If you want a new car that spends more time on your driveway than at the dealer, Consumer Reports has some familiar advice. Stick with the usual suspects, be suspicious of shiny new tech, and maybe don’t volunteer to beta test an automaker’s latest big idea.

At the top of the pile, Toyota grabbed first place with Subaru second and Lexus third. Honda and BMW rounded out the top five. Consumer Reports based the study on survey data covering about 380,000 vehicles, so this is the kind of league table that has credibility, and isn’t just the result of an angry guy yelling into a forum thread about his rogue SUV.

Related: A CX-90 Owner Returned His New SUV After One Day, Bought Another, And Got The Same Problem

If you’re wondering who had the best transformation, that would be Tesla. It jumped eight places from last year’s study to ninth overall, helped largely by stronger showings from the Model 3 and, in particular, the Model Y. That doesn’t mean everything in Tesla land is suddenly flawless, because the Cybertruck still landed below average, but it does suggest the company is finally getting a better grip on some of the fit, finish, and hardware gremlins that used to follow it around.

Mazda’s PHEV Nightmare

The brand that took the awkward tumble was Mazda, which dropped eight spots to 14th. Older Mazda models still did reasonably well, but the newer, more complicated CX-70 and CX-90, especially in plug-in hybrid form, apparently kept causing trouble.

That’s a classic case of what happens when an automaker gets ambitious with new platforms, new drivetrains, and new tech all at once. Sometimes the engineering team nails it. Sometimes the owners become unwitting, unpaid members of the R&D squad.

Consumer Reports also says hybrids continue to be a safe option for ICE fans looking for better economy. EVs and PHEVs, meanwhile, remain overrepresented among the least reliable models in the survey, especially when they’re brand new or heavily redesigned.

Buick Leads Detroit Brands

There were a few other eyebrow raisers in the rankings. Buick was the highest placed traditional Big Three Detroit brand at eighth, Ford landed 11th, and relative newcomer Rivian brought up the rear, though it’s worth pointing out that Jaguar, Land Rover, Fiat, Alfa Romeo and more were excluded from the study due to a lack of data.

Consumer Reports also found Asian brands still dominate on reliability, Europeans sit in the middle, and domestic brands trail overall, even if Tesla’s jump gave Team America something to celebrate. 

And reliability is worth celebrating. No, it’s never going to be sexy, but unless your idea of excitement includes hanging around in waiting rooms and constantly swapping into loaner crossovers, Consumer Reports has a pretty clear message: maybe let somebody else test the cutting edge first.

Consumer Reports Reliability Study

Consumer Reports

States with and without abortion bans are advancing bills that would shield anti-abortion pregnancy resource centers from certain government mandates and attempts at regulation, allowing them to sue for damages if any part of the law is violated.

At least four states introduced the legislation this session, and two of them, Kansas and Wyoming, made it law. Montana also passed a similar law in 2025. The bills are still pending in Oklahoma and New Hampshire.

They are based on model legislation drafted by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal advocacy group that represented one of the large umbrella organizations for pregnancy centers around the country, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, when the California government attempted to regulate the centers in 2018 by requiring signage to be placed informing clients of available abortion options at state-funded clinics.

“This really just reflects the legal reality that pregnancy care centers have been hauled into court when they’ve decided they are not interested in pushing abortion and (the government is) going to make them,” said Kristi Hamrick, vice president of media and policy for the anti-abortion group Students for Life Action.

Many crisis pregnancy centers are faith based, with a mission of preventing anyone who walks in from choosing an abortion. In a recent 50-state analysis, States Newsroom found that 21 states allocated more than $491 million of taxpayer funds to crisis pregnancy centers since the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision in 2022 that upended federal abortion rights. Medical experts, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, say the centers can endanger public health by delaying legitimate health care and some centers that advertise services like free ultrasounds can miss diagnoses like ectopic or molar pregnancies, which are nonviable and can be life-threatening conditions.

The centers have also been criticized by advocates for misleading potential clients about their services, making it look like they provide abortion care, and for promoting treatments like abortion pill reversal that are unproven and potentially dangerous.

California’s law, which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down in 2018 on free speech grounds, also mandated disclosure if the pregnancy resource center was unlicensed. Violators would be fined $500 for a first offense.

Hamrick said the center protection bills are an “inoculation” against what she called malicious lawsuits that would punish them for refusing to go against their anti-abortion mission.

Samantha Nagler, a legal fellow with the Equal Justice Works program at Gender Justice, said the bills are carving out an area of health care where providers can omit information during a visit and face no consequences for it.

“No other health care provider I can think of is just exempted from regulation,” Nagler said.

Israel Cook, legislative counsel for the Center for Reproductive Right’s policy and advocacy team, said this type of legislation is becoming more popular as reproductive rights advocates push for regulation of crisis pregnancy centers.

Colorado passed a law in 2023 making it a deceptive trade practice to disseminate any public advertisement that indicates a facility provides abortions or emergency contraceptives when they do not. The law included a similar provision barring advertisement of abortion pill reversal, but a federal judge blocked enforcement of that part of the law in August. Alliance Defending Freedom also assisted with that lawsuit.

“It’s very scary for (the centers) to not be on the hook for the kind of harm that they perpetuate,” Cook said.

Oklahoma sponsor: Law allows centers to ‘stay in their lane’

The bills prohibit a state or local government from adopting or enacting a law, rule, ordinance or any other type of regulation that would require a center to offer or perform abortion, make referrals for abortion or abortion medication, or post any type of advertisement or material promoting abortion or abortion medication. Every bill, with the exception of Kansas, also says the centers cannot be compelled to offer or refer for contraception.

The Kansas Legislature passed House Bill 2635 on March 12 and overturned a veto by Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly on Friday. Kelly said she vetoed it because Kansans already voted to keep the government out of private medical decisions in 2022, preventing lawmakers from passing an abortion ban. Kelly also opposes the funding that crisis pregnancy centers receive from the state on an annual basis — the legislature approved $3 million in 2025, on top of a $10 million tax credit program.

Oklahoma’s House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a similar bill in early March, but it hasn’t yet been heard by the Senate. It was sponsored by Republican Rep. Denise Crosswhite Hader, who said it was legislation that allowed the centers to continue their mission.

Oklahoma’s bill prescribes the largest penalties with an allowance for treble damages, which means a successful lawsuit could yield three times the amount of damages proven in court. A pregnancy center would be entitled to at least $10,000.

“I don’t see abortion as care. I see abortion as ending a pregnancy,” she said on the House floor during debate. The centers want to help with continuing a pregnancy, she said, but when they avoid abortion, they’re getting sued, “and what we’re trying to do is help it so that they can stay in their lane and not fight lawsuits over and over.”

The state government allocated $18 million to a revolving grant fund for crisis pregnancy centers in 2024 that will last through November 2027.

Oklahoma has a near-total abortion ban, with no exceptions for rape or incest, only an exception to save a pregnant person’s life. With that in mind, Democratic Rep. Cyndi Munson told States Newsroom she doesn’t see the need for the legislation.

“If a private organization has a policy, they can stick to their policy. I don’t know why we need to put additional protections into law,” Munson said.

Meanwhile, Oklahoma’s health care struggles continue, according to Munson. The state ranked 46th in infant mortality in a report from the nonprofit March of Dimes, and 31st in maternal mortality. But reproductive health care in general can also be difficult to obtain. Munson said she recently had to wait an entire year to receive her annual gynecological exam because her provider is overbooked.

She worries that at a certain point, crisis pregnancy centers will be the only type of health care that’s left, especially in more rural parts of the state.

“Not every woman is looking for abortion access, but they all need reproductive health care,” Munson said.

Gov. Tony Evers signed a pair of bills Thursday that will create a new state grant program to support nonprofits housing and serving homeless veterans. 

AB 596, now 2025 Wisconsin Act 153, and AB 597, now 2025 Wisconsin Act 154, direct $1.9 million to be used to create a new state grant match program for nonprofits serving homeless veterans. Evers did not comment on signing the bills into law in his release.

The bills were introduced by Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Oconto) and Rep. Benjamin Franklin (R-De Pere) after the closure of two Wisconsin Veterans Housing and Recovery Program (VHRP) sites, one in Green Bay and the other in Chippewa Falls, and disagreements with Democrats and Evers on who was to blame for the closures. The VHRP serves veterans who are on the verge of or experiencing homelessness, including those who have experienced incarceration, unemployment or underemployment, physical and mental health problems. 

“I’m glad that the funding the Legislature provided to house and support Wisconsin’s military heroes will soon be going to organizations helping veterans across our state,” Wimberger said. “I hope the bills encourage even more groups to answer the call and step up to provide vital services to our veterans in need.”

The new program will provide $25 per day per veteran to eligible nonprofits that house veterans. To be eligible, nonprofit groups need to be participating in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs per diem program, which currently provides about $82 per day per veteran housed to groups that offer wraparound supportive services to homeless veterans. 

There are currently just four eligible nonprofits, and none are in the Green Bay or Chippewa falls areas. Democratic lawmakers expressed these concerns as the bills were debated, though Republican lawmakers have argued other nonprofits could become eligible if the program became law.

From 2021 to 2024, a new report reveals there was a dramatic increase in the number of incarcerated residents of Wisconsin’s jails and prisons accessing medications for opioid use disorder.

“Treatment Behind Bars: Medication for Opioid Use Disorder in Wisconsin’s Jails and Prisons” by the Wisconsin Policy Forum was released Wednesday at a press conference hosted by Vital Strategies Overdose Prevention Program, a global public health organization that has been working since 2018 to use “advanced evidence-based strategies on overdose prevention and to expand access to harm reduction and treatment, particularly for populations at highest risk,” said Giavana Margo, program manager.

