energy demands, largely driven by data centers and artificial intelligence.

State leaders say that offshore wind farms can harness massive amounts of electricity, especially during nighttime and winter periods when solar power is in short supply. For heavily populated East Coast states, with limited areas to put sprawling energy projects on land, tapping into strong winds over the ocean has become a major part of their strategy.

“Offshore wind is key to a future that allows us to move off of fossil fuels,” said Maryland state Del. Lorig Charkoudian, a Democrat who has been a strong backer of offshore wind. “Every time the (Trump administration) makes these moves, it reminds me that their numbers show how much offshore (wind) would allow us to retire fossil fuel plants.”

Trump has long opposed offshore wind, falsely asserting that it harms whales, is unreliable and drives up energy costs. While offshore wind generation is intermittent, it has a much higher capacity factor than onshore renewables, meaning that it operates for longer periods at its maximum output level. New offshore wind projects have capacity factors that match some gas and coal-fired power plants, according to the International Energy Agency.

While still more expensive than onshore renewables, offshore wind projects globally produce electricity at a rate cheaper than natural gas and coal plants, according to Energy Solutions Intelligence, a digital consulting platform.

Backers and energy analysts say offshore wind in the U.S. should become cheaper over time as supply chains mature and investments in ports and other infrastructure pay off.

The Department of the Interior did not grant a Stateline interview request about its buyout deals for offshore wind projects, but the agency has claimed in statements that the deals will lower energy prices.

Changing plans

Many state leaders acknowledge that the delays caused by Trump’s opposition will cause them to miss their targets for building new projects over the next 5 to 10 years. But they say the industry is still essential for meeting their long-term climate goals and energy needs.

“I don’t think anyone is at the point of saying no offshore wind ever again,” said Gounardes, the New York lawmaker. “It might not be part of the alchemy in the near future, but it certainly must be part of the alchemy to meet our overall goals.”

For now, state leaders are hoping their ongoing commitments to offshore wind will convince developers to wait out the remainder of Trump’s term and stay in the U.S. market.

“[The buyouts] are a blow to the industry, but it’s not a death knell but there are other projects out there that are still in some stage of development,” said Sam Schacht, project director for offshore wind with the Clean Energy States Alliance, a nonprofit coalition of state energy agencies.

“There’s this bad news story happening about the attempts to erode these future projects, while at the same time there’s a very positive story about the projects that are under construction and producing power now and their ability to capably meet states’ power demands.”

While states play the waiting game with offshore wind, they’re making new plans to meet their energy needs in the near term. Lawmakers in Maryland have invested in battery storage, which Charkoudian described as a “no-regrets” option that can help meet energy needs today while complementing offshore wind once it comes online.

Other states, including New York and New Jersey, have looked at increasing subsidies for nuclear power.

“I wouldn’t say that they’re giving up on offshore wind, but states are pivoting to other carbon-free resources that  are favored by this administration, namely nuclear power,” said Fox, the energy researcher.

Stateline reporter Alex Brown can be reached at abrown@stateline.org.

Democrats are seizing the mantle of states’ rights to oppose the agenda of President Donald Trump, who has sought to reset Washington’s relationship with the states. 

While the party out of federal power has always pushed its agenda in statehouses, Democrats across the country have recently demanded more autonomy for governors and state lawmakers. Liberals, longtime proponents of a stronger central government, are now championing an ideology that evokes odious memories of slavery and segregation.  

Many state leaders hope that a renewed focus on federalism could help lower the national political temperature. By shifting more political decisions to the states, they envision a nation less subject to blue-red swings that change the entire course of federal law enforcement, environmental policy and business regulation. 

“Otherwise we just end up fighting every four years over red king-blue king,” said Utah state Rep. Ken Ivory, a Republican. “And our entire nation goes entirely one way, and then 180 degrees the other way.”

Ivory said the pendulum swinging is “ripping our nation apart” politically and costing untold dollars as national policy reverses depending on who is in power. He leads Utah’s Federalism Commission, a bipartisan legislative group assessing state-federal boundaries and working to educate leaders across the country on federalism issues. 

While he’s been pushing for a smaller federal government and heightened role for the states for years, he said the fiery policy debates in Trump’s second term have given the effort unprecedented momentum. 

Last June, California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom said the White House had violated his state’s sovereignty in deploying the National Guard to Los Angeles without the governor’s consent. In a lawsuit the state ultimately won, California cited arguments made by founding father James Madison in the Federalist Papers calling for ratification of the Constitution more than 200 years ago. 

And this winter in Minnesota, Democrats pushed for more state oversight of the federal government after immigration officers killed Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis. 

“This is a matter of states’ rights,” said Democratic state Senate leader Erin Murphy. “And while we can’t impact — except for next November – the makeup of Congress, we can impact and bring relief for the people of Minnesota.”

Many of the most high-profile conversations surrounding states rights’ have proven predictably partisan. Yet Democrats and Republicans behind the scenes have been quietly building momentum for a rebalancing of state-federal authority.  

Conservative state lawmakers who have long pushed for a smaller federal government are welcoming liberal counterparts to a growing movement underscoring the importance of federalism, the uniquely American system created by the framers of the Constitution to share power between Washington, D.C., and the states.