The report notes that “medications for opioid use disorder are an important tool to help people manage symptoms of opioid withdrawal, as well as recover from symptoms of active opioid addiction. Research also shows that individuals who are newly released from prison are at elevated risk for overdose fatalities.”

The report said there are three factors that have “likely” resulted in the higher use of opioid use disorder medications  in carceral settings:

1. The high number of opioid deaths in the state that reached a peak in 2024
2. The availability of opioid lawsuit settlement dollars from pharmaceutical companies to address treatment.
3. Federal and professional agencies promoting the medications, and pressure from the U.S. Department of Justice to offer them to carceral residents under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

A fourth factor discussed during the press conference is the higher percentage of jail and prison facilities offering the medications, encouraging wider acceptability.

Jason Stein, president of the Wisconsin Policy Forum, said that even though the number of opioid deaths has dropped noticeably since 2024, the number of overdose deaths statewide is slightly higher than vehicle deaths, making overdoses a “significant public policy issue.”

He noted that of 71 jails in the state, 58 filled out a 42-question survey fully and seven answered partially, resulting in a 97% reporting rate for the jails, while the Department of Corrections (DOC) reported data via its central pharmacy that serves all the state prisons.

The primary two opioid use disorder medications used by facilities are methadone and buprenorphine.

“Both of those medications are associated with a decrease in overdose deaths as well as improvements in other important indicators such as recidivism,” he said.

The study also looked at the use of naltrexone, another medication that is not strictly for opioid use disorder, and it also looked at the prevalence of naloxone or Narcan, which is used to reverse opioid overdoses.

The report notes that only four residents in the DOC system took buprenorphine in 2021, but 148 were receiving it in 2024, and 44 took naltrexone in 2001 — a number  that increased to 154 in 2024.

Stein said a 2021 Department of Health Services (DHS) report showed that only one-third of prisons offered any medication for opioid addiction, but by 2025 all 36 prisons were offering at least one medication.

Currently, Stein said, most Wisconsin jails — 53 of 65 that responded or 81.5% — offer one form of opioid medication. That is more than double the 25 jails, or 41%, that reported at least one medication in 2021.

“It’s more common for jails in the central and southeastern parts of our state to have multiple forms available,” he said of opioid medication. “In northern Wisconsin, it’s typically one form … such as buprenorphine.”

The report notes that offering the medications to those in jails and prisons results in a reduction of overdose deaths after release, as well as a decreased risk of death for any cause and a lower risk of reincarceration.

“We want to note that there is increased availability of these medications in both county jails and prisons around the state, making it available to thousands of individuals in 2024 at a substantial increase from 2021, but at the same time, there are some gaps, meaning access at the county level,” Stein said. “We had eight counties that stated they did not currently provide any access to these medications. We had five more counties that did not answer the survey. There are now 24 counties that provide some access to methadone, but that is still a minority, and we have a number of jails that, while they may provide continuation of existing prescriptions, they do not initiate individuals on those medications.”

He added, “We do see some opportunity … despite the challenges that may exist, to increase access; we do see some tools that local counties can turn to. One, there are more counties and private providers that are offering this service around the state, so there’s the potential for partnership, and then, as well, the availability of opioid settlement funds also makes the possibility of funding this service more practical in some cases for counties.”

Joanna Hernandez of Milwaukee shared her experience of struggling with addiction while incarcerated and the importance of continuing medication.

She recounted being arrested in 2013 in Walworth County while possessing a valid prescription for Suboxone (a medication to treat opioid addiction).

“The jail verified my prescription, but even after confirming it, they refused to give me my medication,” she said. “I was there for five days and went through very severe withdrawal. I was extremely sick and eventually segregated to a single cell. I remember guards telling me, ‘You know, this isn’t a hospital.’ As soon as I was able to post bail and get out, I used immediately. If I had been able to continue my prescription while incarcerated, I could have focused on healing and making sure my mental health medications were the right fit for me. Mental health plays a huge role in withdrawal.”

She added, “Experiences like mine show why access to medications for opiate use disorder is so important. Withdrawal in jail does not treat addiction. It actually increases the risk of relapse and overdose when people are released. Jails and correctional facilities need to treat opiate use disorder like the medical condition it is. Access to medications for opiate use disorder is about dignity, medical care and saving lives.”

Kenosha County Sheriff David Zoerner said an important part of his jail’s intake is an initial screening, so the residents get the resources they need and they also have those resources when they leave.

He noted it was a grant that provided the dollars to do the initial screening, and also stressed the limiting factor on how much his office can do is money, mostly from tax levies.

Zoerner said the most efficient way to offer methadone would be at the jail but he fears methadone could be “diverted nefariously,” so instead those who need it are driven daily to a facility, but that is also costly because it requires a deputy to transport the residents.

“My hope, based on what we’re doing right now with the early screens, is being able to work with the affected population while they’re in our custody, getting them peer support and some need therapy,” he said.  “You understand that drug addiction, behavioral health issues, mental health, they all go hand in hand, so to facilitate that through and then with new legislation, hopefully we’re going to be able to get these folks prescriptions, a 30-day supply, before they leave.”

The new legislation Sheriff Zoerner referred to is AB 604, which passed the Legislature and is waiting for Gov. Tony Evers’ signature. It would allow the state to apply for Medicaid coverage for incarcerated people, including a 30-day supply of opioid medication prior to release.

At the press conference, Adriena Hust, state team leader of Vital Strategies, shared recommendations for expanding opioid use disorder medication access in Wisconsin jails and prisons.

“The first recommendation, incarceration is not treatment,” she said.  “More should be done to avoid reincarceration. Most admissions to prison in Wisconsin are due to supervision and technical violations, rather than a new crime. While reforms are in progress, Vital Strategies recommends that Wisconsin continue to minimize revocation and eliminate incarceration sanctions for drug use while on supervision, considering reoccurring drug use is a common part of substance use treatment. Although today’s study did not deal with the issue of revocations, we know they are costly, and the savings to minimize them can go toward medication and staffing.”

Another recommendation is to make methadone and buprenorphine standard treatments for opioid use disorder.

And she said counseling should be optional and not a condition to receive medication because it is the medication that saves lives.

 “As mentioned, people are at extreme risk of dying by overdose in the first few weeks after leaving carceral settings,” she said. “It is important that re-entry planning focus on seamless continuation of medication in the community, which greatly reduces this mortality risk.”

And she noted that those incarcerated who have a right to medication under the Americans with Disabilities Act should have “recourse against violations without fear of retaliation,” in demanding medication. Lastly, she said, the state and counties should prioritize opioid settlement dollars for “opioid use disorders in jails and prisons.”

Cities and states are filing lawsuits and scrambling for alternative sources of money as the Trump administration seeks to shut off the federal funding spigot for biking and walking trails.

Since the early 1990s, there has been fairly consistent — and largely bipartisan — federal support for bicycle and pedestrian projects. Federal funding for such projects reached new heights during the Biden administration, as major spending measures in 2021 and 2022 included billions in new money for them.

But in his efforts to eliminate what he perceives as diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives — and to roll back anything associated with his predecessor — President Donald Trump has targeted hundreds of millions in federal grants for biking and pedestrian projects. And further cuts could be coming.

The broad tax and spending measure Trump signed last summer rescinded $2.4 billion from the Biden administration’s Neighborhood Access and Equity Program, money included in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act to address long-standing safety issues stemming from past infrastructure projects, including interstate highways that split minority communities.

Of that total, at least $750 million was specifically earmarked for trails, walking paths and bike lane projects, according to data on grant recipients collected by Rails to Trails Conservancy, a nonprofit that advocates for trails and the construction of multiuse paths in abandoned railroad corridors.

Mark Treskon, a principal research associate at the nonprofit Urban Institute, said the administration seems to view bike and pedestrian trails as “a policy thing that people on the left like,” and is cutting funding as a “knee-jerk reaction” to former President Joe Biden’s policy priorities.

But Nate Sizemore, a spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Transportation, said the Trump administration is simply “getting back to basics” by “building the essential infrastructure needed to safely move people and commerce.”

“As grant programs become available for applicants, we will ensure that every taxpayer dollar is reinvested into rebuilding the roads and bridges our economy demands. … This decision reflects a significant shift away from the previous administration’s costly social and climate initiatives that deprioritized the needs of American drivers and increased congestion risks,” Sizemore wrote in an email.

Already reeling from the $750 million in cuts included in Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, cities and states that are counting on federal money for biking and pedestrian projects are worried about further cuts when Congress reauthorizes a broad transportation funding law that expires on Sept. 30. Biden’s 2021 infrastructure measure boosted the amount of money available for bike and pedestrian projects under that law.

“Everything is on the table, and there’s lots of risks to not only some of these grants that have been given under the last transportation bill … but it also implicates programs that are like the bread and butter of building trails, walking and biking infrastructure that have been around for many decades,” said Kevin Mills, vice president of policy at Rails to Trails Conservancy.

“We’ve heard warning signs from the administration, from leaders in Congress and from the heads of state transportation departments that they are looking to focus more on cars and less on active transportation, and sometimes less on transit as well.”

Seeking alternatives

In the aftermath of last year’s cuts and uncertainty over the future of federal funding, some states and cities have seen their projects completely stall, while others have found ways to move forward while decreasing their reliance on federal support.

In Connecticut, Rick Dunne, the executive director of the Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments, the federal metropolitan planning organization in that area of Connecticut, said the Trump administration pulled $5.7 million in funding to build around 9 miles on a 42-mile trail project known as the Naugatuck River Greenway Trail last September.

“It would have leveraged a whole bunch of state money and local dollars to build these sections,” Dunne said, noting that the council was hoping to use the federal funds to get matching dollars locally. “It would have advanced all of the activities on the trail and built major sections using other state, federal and local funding for construction.”

Dunne said Connecticut is limited in how it raises transportation funds because it doesn’t have counties.

“It’s either paid for by those small local towns, 10,000 to 20,000 people, or it’s paid for by the state,” Dunne said. “But once we lose the federal funding, then we start losing some of the state funding and local funding that would have matched it.”

Dunne said the council has not received any further communication from the U.S. Department of Transportation.

In Albuquerque, New Mexico, Terry Brunner, director of the city’s Metropolitan Redevelopment Agency, said the Trump administration last September pulled an $11.5 million grant to build part of a 7.5-mile pedestrian and bike lane around the city’s downtown.

The city decided to sue the administration in November to get those funds back, and the case is still wrapped up in court.

“We’re hoping we get a positive outcome on the lawsuit,” Brunner said. “We’ve also got a backup plan to ask for another federal funding source, or try to get funding from the state of New Mexico to the city of Albuquerque to complete the section, because we were about 90% done with the design of this trail.”

Brunner said Albuquerque has one of the highest pedestrian and cyclist death rates in the country, so getting people off the streets onto a safe trail is a priority for the city.

“I don’t think they’re going to stop us, but they’ll delay us,” he said, noting that the city is lucky because the state is offering funding and that the city budget may have some flexibility.

“Historically, we’ve always had a good partnership in Albuquerque with the federal government, and this is taking away a little bit of that shine and making us feel as if the federal government just really doesn’t care about Albuquerque.”

Projects in Republican-led states

The Trump administration also rescinded a $147 million grant for Jacksonville, Florida, to complete the 30-mile urban Emerald Trail.

Kay Ehas, CEO of Groundwork Jacksonville, the city’s nonprofit partner in building the Emerald Trail and restoring Hogans and McCoys creeks, says the group is continuing to work with the city “to identify funding to replace the federal grant that was rescinded last year.”

“We are enlisting the support of corporate and private donors to fund design, which keeps the project moving while we seek government dollars for construction,” Ehas told Stateline.

Meanwhile, in Georgia, the Atlanta Regional Commission is continuing to plan and develop Flint River Gateway Trails, said Josh Phillipson, principal program specialist at ARC. The 31-mile network of bike and pedestrian paths would connect communities along the Flint River in the southern portion of the metro Atlanta area. The commission tapped into the area’s annual allocation of federal transportation funding to cover the cost of the $1.5 million master planning effort, which includes a 20% local match from ARC, despite losing a $65 million federal grant.

“We are not doing anything on the construction because we don’t have those dollars at this point,” Phillipson said. “We’re stepping back a little bit more into our traditional role of doing the long-range planning, but we’re going to be sticking with this project, committed for the next few years.”

Mills, of Rails to Trails Conservancy, lamented the loss of the Neighborhood Access and Equity grants, which would have helped areas “where historic transportation investments had split communities in two,” cutting off residents from economic opportunities and their neighbors.

In Atlanta, for example, Phillipson said the trails project was meant to “bridge over core infrastructure decisions of the last century that were overwhelmingly impacting more diverse communities,” making it “difficult now to walk or ride a bike between two adjacent communities.”

Treskon, of the Urban Institute, said cities and states will be hard-pressed to replace all the federal money they lost.

“It’s a pretty big hit across the board for the places that had built that into their financial plans,” he said.

Stateline reporter Shalina Chatlani can be reached at schatlani@stateline.org.

WASHINGTON — Members of Congress have not formally authorized a war in Iran, though they may soon be expected to approve emergency funding for the endeavor without any projection from the Trump administration as to how long it may last or the full cost, not just in dollars but in American troop and civilian lives. 

Experts on defense spending interviewed by States Newsroom say the cost of weeks of air bombing will mount into the billions of dollars, a sum that will balloon if ground troops are sent into Iran to undertake regime change and if the war extends for months to come.

Defense Department officials briefed Congress on Monday that the Pentagon spent $5.6 billion on munitions alone during the first two days of the war, according to a congressional aide not authorized to speak publicly. The aide expects DOD has spent into the double digits in the days since. 

President Donald Trump has sent mixed signals about the timeline and end goals for the war, called Operation Epic Fury. He at first said the bombing campaign he began alongside the Israeli government could last between four and six weeks and on Monday said it is possible it will end “quickly.” Trump, however, hasn’t ruled out a longer assault or the deployment of ground troops.  

Republican lawmakers who control Congress say the ongoing attack is an essential national security undertaking and that they won’t constrain Trump in his role as commander-in-chief. 

Democrats, who tried unsuccessfully to remove U.S. troops from hostilities until approved by Congress, will be needed to provide enough votes to move any supplemental spending request through the Senate — one possible obstacle to a prolonged conflict. 

Even a relatively brief war will have long-lasting, far-reaching consequences for the millions of people pulled into the conflict. 

“One lesson of history is that a war that is supposedly short or brief has these huge repercussions that ripple across time,” said Stephanie Savell, director of the Cost of War project at the Watson School of International & Public Affairs at Brown University.

Neither the White House nor the Office of Management and Budget have disclosed publicly how much the bombing has cost taxpayers so far or how much spending it might eventually require. A Defense Department spokesperson said they “have nothing to provide on this at this time.” The top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, Rep. Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania, has asked the Congressional Budget Office to come up with a number.

Comparison with Iraq, Afghanistan

Michael O’Hanlon, director of research in the foreign policy program at the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution, said a ballpark estimate for the military costs of war during an “extended air campaign” would normally run a couple of billion dollars a month. 

“But at this point, I think we’re more likely in the couple billion a week range,” he said. 

Achieving long-lasting regime change, which Trump has spoken about often since the war began, could be much more costly, both in terms of American spending and troops’ lives, as well as civilian casualties. 

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq averaged about $1 million per deployed U.S. troop per year once all of the infrastructure, equipment, health care and other factors were rolled into the cost of war.  

During the peak of those wars, O’Hanlon said, there were about 100,000 to 175,000 troops in those two countries and the United States was spending about $200 billion annually. 

“If you needed at least 100,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, you could conceivably need a quarter million or more in Iran if you’re really going to try to occupy and stabilize the whole country,” he said. “So that means now you’re getting into the range of $250 to $300 billion a year for a presence that would stay in Iran for a full 12 months. And then each and every year it would be additional.”

That, however, is just the potential cost for the military. It doesn’t include damage to U.S. diplomatic facilities in the region or other costs associated with war. 

“You’ve got your infrastructure damage as well as higher energy costs around the world. And already talk of less fertilizer being produced, which is going to reduce crop yields,” O’Hanlon said. “So there are all sorts of second-order effects.”

‘Wars are never quick or cheap or easy’

The death toll for U.S. troops, seven of whom have already died, could also increase depending on the scope of the conflict. 

There were about 150 combat fatalities during the first Gulf War in the early 1990s, as well as about 150 deaths from training and accidents in the lead-up and aftermath, O’Hanlon said. 

The war in Afghanistan led to the deaths of about 2,500 U.S. troops across roughly two decades. About 4,500 Americans died in the 15 years of the war in Iraq, he said. 

Savell, of the Cost of War program at Brown University, said research has shown that “wars are never quick or cheap or easy.”

The Iraq War that began in 2003, she said, is one of many examples of political leaders messaging ahead of time that a conflict would be “short and decisive and relatively inexpensive.” 

“We see many of those kinds of narratives being, you know, a refrain these days in relation to Iran as well,” Savell said. “So I think that the comparison in that sense is apt.”

The Iraq war also had major unanticipated consequences for those living in the region, including “that the U.S. invasion was partially responsible for the rise of the Islamic State,” Savell said.

“And that militant group has now spread its terror attacks around the world,” she said.

In addition to the direct deaths of both troops and civilians that come from bullets, bombs and other weapons of war, there will be indirect deaths that stem from a lack of clean water, food and medical care.

“Those kinds of things have really, really long-lasting and deep impacts for people, especially women and children,” Savell said. “In contemporary wars, children ages zero to five are often the ones who end up suffering in the long term because of the diseases and the malnutrition that can be a reverberating effect of war.”

Regime change ambitions

Seth G. Jones, president of the defense and security department at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said during a roundtable discussion that he believes it will be “very difficult” for the U.S. and Israeli militaries to cause “major damage to the Iranian regime largely from air and naval assets.” 

“I think even with ground troops, trying to social engineer a foreign government is incredibly difficult,” he said. 

The U.S. military’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as operations in Libya, he said, all used a combination of tactics, including ground forces. 

“Those wars persisted for years, if not decades, after that. And we saw civil wars in all three cases and insurgencies,” Jones said. “So, trying to do that without a meaningful ground presence, I think, is going to be virtually impossible. And then you run the risk of what the U.S. did in 1991 in Iraq and Hungary in 1956, which is it urged individuals to rise up, and they were slaughtered in both cases, the Kurds and the Hungarians.” 

Shaping an entirely new Iranian regime, he said, would take “months if not longer.” 

A prolonged conflict could lead to several challenges for the U.S. military, one of which will be restocking munitions like the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD, about a quarter of which were drawn down in 2025, according to Jones. 

“The more the U.S. fires, the less munitions it has, offensive and defensive, including available for its war plans … against China in the Taiwan Strait, against North Korea on the Korean Peninsula and against Russia,” Jones said. 

There is also a chance the conflict could widen even further if Iranian supporters outside of that country decide to begin targeting the U.S. military or civilians. 

“Do the Houthis start firing from Yemen? Do we see Iraqi Shia militia start conducting attacks, including against U.S. forces in Syria, Iraq, Jordan, or other locations?” Jones said. “Or do we see the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Quds Force and its partners conduct attacks elsewhere? We know they’ve conducted assassination plots, at least, in the U.S., including in the city of Washington. So how does that expand?”

The defense budget

Mara Karlin, visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution and a professor of practice at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies, said during a panel discussion that while the U.S. military has a large budget, its resources aren’t infinite. 