As the United States celebrates its 250th anniversary, Stateline is exploring how the Trump era is transforming the relationship between the states and the federal government. This article is the third in an occasional series examining the fraught moment and what evolving — and often deteriorating — state-federal ties mean for the country, now and in the future.

In Utah, the Republican House speaker called Rep. Ivory several days after Trump’s 2024 election, noting that even California’s liberal governor was talking about federalism.

“He says, ‘We have the opportunity of our lifetime. … We need to get out and work with other states, get them together,’” Ivory recalled. 

“I said, Mr. Speaker, I agree with you. But if Gavin Newsom does something that we believe is state jurisdiction, even if we don’t like the policy, we’ve got to stand with him. And he said, ‘I know,’ and that had never happened before.”

‘An inflection point’

The debate over how much power states should wield is as old as the nation itself: Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, the forebears of our two-party system, famously argued for larger and smaller federal roles, respectively. 

In Trump’s second term, Democrats have leaned on federalism principles as a means of checking federal power, said Troy Smith, a professor of constitutional federalism and director of the Constitutional Federalism Initiative at Utah Valley University in Orem. 

The American federalist system is always evolving as states and the federal government tussle over authority and the two parties come in and out of national power. Smith said state governments, namely governors, have grown increasingly partisan since the 1990s. But that may be changing as Republicans and Democrats embrace states’ rights.

“I think we’re in an inflection point now that looks like it has the potential to go in that direction as the states start recognizing they have many things in common that transcends party and cooperation could be to their benefit,” Smith said.

Federalism scholars took note of December’s inaugural meeting of the Assembly of State Legislative Leaders, a bipartisan gathering of lawmakers from 30 states. Though not highly publicized, that group signed off on a 449-word declaration on the importance of states’ ability to legislate independently. 

“I think that’s pretty unique and telling in this moment that Republican and Democratic leaders came together and unanimously approved that resolution,” Smith said. 

The group of lawmakers has yet to publicize any more meetings and its leader, Ohio’s Republican House Speaker Matt Huffman, declined an interview request.

But New Hampshire House Speaker Sherman Packard, who attended that gathering, said it was clear that concerns over the size and scope of the federal government transcend parties.

“It’s strictly a bipartisan issue,” said Packard, a Republican. “It isn’t an issue that’s dominated by one blue state or one red state. It’s an issue that I think almost every state legislature is dealing with, and red or blue, it’s worth telling the federal government, ‘enough is enough.’”

Tennessee Democratic state Rep. Karen Camper, though, is skeptical that the states will mark meaningful progress during Trump’s term. 

“Bipartisan has become a nasty word for this president,” she said. “So it’s going to have to be after he’s gone, because he will kill it. That’s what I’ve seen from this president.”

Camper, the Tennessee state House minority leader, pointed to May’s special legislative session in which the GOP pushed through a controversial congressional redistricting plan. It splits the state’s only majority-Black congressional district in Memphis across three districts, diluting that area’s vote as Republicans attempt to flip the state’s only Democratic-held district. 

“Look at what just happened in our state,” Camper said, highlighting Trump’s push for redistricting. “That was a chance for our Republican supermajority to say, ‘We’re not going down this road.’” 

Camper is also the chair of the Black Legislative Leaders Network, a national group of Black lawmakers who lead state chambers, caucuses and committees. She said she worries that too much focus on state autonomy could jeopardize important freedoms that were won at the federal level, including civil rights and voting rights.

“So we’re going to be fighting, refighting some of the same stuff, some of the same things that we fought for,” she said. “…We should be protected by these rights, regardless of where we go in this country, but in states’ rights, there’s a chance that you won’t.”

A complicated history

The debate over states’ rights is inextricably tied to race, equality and segregation. 

And some Southerners continue to argue that conflicts over states’ rights — rather than slavery — drove secession ahead of the Civil War. Historians, though, note the only significant right under debate at that time was the right to enslave people.

In the Jim Crow era, Southern states continued the siren call of states’ rights as they defended racial segregation and fought civil rights movements.

While the concept can still evoke those deeply divisive times, liberals in recent years have found political value in embracing states’ rights, said Paul Nolette, professor and director of the Les Aspin Center for Government at Marquette University and co-editor of a national academic journal on federalism. 

That’s particularly true of Democratic attorneys general, who have been aggressively challenging the White House in the past year with scores of lawsuits over its immigration enforcement efforts, environmental policies and the withholding of federal funds from states.

“If states were just this weak link, then they would be able to do nothing,” Nolette said. “You know, it would just be the federal government getting whatever it wants. But in fact, the states have a lot of tools themselves to push back on the federal government.”

Though the federal government has grown in scope over the decades, Nolette noted, state bureaucracies have also expanded influence. Many federal programs, including the national food stamp program and safety net health insurance, are administered by state governments.

“So the nature of federal policy over the last few decades has actually given states additional powers to have a say in national policy,” he said. 

Nick Brown, Washington state’s Democratic attorney general, acknowledged his view of states’ rights has evolved over the years. 

Like many others, the phrase to him frequently evoked the Southerners who championed states’ rights in their efforts to oppose racial integration. The state’s first Black attorney general, Brown previously spent years working in the U.S. Department of Justice, a federal agency he admired for its role in pursuing civil rights cases. 

But he said the Trump era demands a different role for states as the president continues to flout congressional appropriations and punish political opponents.   

“I think certainly we have to look differently at what states’ authorities are in this moment,” he said. 

Brown said a heightened focus on states is welcome after years of outsized attention on national politics. That’s because the issues most important to most people — taxes, schools and public safety — are most affected by local policy decisions, he said. 

Changing the structure 

In Utah, state officials are looking to lead a national movement to bring more authority back to the states. 

While fears over the Trump administration’s overreach have fueled Democratic interest, Ivory, the Republican representative leading that effort, said the initiative is more focused on governmental structure than politics. 

Ivory likened the current federal-state dynamic to a bicycle with a bloated front tire threatening to bust and a back tire so flat it’s about to chew the rubber off the rim.

“Well, the answer is not to get a different rider or a stronger rider or to steer the bike to the left or to the right. It’s to fix the balance in the tires,” he said. “Our structure, our vehicle of government was two spheres with very specific balance, and we haven’t been paying attention to that for a long time.”

This discussion comes naturally in Western states that have for generations feuded with Washington over the proper use and ownership of federal lands. Over 90% of federal lands are located in the West, according to the Congressional Western Caucus, with the federal government owning 1 of every 2 acres. 

Utah’s commission aims at connecting state lawmakers and agency staff from across the country to better adjudicate federal and state jurisdiction on everything from land management to law enforcement. Ivory said the group would also like to help fill the void left after the 1996 disbandment of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, an entity that put state and local governments in direct contact with federal agencies. 

Utah Democratic state Rep. Jennifer Dailey-Provost acknowledged her initial skepticism of the GOP’s federalism push there because of its historic ties to slavery and segregation.

“I’m pretty liberal,” she said. “Federalism is something that was always viewed, I think for not unjustified reasons, as something that was hostile to equality and equitable outcomes and fairness.”

But after a 90-minute conversation with her Republican colleague, she began to see the value — especially now — of pushing for an expanded role for states. Now a member of the state’s federalism commission, she said she envisions a better structure where states stand together, regardless of party affiliation, to counterbalance the federal government.

“States are oftentimes too wrapped up in whether we’re blue states or red states to really have each other’s back,” she said. “And it’s been hard, politically, to convince a red state like Utah to vocally say blue-state California wants to do things its way, we have to have their back and say that they have the right to do things that way, even if it’s not how we would do things.”

As a member of the political minority in Utah, she acknowledged how difficult that can be. Utah’s Republican party holds all statewide offices and enjoys supermajorities in both legislative chambers. And Dailey-Provost said the state’s LGBTQ+ population has been subjected to “constant attacks” from the GOP there. 

Still, she said, she would rather have that debate locally than rely on the federal government to protect those residents. 

“So, I don’t like the current policy outcomes, but I see more opportunity to continue to work with communities and try to fix it over time here at the state level,” Dailey-Provost said. “… At least I feel like there’s a path forward at the local level.”

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org. States Newsroom reporter Jonathan Shorman can be reached at jshorman@statesnewsroom.com.

WASHINGTON — Republicans celebrated last year when they barred Medicaid payments from going to Planned Parenthood for one year, predicting the financial impact would hollow out the organization. 

A year later, with that section of the “big, beautiful” law set to expire July 4, GOP lawmakers are trying to find a way to keep the nationwide prohibition in place, though they won’t be able to accomplish that before the deadline. 

That means states will now determine whether people enrolled in the program for lower-income individuals can, once again, get routine healthcare services from the Planned Parenthood clinics that remain open.  

Nora Walsh-DeVries, vice president of political and legislative affairs at Planned Parenthood Action Fund, said the law forced the organization to close nearly 30 of its healthcare centers.

“The impact is really horrible for us and some of it is unfortunately irreversible,” she said. “And it’s tough to try to deal with what’s happened in this past year, kind of also knowing that there is an intention from Republicans to permanently defund us.”

Some Planned Parenthood clinics, she said, tried to find ways to keep treating Medicaid enrollees, but ultimately that was “unsustainable” and not something every affiliate could manage. 

The result meant “tens of thousands of patients have been denied access to basic care services like cancer screenings, which I think we can all agree is something we should want people to get when they need it, where they need it, how they need it,” Walsh-DeVries said. 

The impact was ultimately less widespread than Planned Parenthood originally predicted, when its president said in a statement just days before the law took effect that “nearly 200 Planned Parenthood health centers in 24 states across the country are at risk of closure.”

The expiration won’t have an impact on abortion access for Medicaid enrollees, since a decades-old rider on government spending bills, which blocks taxpayer dollars from going to abortion with limited exceptions, remains in place. 

Republicans view the closures as a victory and are trying to renew the provision in an attempt to shutter more Planned Parenthood clinics. They believe any healthcare organization that provides abortions, even if those largely aren’t covered by taxpayer dollars, shouldn’t be included in any federal health programs. 

Pressure from conservatives

The House Freedom Caucus, a collection of far-right Republicans, wrote to Speaker Mike Johnson in late June, pressing him to include a similar prohibition in another party-line bill. 