Congress approved $838.7 billion for the Department of Defense in January as part of its annual government funding process. Republicans approved another $150 billion for the Pentagon to spend on specific programs, like air and missile defense, as well as shipbuilding, in their “big, beautiful” law enacted in 2025.

“Fundamentally, the U.S. military can often find ways to walk and chew gum; it just gets really hard to do so and the costs can only increase,” she said. 

And while the possibility of Trump sending in U.S. ground forces isn’t completely out of the picture, Karlin said that “is almost inconceivable.”

“Ground troops mean you’re getting ready for a lot of casualties, especially given that you have the potential for regime collapse,” she said. 

Making that type of choice, to put U.S. troops into Iran, would likely ensure the war “will be long and it will be ugly,” despite the possibility of significant change.

“Iraq 2026 actually looks pretty different. The costs to get to that from 2003 onward were so extraordinarily high,” Karlin said. “And I think that it is safe to assume that if one were to use that analogy, you would see something as rough, if not much, much worse.” 

Thousands of low-income people living with HIV could be losing drug coverage as states impose limitations on HIV assistance programs amid constrained budgets — raising alarms over consistent access to lifesaving medications.

Many factors are putting budget constraints on state programs, including federal funding — which has remained flat for years and hasn’t been adjusted for inflation — increased drug costs and rising insurance premiums.

The Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program is the national safety-net program supporting more than 600,000 low-income people living with HIV across the nation. States receive federal grants and drug rebate money — the latter making up the bulk of state program budgets — to, among other things, help pay for medications and support community groups and specific populations, such as women and children.

Congress has kept key drug assistance funding at $900.3 million annually since 2014. New enrollments for state programs jumped 30% from 2022 to 2024, in part because states cut off pandemic-era Medicaid assistance.

As of January, at least 18 states have pulled back their Ryan White AIDS Drug Assistance Programs, known as ADAPs, in some way, according to a March 2 analysis by health research group KFF and a report by the National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors, which offers consultation for states.

There are roughly 1.2 million people in the United States living with HIV, and about 1 in 4 people get support from a state drug assistance program.

A disproportionate number of HIV/AIDS patients are gay, bisexual and other men who have male-to-male sexual contact, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. LGBTQ+ communities have been targeted in recent years by some federal and state policies, including the rollback of civil rights, shutting down a youth mental health hotline, restricting health care access, and imposing discussion and book bans in public schools.

Florida has introduced the most dramatic restrictions on income eligibility for its HIV drug program — cutting individual eligibility for the program from 400% of the federal poverty level to 130%. That means uninsured and underinsured people up to that 400% poverty line no longer have coverage under the program.

That’s roughly slashing maximum annual income of $63,840 for an individual down to $20,748. The state says the change will prevent a $120 million shortfall.

“(That) creates an immense coverage cliff,” for example, for childless adults not eligible for Medicaid, said Amber Tynan, CEO of Big Bend Cares, a North Florida Ryan White provider. Florida is among the 10 states that haven’t expanded Medicaid eligibility under the Affordable Care Act.

Florida’s department of health didn’t respond to Stateline’s request for comment.

Delaware, Kansas, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island have also reduced income eligibility for their programs, but to a lesser extent, according to KFF. For example, Kansans with HIV/AIDS whose incomes are above 250% of the federal poverty level won’t be eligible for help with Obamacare insurance premiums. That change will affect about 230 people, the National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors estimates.

In Pennsylvania, about 1,600 people will lose HIV drug assistance coverage as the state imposes income eligibility caps at 350% of the federal poverty level.

“We cannot continue to provide services at a certain level when the funding to do so does not exist,” Neil Ruhland, Pennsylvania Department of Health press secretary, told Stateline in a statement. He pointed to drug costs and enrollment numbers that are “steadily rising while funding remains stagnant.”

Florida also is removing the brand-name drug Biktarvy, which is the only single-tablet HIV medication regimen recommended by national guidelines for those starting treatment and is the most widely prescribed antiretroviral medication nationally. There is no generic form.

The medication is highly effective at reducing a person’s viral load, meaning the virus is undetectable in blood tests and untransmittable to others.

Eighty percent of Floridians with HIV who are in the state’s program use Biktarvy, Tynan said.

“Not having the opportunity to stay on lifesaving treatment is creating quite the panic and crisis for our population,” Tynan said. “For decades we’ve worked to turn HIV from a fatal diagnosis into a manageable chronic condition, and that progress depends on one thing: consistent access to treatment. When that stability is disrupted like it has (been) in Florida, it creates real risk for patients and for public health.”

Other states (Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia and Washington, plus the District of Columbia) also are considering limiting which drugs they cover, according to the alliance’s report.

And several other states may impose other limits to their drug assistance program. Health agencies in Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, New Jersey, South Carolina, Virginia and Washington are considering cutting funding for core medication and support services. Others are considering implementing a six-month recertification period, restricting eligibility, putting caps on expenditures, changing covered medications and lowering assistance for insurance premiums.

While no state has implemented a waiting list for drug assistance, three states — Arkansas, Louisiana and New Jersey — are considering one as a future cost-containment measure, according to the national alliance’s report.

Dr. Sabrina Assoumou, an infectious disease physician at Boston Medical Center, said many of her HIV patients are under-resourced and rely on her state’s Ryan White program. She added that she’s relieved Massachusetts’ program hasn’t announced any changes as of February, when the alliance’s report was released, but that she’s worried for patients in the other states.

“We’ve taken HIV from a very serious virus, a deadly virus when it was first discovered in the ’80s, to a very manageable chronic condition because of the medicines,” she said. “It is concerning to see … that we’re sort of moving backwards by not providing that kind of care that’s so much needed, and that’s lifesaving.”

Florida bypassed a rulemaking process when it announced its changes days before open enrollment ended. In late January, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, a global nonprofit agency, sued the state department of health over the changes. The U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services opened a new enrollment period for Floridians losing coverage to enroll in a different marketplace plan.

In late February, Florida issued an emergency rule putting the new eligibility requirements into effect. About 32,000 Floridians get help from the state program in some way — whether it’s through local health departments or the state helping to pay for insurance premiums.

Half of those, around 16,000, will lose coverage entirely — but many others will be affected in other ways, such as losing access to Biktarvy.

“So if you remain in the program, there’s a very high likelihood that you’re still going to be impacted by some of the other changes, like the dropping of the premium assistance, the elimination of Biktarvy from the formulary,” said Tim Horn, director of medication access for the National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors. “When you take a look at all of these changes in the net, the vast majority of Florida ADAP clients are going to be impacted by this, one way or another.”

Stateline reporter Nada Hassanein can be reached at nhassanein@stateline.org.

When Francis Wang ’21, MEng ’22 first joined the MIT Edgerton Center’s Solar Electric Vehicle Team (SEVT), his approach to engineering projects was “to focus my energy and attention on a tidy problem with neat boundaries that I could completely control.”

“But on Solar Car, I realized it takes a very different mindset to manage a substantial project with many moving pieces. It takes engineering leadership,” he recalls.

Wang was determined to strengthen his leadership skills. When he became Solar Car captain, he applied and was accepted into the Gordon Engineering Leadership (GEL) Program.

GEL’s courses and hands-on labs equip students with capabilities they need to lead and contribute to complex, real-world engineering challenges. The one- or two-year program for juniors and seniors complements MIT’s technical education, teaching teamwork, leadership, and communication skills in an engineering context. GEL students also benefit from personalized coaching, mentoring, industry networking, and career support throughout their professional lives.

“Before GEL, I saw the leadership parts of my role as a necessary evil to get to the actual interesting parts, which was the engineering,” says Wang. “The GEL Program gave me an understanding of how engineering leadership is crucial, because in the real world any project worth working on is larger than the scope of an individual engineer.”

In GEL he improved capabilities such as decision-making, taking initiative, and negotiating. He became a more effective SEVT team captain, able to navigate the challenges of taking an engineering project from concept to completion.

“It was often the case that the challenges I faced on Solar Car were not solely technical, involving aspects of communication, coordination, and negotiation. From GEL, I had the framework and the language to approach them,” says Wang.

Each year, 30-40 Edgerton students are accepted into the GEL Program. They come from a variety of teams and clubs including Arcturus, Assistive Technology Club, ChemE Club, Combat Robotics Club, Design Build Fly (DBF), Design for America, Electric Vehicle Team, Engineers Without Borders, First Nations Launch, MIT Electronics Research Society (MITERS), Motorsports, Robotics Team, Rocket Team, and Solar Electric Vehicle Team (SEVT).

“MIT’s best engineering students have GEL training and authentic project management experience with our competition teams,” says Professor J. Kim Vandiver, director of the Edgerton Center.

Edgerton project teams are entirely student-run organizations responsible for all levels of project and team management including fundraising, recruiting, designing, testing, risk mitigation, and project validation. The most successful teams have skilled leaders.

“Many of the excellent Edgerton project team students admitted to GEL are team or sub-team leaders who credit their GEL experience, particularly the experiential learning component, with improving their leadership skills,” says Leo McGonagle, executive director of GEL.

“It’s a win-win-win. GEL gets hard-working, motivated Edgerton Program students who are intent on self-development and improvement. Edgerton project teams often perform better with leaders who are GEL-trained. And the students gain leadership, teamwork, and communication abilities that they can use beyond their project team — in their capstones, course projects, internships, and jobs after MIT,” says McGonagle.

The overlapping connection between GEL and Edgerton truly becomes obvious when students begin to take ownership of project milestones.

“When you become the leader of a technical project, no one gives you a roadmap to team success,” says senior Hailey Polson, former captain of First Nations Launch team. “Technical expertise is not enough to leverage the talent and skills of an entire team or the ability to coordinate a multifaceted project; that’s where the tools, skills, and leadership theory I learned in GEL helped me bridge the gap between knowing how to accomplish our goals and actually leading my team successfully.”

Faris Elnager ’25 served as testing lead on the Motorsports team, which designs, manufactures, and competes with a formula-style electric race car every year.

“Making tough decisions was something that I learned in GEL. On Motorsports, I had to make high-stakes decisions about testing time that affected how we performed at a competition,” he says.

He found that GEL’s weekly Engineering Leadership Labs were a way to test for himself specific leadership capabilities that he could use to improve his Motorsports team.

“One of the most useful skills from GEL was evaluating your stakeholders and learning how to balance their needs. I remember thinking, we’re doing this right now in the [GEL] lab, and then we’re going back to the [Edgerton] shop to do this for real!” says Elnager. “It’s like a positive feedback loop. GEL labs make you better on project teams, and project teams make you better in GEL.”

Now a startup co-founder, Elnager says that the communication skills that he learned through Motorsports and GEL have been critical to his company’s early success. “You can build the best tech in the world. If you can’t pitch it to people, you’re never going to raise any money. Being able to explain a technical project to anyone, whether they're an investor or someone in your industry, is something that’s incredibly valuable.”

Adrienne Lai ’25 served as both mechanical lead and then captain of the Solar Electric Vehicle Team. She recalls how her GEL training would kick in on race day.

“It’s quite tricky to be captain of a build team, because there’s no adult to tell you what to do. You have to figure it all out for yourself. When you’re competing, it can be very chaotic. You are trying to maximize a score by driving more miles, but that comes with a trade-off of spending energy or ending the day in a more rural area, or with less sun, so there are a lot of trade-offs to consider. Sometimes someone just has to make a decision. I was very comfortable doing that because I had learned how to take initiative, which is one of the GEL capabilities,” she says.

Now a course assistant in GEL, Lai helps design scenarios that enable GEL students to become better and more resilient leaders. She particularly enjoys playing the role of an uncooperative supplier.

“We close our store randomly. We don’t have what they need. We won’t tell them what we have,” she laughs. “Students get very frustrated. They think that we’re just being mean. But from a real-world perspective, that is all very true. It simulates unpredictability, which is important not just in a job, but in life.”

The value of the engineering leadership skills learned in GEL and honed on Edgerton project teams carries forward into industry, graduate studies, and entrepreneurial ventures.

“GEL preparation, coupled with authentic project management on a competition team, prepares MIT students for great careers in industry,” says Vandiver.

Henry Smith ’25 says he still relies on skills such as negotiation, communication, and understanding stakeholder needs that he used when he was a Motorsports mechanical lead.

“I was doing high-level management, planning, and organization on the team. Being in the GEL Program really increased my value for the team and helped me be prepared to enter the job field. When I graduated, I wasn’t worried about being ready or not. It was a definite yes,” says Smith.

As project teams continue to address ambitious engineering challenges, the synergy between Edgerton and the Gordon Engineering Leadership (GEL) Program ensures that as students graduate, they’re prepared to not only become strong technical contributors, but confident leaders prepared to tackle complex engineering problems in the real world.

States are scrambling to meet rising demand for newly expanded school choice initiatives, pouring more money into the programs as waiting lists — and budget concerns — grow.

A further boost is expected next year, when the federal government rolls out a new policy allowing taxpayers to claim a tax credit for up to $1,700 in donations to nonprofits that award private school scholarships to K-12 students.

Supporters tout such programs as a lifeline for parents desperate to get their kids out of failing public schools, while opponents have long warned that they drain resources from public education as students move from public schools to private ones.

For years, voucher and scholarship programs providing taxpayer dollars for private school tuition were limited to low-income or special needs students. In 2022, however, Arizona became the first state to allow all students to use public money for private school tuition. By next school year, at least 17 states are expected to have universal programs — making roughly half of U.S. students eligible to receive money, according to FutureEd, a think tank at Georgetown University.

As both universal and limited programs spread across the country, many families are eager to participate.

In Alabama, more than 36,000 students last spring applied for 14,000 spots in the state’s new program, prompting Republican Gov. Kay Ivey to propose increasing its funding from $180 million to $250 million for the 2027-28 school year, when income limits will be eliminated.

In Oklahoma, Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt has proposed removing the budget cap on a scholarship program that turned away 5,600 students a couple of years ago because it ran out of money. And in Tennessee, Republican Gov. Bill Lee has proposed doubling the funding for a scholarship program that has a waitlist of about 34,000 students.

“Last year, we gave families school choice with the Education Freedom Scholarship program, because parents know best,” Lee said in his State of the State address last month. “Growing the program would open the doors of opportunity for thousands more children statewide.”

South Carolina Republican Gov. Henry McMaster and Missouri Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe also are seeking more money for school choice programs.

“So far what we’ve really seen is legislatures looking to expand the programs,” said Andrew Handel, director of education and workforce development at the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a membership group for conservative state lawmakers that has pushed for choice programs nationwide.

“The ESA [education savings account] is the gold standard. It’s the one that gives parents the most flexibility,” he said, referring to programs that allow parents to use the money for other education-related expenses in addition to tuition. “The best states are where the funding for those school choice programs is tied directly to their state education formula. That ensures that no matter how many families apply, you’re always going to have the money there.”

But in Arizona, the first state with a universal program, Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs has become an outspoken critic.

Hobbs last month criticized the program, approved under her Republican predecessor, as an “entitlement program” that “continues to operate unchecked, squandering taxpayer dollars with no accountability.” She has proposed scaling back the program to its original scope, when it was limited to children with disabilities and military families.

The program serves more than 100,000 students — about 1 in 10 K-12 students — and cost the state about $872 million in fiscal 2025, according to the Grand Canyon Institute, a nonpartisan think tank. In addition to offering vouchers to pay private school tuition, it allows money to be spent on certain school supplies.

A recent audit by the Arizona Department of Education found that about 20% of Empowerment Scholarship Account dollars were used for unauthorized purchases, including iPhones, lingerie, jewelry and other luxury items, according to documents obtained earlier this month by the television station 12News in Arizona.

At least 45% of the kids receiving aid in Arizona were never enrolled in public schools, 12News recently reported. In some states, the percentage is even higher: In the 2023-24 school year, about two-thirds of the students participating in scholarship programs in Arkansas and Iowa were already attending private schools.

Those numbers have handed ammunition to critics who argue that universal programs are creating two parallel education systems, both funded by taxpayers.

“Every state that’s passed a voucher system has had to slow down its per-pupil funding for public schools,” said Joshua Cowen, a professor of education policy at Michigan State University. “Whether they take it directly out of school aid or fund it from another pot, it’s all the same budget.

“States can’t afford to run two systems.”

The waiting lists prove that many families would like to send their children to private schools, but it’s difficult to determine whether they get a better education there: Unlike public schools, private schools can turn away students, and in many states private school students don’t take the same standardized tests, so comparing academic performance is difficult.

Patrick Wolf, a professor at the University of Arkansas who studies school choice programs, noted that in his state, students with disabilities made up 48% of first-year participants. The percentage declined to 36% the second year, but that was still nearly three times the rate of disability in the general population.

Wolf argued that choice programs can help public schools by providing competition, forcing them to adapt.

“The traditional public schools can lose students who didn’t really want to be there, and that can be a pressure release valve,” he said. “What we’ve seen when private school choice programs launch is that public school test scores often go up slightly.

“The competitive effects are either neutral or positive,” he said. “They communicate more effectively with parents. They offer new programs targeted to the kinds of students they’re afraid might leave.”

Going big in Texas

Earlier this month, Texas launched what is likely to be the nation’s largest school choice program.

The new pre-K to 12th grade scholarship program is open to any U.S. citizen or immigrant in the country legally (public schools are open to everybody), but funding will be capped at $1 billion for the 2026-2027 school year. If state lawmakers choose to spend more in future years, the cost could rise to nearly $5 billion by 2030, according to a legislative fiscal note. The state’s current biennial budget is close to $340 billion.

Most participating students who want to attend a private school will be eligible for about $10,470 per year, while students with disabilities can receive up to $30,000. Families who want to homeschool their child can get $2,000.

This year, Texas will give priority to students with disabilities, families with lower incomes, and children enrolled in public and charter schools. Starting next year, the guidelines will be adjusted to favor the siblings of current students and new applicants.

Strongly backed by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, the program drew more than 42,000 applications when it opened on Feb. 4, according to state officials. As of Feb. 18, the state had received a total of 111,000 applications. Texans can apply through March 17.

Travis Pillow, a senior official overseeing implementation, said the state partnered with Odyssey, a vendor that has administered similar programs in other states, to automate eligibility verification using state IDs and federal tax returns, since Texas does not have a state income tax.

Officials say more than three-quarters of applicants were verified the same day they applied, a benchmark they argue is critical to maintaining momentum and public confidence.

Pillow said Texas lawmakers are required to consider waitlist numbers in future appropriations decisions, and early demand could shape whether the program expands beyond its initial $1 billion allocation.

Federal tax credit

Meanwhile, a provision of the broad tax and spending measure President Donald Trump signed in July could create a significant new source of funding for families who want to send their kids to private school — but only in states that choose to participate.

The measure creates a new federal tax credit for people who contribute to nonprofits that award private school scholarships to K-12 students. Taxpayers in any state can get the tax credits, but only by donating to organizations in participating states.

Last month, federal officials announced that 23 states had opted in to the program; all of them, except for Virginia, are led by Republicans. However, the federal list did not include Colorado, where Democratic Gov. Jared Polis said in December that his state also would participate. North Carolina Democratic Gov. Josh Stein also has said he will opt in. The Democratic governors of New Mexico, Oregon and Wisconsin have said their states will not participate.

In Pennsylvania, where one of the nation’s largest state-level tax credit scholarship programs already operates, scholarship granting organizations say that the state needs to opt in to the federal program to meet the growing demand. Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro has been a supporter of vouchers generally, but he has not said whether Pennsylvania will opt into the program.