“The American people rightfully expect a Republican-led Congress to deliver real results, not excuses or half-measures,” they wrote. “After years of broken promises, voters have entrusted us with majorities in both the House and Senate. This is our last and best chance to prove they were right to send us here to fight for them.”

They added that another reconciliation bill must prohibit “federal funding for abortion providers to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not being used to subsidize the radical abortion industry.”

Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser and other anti-abortion organizations are lobbying Republicans to again block Medicaid funding from going to Planned Parenthood.

“Defunding Big Abortion is now the default expectation of the pro-life movement,” Dannenfelser wrote in a statement. “When they return to D.C., Republicans must do all they can through reconciliation to once again block taxpayer dollars from Planned Parenthood and abortion businesses.”

Republicans used the complex budget reconciliation process to enact their “big, beautiful” law and the $70 billion package to fund immigration enforcement. The special process allowed GOP leaders to get around procedural votes in the Senate that would otherwise require bipartisanship as long as each provision has an impact on federal revenues or spending that is not deemed “merely incidental” by that chamber’s parliamentarian.

Strained system

Subasri Narasimhan, research director at the Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy at UCLA Law School, said there often aren’t other health centers to cover the gaps left when a Planned Parenthood closes or is no longer reimbursed for treating a Medicaid enrollee. 

“We have a pretty strained healthcare system in so many different respects, but we’re looking at an extremely strained system when it comes to reproductive healthcare,” Narasimhan said. 

Some state governments, she said, tried to cover the budget holes created during the last year, though ultimately weren’t able to fully replace the loss of federal funding. 

Republicans reinstituting the same prohibition on Medicaid payments for non-abortion healthcare services, she said, would likely lead more people on the program to delay or skip preventative care altogether. 

“We’re looking at folks who are quite vulnerable and often use Planned Parenthood as their primary source of care,” she said. “And so there’s no option to look for another health center.”

Kathleen Adams, professor in the Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University, said that if a program can vary state to state, it will, and this was no exception. 

“What I’m seeing is the states are finding emergency funds, other ways to channel funds to Planned Parenthood to sort of keep that part of their system active,” she said. 

There are also other programs and clinics, like federally qualified health centers and safety-net providers, that Adams said could play a part in filling some of the gaps.

“I don’t lose heart so much as we might otherwise about these provisions to Planned Parenthood because states are aware of these issues,” she said. “And if they don’t provide access to contraceptives, they’re more likely to get unintended pregnancies, or pregnancies amongst uninsured women.”

State action

Laurie Sobel, associate director for Women’s Health Policy at KFF, wrote in a post that after the nationwide moratorium expires, a Supreme Court ruling from late June 2025 will allow state governments to block certain healthcare providers, like Planned Parenthood, from participating in their Medicaid programs. 

“This ruling marked a significant departure from longstanding interpretations of the Medicaid ‘free choice of provider’ provision, which guarantees enrollees the right to obtain care from any qualified and willing Medicaid provider,” Sobel wrote.

Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas have either blocked or tried to block Medicaid reimbursements to Planned Parenthood, according to Sobel’s analysis.

Other states, she wrote, “may follow suit” once the nationwide Medicaid prohibition expires July 4.

Several laws restricting access to medications that can be used to terminate a pregnancy and others placing limits on minors’ access to sexual and reproductive healthcare — including the HPV vaccine — take effect Wednesday, July 1, in Iowa, Mississippi and Tennessee.

Many bills were considered in state legislatures earlier this year that would have added legal restrictions to mifepristone and misoprostol, but only a few made it into law. The 13 states that have near-total abortion bans already have restrictions in place, but some have proposed more in the wake of new methods of obtaining the medications online or by telehealth.

A federal lawsuit is also ongoing that will determine whether the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s rules allowing mifepristone to be dispensed via telehealth will remain in place. That ruling will apply nationwide.

Gov. Kim Reynolds signs laws restricting access to abortion pills, HPV vaccine

Kimya Forouzan, principal state policy adviser at the Guttmacher Institute, said the increased efforts to restrict access underscore the importance of shield laws in states that protect abortion access. 

In Hawaii, provisions strengthening the state’s existing shield laws also take effect today. Those provisions include prohibiting the use or disclosure of patient health information to investigate someone who received reproductive or gender-affirming care and adding malpractice insurance and healthcare contract protections for providers in the state to prevent exorbitant rate increases, Forouzan said.

Iowa

Iowa’s new law requires medications including mifepristone and misoprostol to be dispensed in person, restricting access by telehealth. Mifepristone and misoprostol are typically used in combination to terminate a pregnancy in the first trimester or to treat miscarriages. Iowa has a six-week abortion ban, which is before many people know they are pregnant.

The law also made changes to abortion and pregnancy loss reporting, requiring a provider to report to the state whether a patient took mifepristone or misoprostol within 14 days of a pregnancy loss. It does not require the patient to tell the provider that information, nor does it compel the provider to ask, said Forouzan, but it might come up when a patient is asking questions or raising concerns.

“The reporting requirement is something that really has raised alarm bells for us because we know that mandatory state reporting of abortion has a potential to cause a lot of harm and increase the feelings of surveillance that patients experience,” Forouzan said.

Lawmakers also adopted a law prohibiting Iowans under age 18 from consenting to vaccinations related to sexually transmitted diseases and infections. Iowa Capital Dispatch reported that Republican lawmakers said the bill aligned with other state laws on vaccines — the HPV and hepatitis B vaccines were previously exempt. Science has shown the HPV vaccine prevents several strains of human papillomavirus that can be transmitted through sexual activity and potentially cause cervical and other cancers. 

Mississippi

Mississippi passed a law in April adding mifepristone and misoprostol to the state’s drug trafficking law, making it a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison to distribute or intend to distribute the drugs. It takes effect today.

Republican lawmakers in Mississippi have said the intent of the bill is to keep mifepristone and misoprostol from being sent to residents and undermining the state’s abortion ban, but providers say it creates more harm, especially for patients experiencing miscarriages.

Dr. Bhavik Kumar, a family medicine physician in Texas, told Stateline in March that the law causes confusion and prevents patients from seeking timely care and providers from administering care out of fear.

“Healthcare providers are suddenly having to think about laws and rules that have nothing to do with patient safety,” Kumar said.

Tennessee

Tennessee added new restrictions to medication abortion that allow the state attorney general to bring civil lawsuits and impose fines for violations of the state’s in-person dispensing requirements for medication abortion. 

Tennessee has a near-total abortion ban, but some states have tried to enforce these laws against providers for prescribing medications to their residents, such as Louisiana, where the attorney general tried unsuccessfully to extradite a provider on charges.

The law allows for $10,000 fines per violation, up to $1 million.

Stateline reporter Kelcie Moseley-Morris can be reached at kmoseley@stateline.org.

Dozens of public housing authorities, tribes, property owners and community groups have joined a new coalition organized by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to promote work requirements and time limits for people who receive federal housing help.

HUD is currently finalizing a rule that would allow public housing authorities and property owners who participate in federal housing voucher programs to impose work requirements and time limits on work-ready adults, or working-age adults (younger than 62) who are not disabled.

The federal agency says members of the coalition support the idea of giving housing authorities and providers discretion to require work of up to 40 hours per week for nonelderly, nondisabled adults, supplementing those rules with job training and other supportive services.

HUD argues that current housing policies discourage work and self-sufficiency, and extend the amount of time that people remain on housing assistance. In a social media post, Public and Indian Housing Assistant Secretary Ben Hobbs said the new requirements could generate over $500 million in new resident income.

In 2023, 31% of the people receiving federal housing assistance were nonelderly, nondisabled adults. Of that group, 44% were working and 56% were not, according to a 2025 report by the Congressional Research Service.

More than a hundred public housing authorities, tribes, property owners and community groups have joined the Work & Dignity Coalition, according to HUD. The National Housing Law Project, a nonprofit that advocates for more low-income housing, produced a list of 58 entities, including the public housing authorities in Fort Worth, Jacksonville, Orlando, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Tampa.

Less than 1% of public housing authorities, known as Moving-to-Work agencies, are currently allowed to impose time limits or work requirements on people receiving housing assistance. HUD cites Champaign County, Illinois — which requires each able-bodied adult to work or be in school for at least 15 hours per week, and each household to generate 30 hours of work income at the minimum wage.

“I think that the important thing to note is that this is all about self-sufficiency, even if there might be some fear over what is required and how that would affect their housing,” said Peyton Pannell-Johnson, a spokesperson for the Housing Authority of Champaign County. “There is a team that needs to connect people to work, and then a team that follows up with each client.”

But housing advocates argue that the proposed requirements will make it more difficult for people to keep their housing assistance. The Congressional Research Service also warned in its 2025 report that imposing work requirements on federal aid recipients often trips up people who are working already.

“Work requirements can increase the burden for working recipients to prove that they remain eligible for benefits by requiring that they produce additional or more frequent information about their wages and hours,” the research agency stated. “There is an inherent tension between helping families meet their basic needs and promoting work in low-income assistance programs.”

Stateline reporter Robbie Sequeira can be reached at rsequeira@stateline.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unfortunately, federal policy is moving in the opposite direction.

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

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

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

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

Wisconsin also faces another challenge.

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

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

The question is simple: Who pays?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gilberto Pacheco was driving to work for a construction job in California when he was pulled over in what court papers called a “traffic stop” in January. He was not accused of any crime, not even a traffic infraction, but he was imprisoned without bond for months because he arrived illegally in the United States more than 30 years ago from Mexico.

Cases like that of Pacheco, who has applied for legal status through three U.S. citizen children, are what the Supreme Court has to consider when it rules next year on the Trump administration’s mandatory detention policy. 

Justices are expected to hear the case as soon as October after the U.S. solicitor general requested the court to resolve conflicting rulings on the matter from appeals courts. 

The Trump administration’s policy requires detention without bond for anyone who crossed a border illegally, and has been used to pressure immigrants into voluntary departure to escape sometimes squalid conditions.

For now, plenty of U.S. district judges are questioning the idea that immigrants should be incarcerated indefinitely at the whim of the executive branch. 

Stateline reviewed every immigrant habeas petition case decided in a single day — June 16 — across the country, in order to sample judicial opinion. A habeas case is a request from an immigration prisoner for a judge to review the legality of his imprisonment and order a bond hearing or release. 