Keisha Jordan, president and CEO of the Children’s Scholarship Fund Philadelphia, said that more than 200,000 Pennsylvania children live in neighborhoods where the local public schools are low performing.

Despite serving thousands of students, she said, “every year scholarship organizations like Children’s Scholarship Fund Philadelphia still have to turn students down because we don’t have enough funding to meet the demand.”

Jordan argues the new federal tax credit could help close that gap. “The demand is here,” she said. “Pennsylvania taxpayers will participate, but their money could go to another state. Why not keep it here?”

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

The broadly popular Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Grant program is on life support after Wisconsin Senate Republicans canceled a vote on a GOP-authored bill to extend the program during the body’s floor session Wednesday. 

For nearly four decades, the program has allowed the state Department of Natural Resources to support the acquisition of land for conservation purposes. The program is set to expire June 30 when its funding runs out. 

Lawmakers have been working for nearly a year to reach an agreement on an extension. A Knowles-Nelson extension in Gov. Tony Evers’ proposed budget last year was stripped out by Republicans and a Democratic-authored bill supported by all 60 legislative Democrats has languished in a Republican-controlled committee. 

In recent years, a handful of legislative Republicans have become increasingly hostile to the stewardship program, complaining that it has taken too much land off local property tax rolls in the northern part of the state and that a state Supreme Court decision last year removed the Legislature’s oversight authority over the program’s spending. 

In January, Assembly Republicans passed a bill that would extend the program without any funding for land acquisition. With the Assembly holding its final scheduled floor session of the year on Thursday, the Senate’s failure to hold a vote on its version of the bill Wednesday means it’s unlikely a bill will make it to Evers’ desk. 

Democrats have said they won’t support a version of the bill that ends land acquisition under the program. 

In recent weeks, Republicans have begun to lay the groundwork for claiming that any failure to extend the program would be the Democrats’ fault. 

But Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point), the author of the Republican proposal, said Wednesday after the bill was dropped from the schedule that the Senate needs to pass a version of the bill with 17 Republican votes.  With supporters and opponents of the program divided within the Republican caucus, advocates for the program have said for months it’s been clear that any version of stewardship extension would require bipartisan support. 

“This has been one of these bills that’s been very difficult to thread the needle on,” Testin said after the Wednesday floor session. “So it’s been sort of a tug of war, you do X, Y, and Z on one provision of the bill. You have members that raise concerns, and if you do X, Y and Z a different way, they’ve got concerns as well.”

Sen. Jodi Habush Sinykin (D-Whitefish Bay), who wrote the Democratic proposal and has been involved in legislative negotiations over the program, said it’s disingenuous for Republicans to point fingers at Democrats, when Democrats are united in their support for the program and have tried to compromise. 

The initial bill proposed by Habush Sinykin included a provision to provide independent oversight of the program as a response to Republican concerns and in recent days offered a compromise of extending the program with $5-6 million in land acquisition funding — about $10 million less than budgeted currently. On the floor on Wednesday, Democrats attempted to force a vote on a motion that would have extended the program for one year at current funding levels. 

“Their efforts to try to cast blame or aspersions on the Democrats when it is apparent that they have too many members of their caucus who are strongly opposed to this program … they have not been shy or reticent about voicing publicly strong opposition to the continuity of this program,” Habush Sinykin said. “So it takes not just a lot of nerve, but a questionable honesty, to try to pin this on Democrats.” 

Habush Sinykin said the Assembly version of the bill was “not even tempting” because it doesn’t include any land acquisition funds. 

“What they are looking for and needing are more Democratic votes, which is a big responsibility, because we care about the integrity of the program,” she said. “So you don’t want to give votes for something that doesn’t have value and isn’t true to the purpose.”

“Everyone in the building knows, and many outside the building know, that Republicans don’t like Knowles-Nelson,” she continued, “that they can’t get it done in their caucus.”

Baylor Spears contributed reporting to this story.

The Wisconsin Legislature’s Joint Finance Committee voted to advance a Republican bill that would reauthorize the Warren Knowles-Gaylord Nelson Stewardship program with additional amendments Monday.

The bill, SB 685, passed the committee with 11 Republican votes. Rep. Tip McGuire (D-Kenosha), Rep. Deb Andraca (D-Whitefish Bay) and Sen. LaTonya Johnson (D-Milwaukee) voted against advancing the bill. In conjunction with SB 316, the bill would continue the program for an additional two years, but in a limited form.

“When we start to dismantle programs that have been in place for 30 years that were built on bipartisanship, I start to seriously have my doubts,” Andraca said. She added  that Republican lawmakers were willing to kill a popular program because of a state Supreme Court decision that removed their ability to anonymously veto particular projects. 

For many years, Wisconsin lawmakers exercised control over the Knowles-Nelson program through the Joint Finance Committee as members could anonymously object to any project and have it held up for an indeterminate time. That ended last year after the state Supreme Court ruled 6-1 that anonymous objections were unconstitutional. Conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley wrote for the majority that the statutes “encroach upon the governor’s constitutional mandate to execute the law.”

“This is not the best that you could do. This is the best that you chose to do,” Andraca said. “Killing a popular bipartisan program out of spite does not make a great bumper sticker, but it does make it a whole lot easier for your constituents to know where you stand on conservation.” 

The program is currently authorized at $33 million annually. The GOP bill will continue the program at a funding level of $28.25 million and limit land acquisitions for the two-year reauthorization period.

The Assembly passed its versions of the bills on a 53-44 party-line vote in January. 

The Senate Financial Institutions and Sporting Heritage Committee approved changes to the bills on Friday. The recent amendments in the Senate mean the bills will need to pass a vote in both houses of the Legislature. The Senate plans to meet for a floor session on Wednesday.

One recent change to the bill eliminates a requirement that land-acquisition grants to nonprofit conservation organizations only be used for land south of U.S. Highway 8. Another change specifies that provisions related to minor land acquisitions will only be effective in 2026-27 and 2027-28. Under the bill, the department will only be able to make “minor land acquisitions,” defined as parcels of land that are five acres or less in size and would improve access to hunting, fishing or trapping opportunities, or are contiguous to land already owned by the state.

During the two-year period, the DNR would need to conduct a survey of all of the land that has been acquired under the stewardship program including an inventory of all land acquired with money. It would also have to report proposed project boundaries and land acquisition priorities for the next two to five years and proposed changes.

Another change in the amendments prohibits the DNR from acquiring land in 2026-27 and 2027-28 if it would result in more than 35% of the total acreage in a municipality being owned by the state, city, village, town or federal government, unless the municipality adopted a resolution approving the acquisition. That provision does not consider county-owned land in a given municipality.

Democrats wanted a more robust investment in the program. Sen. Jodi Habush Sinykin (D-Whitefish Bay) proposed a bill that would dedicate $72 million to the stewardship program  and Gov. Tony Evers called for over $100 million for it in his budget.

The program, initially created in 1989, has allowed for state borrowing and spending for state land acquisition and for grants to local governments and nonprofit conservation organizations with the goal of preserving wildlife habitat and expanding outdoor recreation opportunities throughout Wisconsin. It has traditionally had bipartisan support and has been reauthorized several times throughout its history, including last in 2021. 

The program’s funds will run out on June 30, 2026 if a reauthorization bill is not  signed into law. 

Bill coauthors Rep. Tony Kurtz (R-Wonewoc) and Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point), who are both members of the budget committee, were critical of Democrats.  

Kurtz said he supports conservation and said the bill had been “hijacked” by politics, including blaming the state Supreme Court decision for the current situation. He also preemptively blamed Democratic lawmakers for the potential end to the program. 

Kurtz said he “wasn’t crazy” about the process, but asked the Legislative Fiscal Bureau what percentage of projects were approved under the program even with the anonymous objector process in place. An LFB staffer said 93% submitted to JFC were approved. 

“93% that was submitted to the Joint Finance were approved — 93% — so basically, we’re bickering over 7% that you didn’t like,” Kurtz said.

Kurtz said there could also be other opportunities to acquire land by passing other bills. 

“If there’s a piece of land that comes up next to Devil’s Lake, and the DNR wants to buy it, and they come to me and say, ‘Hey, Rep. Kurtz, we didn’t get the money in this authorization, but this is an opportunity that we can expand Devil’s Lake’ — I will be the first one to jump on that bill, because I know how important it is,” Kurtz said. “So when people say that it’s only $28.25 [million] they need to start thinking outside the box… If this fails, this is on the doorsteps of the Democrats in the state of Wisconsin, period, and I will sing that every day, 24/7, 365,” Kurtz said. 

Johnson pushed back on Kurtz’s comment, noting that Republican lawmakers currently hold the majority in the state Senate and Assembly. 

“[That] ultimately means that you can do whatever you want,” Johnson said, adding that she was confused by the Republican lawmakers trying to pass blame to Democrats. 

Rep. Mark Born (R-Beaver Dam) commented that Evers will need to sign the bills for them to become law. 

“This notion that this is somehow going to kill the program. That’s not accurate. We’re trying to save it because there are those of us up here who value conservation,” Testin said.

In the Wisconsin prison system, incarcerated mothers still lack a program that would allow physical custody of their children, a year after a court ruling affirmed that a state law requires the Department of Corrections to take steps to bring together incarcerated moms and babies. The ACLU is suing to try to force the issue.

Wisconsin statute 301.049 calls for a “mother-young child care program” allowing women to retain the physical custody of their children during participation in the program. It says a woman entering the program must either be pregnant or have a child less than a year old. 

Alyssa Puphal and Natasha Curtin-Weber are plaintiffs in the case against the Wisconsin Department of Corrections (DOC), and are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin and Quarles & Brady LLP. 