Of the cases that were decided that day, judges released detainees immediately or ordered bond hearings 142 times, and denied them only 36 times. Many of the judges, even Republican appointees, argued that unlimited detention was unconstitutional.

One of those judges was U.S. District Judge Keith Ellison, who heard Pacheco’s case.

After being picked up in California, Pacheco was held in Houston, and filed a habeas case in Texas.  Ellison ruled that it was a violation of Pacheco’s civil rights to detain him for months. He ordered Pacheco to be freed immediately.

“Given the severity of this ongoing unconstitutional deprivation of liberty, the Court concludes that immediate release from custody is required,” Ellison wrote. 

He wrote that he recognized that the Trump policy applied to Pacheco, and that it was upheld by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which governs Texas, but said that he was releasing the man anyway. 

“The Due Process clause does not permit the government to ‘detain any noncitizen, no matter how long they have actually lived in the United States, for any length of time, without any individualized justification [merely because] that person initially entered the country without lawful admission,’” Ellison wrote, partially quoting a 2003 Supreme Court ruling. 

Ellison is a Democratic appointee from the Bill Clinton administration, but judges from both parties, including Trump nominees, ordered bond hearings for immigrants and found the Trump policy unconstitutional. They included judges in states where appeals courts had already upheld the policy. 

Many judges are going beyond bond hearings and ordering release directly, as Ellison did. In some situations the judges are holding the legal cases open to make sure releases are made or bond hearings are fair. 

Few immigrants get bond hearings because of the policy, making court challenges their only recourse, said Xin Tian, an attorney representing an immigrant who was released June 16 in a California case. His client’s case was among those reviewed by Stateline.

“The individual’s only recourse for release is to seek a writ of habeas corpus,” Tian wrote in an email to Stateline. “Fortunately, federal judges uphold the Constitution and will grant such a writ, leading to direct release. Aside from this, there are virtually no other ways to obtain release.”

A Trump appointee in Texas, U.S. District Judge Jason K. Pulliam, ordered five releases in one day, calling the detentions “unlawful” and ordering immediate release during court proceedings. In each case, he wrote that the detainee “has no known criminal history, had been complying with the terms of a prior release, and there is no indication of flight risk or danger to the community.”  

He acknowledged in court papers that he made the rulings despite the fact that an appeals court ruling for the Fifth Circuit — affecting Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi — had concluded mandatory detention was legal in those cases.

A President Joe Biden appointee in Utah, U.S. District Judge Ann Marie McIff Allen, was one of the rare judges to agree with the Trump administration’s policy, according to Stateline’s review. 

McIff Allen denied a petition for a bond hearing by a man from Venezuela who had arrived in Texas in 2024 to seek asylum. He had scheduled an appointment with U.S. Customs and Border Protection through an official mobile app, then settled in Florida. 

His immigration case was still pending when the Trump administration revoked his parole and arrested him in May. The man was “not entitled to immediate release or a bond hearing,” McIff Allen ruled, acknowledging that “some district courts have determined the issue differently.” 

The detention was legal under a Trump administration policy that interprets immigration law to mean all immigrants who arrived illegally can be treated as if they’re at the border “seeking admission” to the country. 

Stateline found only seven cases where judges favorably cited the administration’s policy of mandatory detention when denying a habeas case. Besides the ruling from a Biden appointee in Utah, there were six involving Trump judicial appointees: four in New York and one each in Puerto Rico and Texas. 

U.S. District Judge Raúl M. Arias-Marxuach, a Trump appointee, denied release to Marcelo Jerez, a Dominican Republic native living in Puerto Rico with a U.S. citizen wife and sick 1-year-old child who required his help with monitoring and care.  

“The crux of this case has been the subject of myriad lawsuits throughout the nation and dutiful judges have reached divergent answers,” Arias-Marxuach wrote. 

But relatively few judges in the Stateline review considered the mandatory detention policy valid: Four of the other six cases for the day that did so, other than the Utah case, were denied by a single judge, Trump appointee Judge John L. Sinatra in New York’s Western District court.

Sinatra wrote in one of the cases, for a Venezuelan man who had been allowed into the country in 2024 on parole, that such people should be treated as if they were still at the border “seeking admission,” and face mandatory detention, and should not get the constitutional rights of someone already in the United States with legal status.

“How could it be otherwise? If he were not seeking admission he would have given up and departed already,” Sinatra wrote in his decision. 

David Wilson, a Minnesota immigration attorney who serves on an immigration court committee for the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said that criminal records among immigration detainees are a bone of contention among judges. There’s widespread disagreement over whether they should be detained indefinitely without bond, he said, even if a U.S. citizen in the same circumstance would be freed on bond in a criminal court. 

“This kind of lingering question is, how long is too long for people with criminal records? Some circuits have come along and said, ‘There is not too long because your criminal activity is what it is, you’re just stuck, if you want to end this stop fighting your case,’” Wilson said. 

Stateline reporter Tim Henderson can be reached at thenderson@stateline.org.

Superior Community Coalition questions the city’s estimate of the utility’s value, arguing the true cost of acquisition could be far higher.

The post Group says Superior’s water utility purchase would burden future generations with debt appeared first on WPR.

Despite regional variability in climate, electricity sources, congestion, and the wide variation in individual driving patterns, electric vehicles generate less greenhouse gas emissions and do not cost more than comparable gas-powered vehicles for drivers and vehicle fleet owners in most parts of the United States, according to a new study by MIT researchers.

The team’s approach captures many key factors that contribute to regional and individual differences in the life-cycle emissions and ownership cost of electric vehicles, including meteorological data, the distance and duration of trips, and fuel prices.

To paint a fuller picture of emissions and costs than was previously available, the researchers sourced data from thousands of U.S. zip codes and drilled down to the level of individual drivers within those locations. Their study considers time-averaged fuel prices so as not to be overly influenced by fluctuations in prices at any one point in time. They finalized their analysis at the end of 2024 and early 2025.

Their results indicate that a person’s driving behaviors can matter as much as regional factors like the local electricity mix when it comes to the emissions savings of an electric vehicle, compared to a similar gas-powered vehicle. In most locations, a battery-electric vehicle reduces emissions between 40 and 60 percent, with larger impacts in urban areas. 

They also found that colder climates do not reduce overall emission benefits as much as some media reports assume.

The researchers utilized this detailed analysis to update a public tool they previously developed, carboncounter.com, which enables individuals to compare the life-cycle emissions and total ownership costs of nearly any car on the market. A new version of carboncounter.com is also being released today.

“There are a lot of statements being thrown around, like that electric vehicles don’t reduce emissions very much in cool climates, and we wanted to analyze these factors systematically and evaluate these statements against one another simultaneously. Rather than simply asking, ‘Are EVs better?’, this paper helps answer ‘better for whom, and under what conditions?’” says Marco Miotti PhD ’20, a senior researcher at ETH Zurich who completed this research while a graduate student in the Institute for Data, Systems, and Society (IDSS) at MIT. 

He is joined on the paper by senior author Jessika Trancik, a professor in IDSS. The research appears today in Environmental Research Letters.

A holistic approach

Many prior studies that compare emissions and costs of electric vehicles (EVs) to combustion-engine vehicles cover a few factors, like the amount of renewable energy in the grid and how gas prices impact affordability, Miotti says.

“To our knowledge, there have been few efforts so far that bring all these factors together. But if someone wants to buy a car and have a better understanding of the factors that affect emissions and costs, this holistic approach is important,” he adds.

The researchers focused on two types of EVs: battery-electric vehicles, which only operate on electricity, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, which also have a combustion engine that works in tandem with the battery to optimize fuel savings.

The team expanded and improved a set of previously developed vehicle cost and emissions models to incorporate a wider variety of factors and data types.

For instance, they refined an existing model that estimates energy use and gas mileage so it could capture more nuances of local climate variability. 

“But the real effort was not just in extending these different models, but in bringing together all these different data and making them work with the models in a consistent manner,” Miotti says.

The team sourced data on a wide variety of factors for each U.S. zip code, such as typical drive cycles, the amount of traffic, local gas and electricity prices, makeup of the regional electricity mix, meteorological profiles, and more. They used statistical approaches to amalgamate different types of data. 

For example, the team used a probabilistic matching technique to combine data on how often people drive, which was drawn from nationwide travel surveys, with more detailed GPS data that includes factors like drivers’ acceleration patterns and the distance they usually drive on each day of the week.

The researchers designed their analysis to focus on the spatial picture of emissions and costs, based on U.S. zip codes, while simultaneously considering the impact of the size and features of each specific vehicle model.

“At the end of the day, it’s the vehicle and fleet owners who make decisions about vehicle purchases. So, we wanted to make sure to consider their wide-ranging individual perspectives rather than simply performing a region-by-region comparison,” says Trancik.

Lower emissions, comparable costs

In the end, their modeling framework revealed that all factors they analyzed matter about equally in determining emissions-reduction potential of EVs compared to internal combustion vehicles. 

EVs reduce emissions the most in areas with a cleaner electricity mix, denser traffic, higher annual travel distances, and a mild climate, in decreasing order of importance. In each area, emission reductions increase for drivers who drive more often, drive larger vehicles, and are more frequently stuck in traffic. 

In a colder area like North Dakota, fuel economy of battery-electric vehicles might be reduced by as much as 50 percent on a particularly frigid night, but the effect on annual emission benefits is minimal. 

“We even did a sensitivity study to see if the range is reduced in very cold climates, and we found that, even in the most unfavorable conditions, EVs still reduce emissions by a substantial amount,” Miotti says.

On the cost side, the models show that, in most places across the U.S., EVs are competitive with comparable combustion-engine vehicles in terms of lifetime ownership cost, even without clean vehicle tax credits. And in areas where electricity is relatively affordable, battery-electric vehicles tend to cost less than their plug-in hybrid or combustion-engine counterparts.

In the future, the researchers want to expand this analysis to include a temporal dimension, so the framework also considers how changes in vehicle, fuel, and electricity prices affect emissions and costs over time. 

“While we found that the electricity mix is a big driver of the spatial variation in emissions savings of EVs, the electricity grid is decarbonizing everywhere. As that happens, emissions savings across space will become more homogenous for EVs, but the differences across one driver to another will remain,” Miotti says.