While a judge sided with the plaintiffs last year, they are attempting to re-open the case, saying the DOC has not implemented the program required by law. 

“At this moment, each and every woman in DOC’s physical custody with a baby under one year old sleeps apart from her child every single night,” the Feb. 4 filing stated. 

Nine states have prison nursery programs, and a few others are considering or developing a program, Stateline reported in January. 

According to Wisconsin Public Radio, DOC communications director Beth Hardtke wrote in an email that because the Legislature turned down a budget request from Gov. Tony Evers to expand earned release to allow mothers to spend more time with their children outside of prison, the department is now being required to expand the mother-child program to include incarcerated mothers despite a lack of additional funding and of statutory changes that would allow more incarcerated women to take part.

DOC had previously argued that it was meeting the requirements of the 1991 statute by facilitating contact between babies and mothers on probation, extended supervision and parole. But a year ago, in February 2025, Dane County Circuit Court Judge Stephen Elkhe disagreed, ordering DOC to provide a mother-child program inside Wisconsin prisons.

“Reforming the criminal justice system to make our communities safer is a key priority of (Gov. Tony Evers’) administration and that includes corrections reforms such as a mother-young child program for incarcerated women,” Hardtke wrote, according to WPR. 

The ACLU motion called for remedial sanctions to get the agency to comply with the court order, including a daily fine for each day the contempt of court continues. The organization asked that the money from the fines be set aside to support the mother-child program, and claimed that a growing fine would ensure resources for the program. 

“With each month that passes, Defendants’ failure to act violates state law and violates the Writ,” the motion stated. 

When the lawsuit was filed in June 2024, Puphal had already given birth while incarcerated, while Curtin-Weber was pregnant. As of the filing of the lawsuit, their requests to participate in the mother-young program were refused or had not been responded to, according to a complaint published online by the ACLU. 

Puphal and Curtin-Weber were released on extended supervision last year, according to online DOC records. 

The state law enacted in 1991 states that the department shall provide the program for females who are prisoners or on probation, extended supervision or parole and who would participate as an alternative to revocation. 

When a person is released from prison to supervision, they must follow certain rules. If their supervision is revoked, the person will either be returned to court for sentencing or transported to a correctional institution. 

The department contended that it was in line with the law and that the word “or” in the statute indicated the agency could either provide the program for incarcerated mothers or for mothers on supervision.

DOC argued that it had a mother-child program for women on probation, extended supervision or parole who are pregnant or have a child under the age of one, and that it didn’t have to offer the program to incarcerated mothers. Wisconsin’s state budget includes $198,000 for a mother-young child program. 

Ehlke sided with the plaintiffs. He said they had established a clear right to be included in the class of people the department must consider for the mother-child program. 

The ACLU motion on Feb. 4 stated that the court had ordered the department to establish the program “forthwith,” or without delay, and  moved to reopen the case, arguing there has been “no meaningful progress” since that order despite three meetings between department representatives and counsel for the plaintiffs. 

“To avoid another year of excuses — or worse, another 35 years — Plaintiffs ask the Court to reopen this case for the purposes of enforcing the Court’s Writ,” the motion stated. 

The plaintiffs’ filing includes a letter and a list of questions sent to the Department of Corrections in December. It states that the Ostara Initiative offered to create a mother-young child care program for DOC at no cost to the agency in April 2024 and has continued to approach the agency. It described the Ostara Initiative as “a credible non-profit that DOC has already partnered with for other services.” 

The Examiner reached out to the Department of Corrections for a response to the plaintiffs’ filing, and also asked if the claims about Ostara were correct and if the department is planning to partner with Ostara on the program. Hardtke wrote that it is the department’s practice not to comment on ongoing litigation. 

A telephone scheduling conference in the case is scheduled for March 2. 

Gov. Tim Walz proposed $10 million in forgivable loans for Minnesota businesses affected by the surge in federal immigration activity starting in December.

The incursion of around 3,000 federal immigration agents in Minnesota in what the Trump administration called “Operation Metro Surge” led to revenue losses for businesses, especially those in major immigrant corridors, as employees and customers stayed home out of fear of being detained by federal immigration agents.

The one-time forgivable loan proposal was announced Thursday at a Capitol press briefing, moments after U.S. border czar Tom Homan announced the end of the surge and claimed success in making the Twin Cities and Minnesota “safer.” The unprecedented federal incursion ignited massive resistance and resulted in two killings of American citizens, among other high-profile incidents.

The damage from Operation Metro Surge is still being assessed, Walz said. Minneapolis businesses are estimated to have lost $10 to $20 million a week in sales, the Star Tribune previously reported.

The relief package would apply to businesses that can demonstrate substantial revenue loss tied to the surge with revenues between $200,000 and $4 million annually. The loans would be between $2,500 to $25,000, with an opportunity to apply for 50% forgiveness after a year.

Walz acknowledged that the $10 million relief proposal is “a very small piece of” the recovery. He said that the upcoming legislative session, which starts Feb. 17, “needs to be about recovery of the damage that’s been done to us.” The prospects at the Legislature aren’t great, however: Republican House Speaker Lisa Demuth, who is also a frontrunner for the GOP nomination for governor, is likely disinclined to support anything that could even implicitly be viewed as a criticism of the Trump administration’s immigration agenda.

Henry Garnica, the owner of CentroMex Supermercado in St. Paul’s East Side, a grocery store that caters to the Hispanic community, spoke at the briefing. Federal agents visited CentroMex without a judicial warrant in December, where they faced off with residents who quickly arrived at the scene and formed a chain outside the entrance. The incident ended in the federal agents leaving.

Garnica, who immigrated from Colombia over 20 years ago and is a U.S. citizen, said that his sales have been down 30 to 40% during the federal immigration enforcement surge. He spoke wearing a whistle and showed reporters his passport that he’s been carrying: “Hopefully we don’t have to do this anymore.”

Garnica said he expects that recovering from the loss in sales will take at least three to six months.

Advocates are urging state lawmakers to help Wisconsin absorb new administrative costs as a result of federal changes to the nation’s primary food assistance program.

Changes made to Supplemental Nutrition Aid Program (SNAP) benefits in the mega bill signed by President Donald Trump last year will add $69.2 million to the cost of Wisconsin’s FoodShare program in the current two-year budget, according to the Wisconsin Department of Health Services. The agency administers the FoodShare program.

The federal mega bill, which Trump signed on July 4, cut taxes along with spending on some federal programs, including SNAP.

A letter from 165 participating groups asks legislators “to take immediate action to provide funding for these changes. Additional delays in providing this funding will put Wisconsin taxpayers at risk of paying for increased costs and will negatively impact communities, businesses, and SNAP recipients across Wisconsin.”

The coalition of social service, food industry and advocacy organizations held a press conference Wednesday to call for the added state support.

“At an average of $6 per person per day, SNAP supports nearly 700,000 Wisconsinites, and also supports local economies with each dollar in SNAP benefits, generating between $1.50 and $1.80 in economic activity,” said Jackie Anderson, executive director of Feeding Wisconsin.

The press conference coincided with a lobbying day for the Wisconsin Cheesemakers Association, one of the coalition members

“FoodShare brings more than a billion dollars of spending power into our state every year, and a large share of that is returned to Wisconsin producers, and in particular, dairy producers, that flows not only through grocery stores, but back through cheese plants and into dairy farms like the one my family owns,” said Andy Hatch, the owner of Uplands Cheese in Dodgeville and the cheesemakers’ association’s policy chair.

“This is a bipartisan issue” — one that the association’s members, Republicans and Democrats alike, “have all agreed on,” Hatch added. “Our core mission is to feed people and to support our communities, rural and urban, and is why we’ve come together with people across the state to ask our lawmakers to fund the requested $69 million and make sure that there is not a disruption to FoodShare.”

The request includes funding to add administrative staff to avoid errors in the state’s operation of the program. Among the changes to SNAP is a penalty that would require states to pick up some of the benefit costs if their errors exceed 6%. State officials have said that could cost Wisconsin up to $205 million.

The $69 million that the state has estimated it will require to implement those changes was not included in the 2025-27 state budget. Gov. Tony Evers’s office said he had told lawmakers about the need last August, and Evers highlighted the coalition’s call in a statement Thursday.

“Because of President Trump’s so-called ‘Big Beautiful Bill,’ Wisconsin taxpayers will already be on the hook for over a quarter of a billion dollars in new costs in future budgets,” Evers said.

“And if we don’t get the resources we’ve been asking for in order to keep our FoodShare error rate low, Wisconsinites could have to pay hundreds of millions even more in penalty fees each year,” he added. “That just cannot happen—it will cripple future state budgets. This funding is critical, and the Legislature must get this done.” 

The request includes $16.1 million to add staff in order to ensure that FoodShare is administered accurately. The new federal law requires states with SNAP error rates exceeding 6% to cover from 5% to 15% of the benefit costs starting in October 2027.

Wisconsin’s error rate in 2024 was 4.47%, the state health department said in a news release in August. The error rate flags instances when recipients get too much or too little SNAP aid or the state makes other mistakes in the program.

“However, rates naturally fluctuate, and even more so when the federal government changes program policies and standards with virtually no notice and is inconsistent with its definition of an error,” the health department release stated.

If the error rate rises and requires Wisconsin to start paying some of the benefit costs, that could cost the state up to $205 million a year, according to the Wisconsin DHS.

To hold down the state’s “historically low error rate while implementing the other provisions” in the federal law and to maintain quality control in administering FoodShare, the state and Wisconsin counties combined will need to add 56 employees, according to the health department.

The new federal law also increases the state’s share of administrative costs for SNAP from 50% to 75%, starting Oct. 1, 2026. That will cost the state an additional $32.4 million.

In addition, the law expanded work requirements for people who receive SNAP, which the Wisconsin DHS estimates would affect about 43,700 Wisconsin FoodShare recipients.