They could also use the framework to explore regions outside the United States or incorporate data on hybrid-electric vehicles that cannot be plugged in.

This work was funded, in part, by the MIT Martin Family Society of Fellows for Sustainability.

© Credit: iStock

The post PSC’s Preliminary Decision: Data Centers Will Cover Their Costs appeared first on RENEW Wisconsin.

---

Authors & Organizational Affiliation

Section 1 — Common Ground

• Emmanuelle Mikosz — Director General, Forum for the Future of Agriculture (EU)
• Tyler McCann — Managing Director, Canadian Agri-Policy Institute (Canada)
• Katie McRobert — Executive Director, Australian Farm Institute (Australia)
• Shari Rogge-Fidler — President & CEO, Farm Foundation (United States)

---

Section 2 — Deep Dives

• Michael Robertson, Andy Hall, Rohan Nelson — Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO – Australia)
• Gail Tavill — Chief Sustainability Officer, OSI Group (United States)
• Dr. Tassos Haniotis — Special Advisor for Sustainable Productivity, Forum for the Future of Agriculture (EU); Senior Guest Research Scholar, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)
• Vivian Hoffmann — Senior Research Fellow, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI); Associate Professor, Carleton University, Department of Economics and School of Public Policy and Administration

---

Section 3 — What We Learned

• GFFPI Leadership Team, and
• Dr. Sunghun Lim — Agricultural Economics Fellow, Farm Foundation

---

About GFFPI 

The Global Forum on Farm Policy and Innovation (GFFPI) is a collaborative platform formed by four leading independent agricultural institutes from Australia, Canada, the European Union, and the United States. The partnership uses evidence-based insights and emerging research to fuel dialogue, unlock new thinking, and identify opportunities to advance sustainable agriculture globally. 

Founding organizations: 

• Australian Farm Institute 

• Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute 

• Farm Foundation 

• Forum for the Future of Agriculture 

The post Finding Common Ground in a Divided World appeared first on Farm Foundation.

Over the past three years, battery recycling has received heightened attention, raising critical questions: What is the true state of recycling today? Can...

The post An Overview of the Global Battery Recycling Industry appeared first on Cleantech Group.

Following a night of heavy rain, Dakar’s flooded roads were gridlocked on the morning of our recent cleantech policy consultation, hosted by Senegal’s...

The post Cleantech Ecosystems: How to Develop Cleantech Policy That Works for Your Country appeared first on Cleantech Group.

Jessika Trancik, a professor in MIT’s Institute for Data, Systems, and Society, has been named the new director of the Sociotechnical Systems Research Center (SSRC), effective July 1. The SSRC convenes and supports researchers focused on problems and solutions at the intersection of technology and its societal impacts.

Trancik conducts research on technology innovation and energy systems. At the Trancik Lab, she and her team develop methods drawing on engineering knowledge, data science, and policy analysis. Their work examines the pace and drivers of technological change, helping identify where innovation is occurring most rapidly, how emerging technologies stack up against existing systems, and which performance thresholds matter most for real-world impact. Her models have been used to inform government innovation policy and have been applied across a wide range of industries.

“Professor Trancik’s deep expertise in the societal implications of technology, and her commitment to developing impactful solutions across industries, make her an excellent fit to lead SSRC,” says Maria C. Yang, interim dean of engineering and William E. Leonhard (1940) Professor of Mechanical Engineering.

Much of Trancik’s research focuses on the domain of energy systems, and establishing methods for energy technology evaluation, including of their costs, performance, and environmental impacts. She covers a wide range of energy services — including electricity, transportation, heating, and industrial processes. Her research has applications in solar and wind energy, energy storage, low-carbon fuels, electric vehicles, and nuclear fission. Trancik is also known for her research on extreme events in renewable energy availability.

A prolific researcher, Trancik has helped measure progress and inform the development of solar photovoltaics, batteries, electric vehicle charging infrastructure, and other low-carbon technologies — and anticipate future trends. One of her widely cited contributions includes quantifying learning rates and identifying where targeted investments can most effectively accelerate innovation. These tools have been used by U.S. federal agencies, international organizations, and the private sector to shape energy R&D portfolios, climate policy, and infrastructure planning.

Trancik is committed to engaging and informing the public on energy consumption. She and her team developed the app carboncounter.com, which helps users choose cars with low costs and low environmental impacts.

As an educator, Trancik teaches courses for students across MIT’s five schools and the MIT Schwarzman College of Computing.

“The question guiding my teaching and research is how do we solve big societal challenges with technology, and how can we be more deliberate in developing and supporting technologies to get us there?” Trancik said in an article about course IDS.521/IDS.065 (Energy Systems for Climate Change Mitigation).

Trancik received her undergraduate degree in materials science and engineering from Cornell University. As a Rhodes Scholar, she completed her PhD in materials science at the University of Oxford. She subsequently worked for the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, and the Earth Institute at Columbia University. After serving as an Omidyar Research Fellow at the Santa Fe Institute, she joined MIT in 2010 as a faculty member.

Trancik succeeds Fotini Christia, the Ford International Professor of Social Sciences in the Department of Political Science and director of IDSS, who previously served as director of SSRC.