The new requirements affect anyone ages 18 to 64 without a child under 14 at home, including parents with children ages 14 to 17, who were previously exempt from work requirements. Previously work requirements applied to adults age 54 or younger without any children under 18 at home.

The state has estimated it would need an additional $20.7 million to increase participation in the FoodShare employment and training program for recipients who have work requirements and aren’t working already.

Reno Wright, public policy and advocacy director at the Hunger Task Force in Milwaukee, said more than 40% of FoodShare recipients are children, with about one in four Wisconsin children living in a household that uses FoodShare sometime during the year.

“Research shows that SNAP reduces child poverty by nearly 30% and is linked to long-term health and educational outcomes, but those outcomes depend on a system that functions efficiently,” Wright said. The funding sought for the program “ensures that the department has the staffing and the infrastructure needed to prevent delays and disruptions as new federal requirements take effect.”

There is not a stand-alone bill in the Legislature currently for the additional funding, but advocates hope an amendment could be added to another piece of  legislation that would fund SNAP.

Oak Bluff Natural Area in Door County, which was protected by the Door County Land Trust using Knowles-Nelson Stewardship funds in 2023. (Photo by Kay McKinley)

A pair of Republican lawmakers, desperate to advance a Knowles-Nelson stewardship program bill that can garner GOP support, urged Senate lawmakers and members of advocacy organizations to get on board with pausing land acquisition for two years.

“I think we’ve landed it in a good spot now. Is it perfect? I’ll be the first to admit this is not a perfect bill,” Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point) said during the Senate Financial Institutions and Sporting Heritage committee meeting Tuesday. “If we simply allow the clock to run out, this program goes away, and I certainly don’t want to be behind the wheel when the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship program phases out.”

Since 1990, the Warren Knowles-Gaylord Nelson Stewardship Program has preserved wildlife habitat and expanded outdoor recreation opportunities throughout Wisconsin by authorizing state borrowing and spending for the purchase of land and by giving grants to local governments and nonprofit conservation organizations.

The program will run out of money on June 30, 2026 without legislative action. Reaching an agreement to continue the program has been difficult, however, with Testin telling the committee that legislators  have faced “buzzsaws” from all sides as they have worked to put together their plan. 

The Assembly passed a pair of amended bills on a 53-44 party line vote last month.

“A lot of my colleagues said ‘Oh, you’ll never get a hearing in the Senate,’” Kurtz said. “Thanks to Chairman Stafsholts, we’re having a hearing in the Senate, so it’s baby steps. It’s like chopping wood. Sen.  Testin and I are committed to keep working on this.” 

“It’s not done, so time hasn’t ran out,” Kurtz added.

Under the current proposal, the program would receive funding for another two years. 

The DNR would need to conduct a survey of all of the land that has been acquired under the stewardship program under the bill, as well as listing land acquisition priorities. The survey would need to be submitted to the Legislature in two years.

Kurtz told the committee that recent changes to the bill do “refocus” the program towards maintaining the land that has already been acquired under the program. He said that lawmakers had to make “some tough decisions.”

“It does temporarily change the focus of the program to maintain what we already own and catch up on backlog maintenance, while DNR is doing the study, planning and prioritizing a comprehensive path forward for land acquisition,” Kurtz said. “We’re confident this plan will ensure the long-term legacy of stewardship for generations.”

The lawmakers said there are still some additional changes to the bill to come. 

Sen. Jodi Habush Sinykin (D-Whitefish Bay) expressed concerns about the decreasing funding and scope of the program and questioned how lawmakers got to the point of cutting the land acquisitions portion of the program. 

The Knowles-Nelson program is currently funded at about $33 million annually. Habush Sinykin and Democratic lawmakers proposed a bill that would dedicate $72 million to it and Gov. Tony Evers had called for over $100 million for it in his budget.

The GOP bill in its current state would dedicate $28.25 million.

The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) would be allowed to obligate $13.25 million a year under the bill in its current form. Of that, $1 million would be for land acquisition — a cut from $16 million — that could only be used for the Ice Age Trail. DNR would also be able to obligate $9.25 million for property development and local assistance — a cut from $14.25 million — and $3 million for recreational boating aids. 

Funding for the program includes $7.75 million for DNR property development and grants, $4 million for local assistance grants and $3 million for grants for wildlife habitat restoration. There would also be $250,000 set aside each year to be used for DNR land acquisitions, but acquisitions would be limited to parcels of land that are five acres or less and meant to improve access to hunting, fishing, or trapping opportunities or are contiguous to state-owned land.

“Where we find ourselves now is a situation where we have zero dollars awarded to land acquisition,” Habush Sinykin said, adding, “When does this program stop being the Knowles Nelson stewardship program?” 

Testin said the funding was what was “politically palatable” for the Republican authors’  Assembly and Senate colleagues.

“There are some individuals that have strong feelings both for and against this program,” Testin said. “And where we think we’ve landed is at a point to keep the program going in some form or fashion, continue to put state resources behind it, and then as we do every two years, when we come back in January 2027, regardless of what happens in — shakes out in the November elections, we will begin another state budget process, which then gives us the opportunity once again to take a look at where we are financially as a state, hopefully put more resources into various programs, whether it’s Knowles-Nelson or others.” 

Habush Sinykin said funding acquisitions is necessary to maintain the “vitality” of the program. She also noted that there is strong bipartisan support for the program including from constituents and from conservation and recreation organizations 

“What we’re hearing is we in the Legislature need to put our money where our values are, and this is a program that is valued,” Habush Sinykin said. 

Kurtz shared what he said was the “Assembly perspective” with the committee. 

“It became abundantly clear for the [Republican] caucus I represent that land acquisition was a problem, and that’s why we kind of pivoted to the major land acquisitions, which some people did not like that as well,” Kurtz said. “I’d love to see more money in the program… But I know what the power of our caucuses is, they don’t like borrowing money, and so that’s an issue. They don’t like buying all the land up north. That’s an issue…. Let’s focus for a couple years on maintaining what we have. Let’s do the inventory. Let’s see what the path is for, and in two years, we’re going to be right back here, saying, hey, we need to do this.”

Part of the political problem for the popular Knowles-Nelson stewardship program involves legislative Republicans’ resentment of a 2025 state Supreme Court decision. 

For many years, Wisconsin lawmakers exercised control over the program through the Joint Finance Committee. Members of the committee had the ability to anonymously object to any project and have it held up for an indeterminate time. But last year the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled 6-1 that anonymous objections were unconstitutional, with conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley writing for the majority that the statutes “encroach upon the governor’s constitutional mandate to execute the law.” 

Republican lawmakers on the committee complained that eliminating the anonymous veto had placed them in a difficult position. 

Committee Chair Sen. Rob Stafsholts (R-New Richmond) said he was “a little disappointed” that the committee  had to be there working on the issue at all, noting that the state Supreme Court ruling changed the shape of the program.

Testin said there was not a problem with the way that the program functioned prior to the decision and that the Supreme Court ruling is the reason the program is in trouble. 

“By and large, the vast majority of projects that came before the finance committee were approved and enumerated,” Testin said. “We no longer have that authority and put this entire program in jeopardy.” 

Republican lawmakers on the committee suggested that environmental groups that supported the Supreme Court case overturning the anonymous veto process were responsible for damaging the Knowles-Nelson program. 

Cody Kamrowski, executive director for the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation, met a cold reception when he told lawmakers about his organization’s decision to withdraw its support for the bill after the recent amendments.

“Land acquisition is not incidental. It is what makes public access, habitat protection and outdoor opportunity possible in the state of Wisconsin,” Kamrowski said, warning that setting aside more land is particularly important in fast-growing areas where preserving wild land will soon be “gone forever.” 

“Have you thought about where we’re at and the political reality of where this program is at?” Stafsholts replied.

Charles Carlin, director of strategic initiatives for Gathering Waters, an alliance of 40 land trusts around Wisconsin, said his organization is concerned about the elimination of the land acquisition portions of the program and language that would limit habitat management to government-owned land. 

GOP lawmakers on the committee were not receptive to Carlin’s pleas, especially since his  organization was part of the Supreme Court case as a co-plaintiff.

“Do you as an organization regret intervening in that lawsuit knowing where we’re sitting here today?” Sen. John Jagler (R-Watertown) asked.

Carlin said Gathering Waters is “incredibly proud of the work” the group  did on the lawsuit. He noted that there were more than two dozen projects blocked by the committee in the first two years of Evers’ term. 

“I don’t agree with the framing of the question that we are here today because of the Court decision,” Carlin said. “We are here today because of an apparent reluctance to come together and make a bipartisan compromise to keep the program moving forward.”

“I will happily go before the public any day to talk about why projects should always move forward with a democratic process, and that all of our decisions in government should be transparent and open to public scrutiny,” he added.

Stafsholts disagreed. 

“I think that 100% of the reason we’re sitting here today is because of that lawsuit… you can’t sit there silently and watch something dramatically reduce the ability to have stewardship in Wisconsin and then come back here and beg for it.” Stafsholts said. 

Testin said the lawsuit is the reason he and Kurtz had to “bend over backwards” and “move heaven and Earth” to get a bill advanced in the Legislature. 

After the hearing, Carlin told the Examiner he wasn’t expecting to be challenged on his group’s participation in the lawsuit during the hearing. He questioned Republican lawmakers’  characterization of  the “anonymous objector” system as good governance. He also said that Republicans could simply work together with Democrats to pass a bill that continues the program, which has long enjoyed broad, bipartisan support. Instead, Republicans are presenting an ultimatum that they will only consider a bill that has majority Republican support. 

“This is what is politically possible right now, if we only rely on the votes of Republican legislators,” Carlin said, noting that all 60 Democratic legislators signed on as cosponsors to a Democratic proposal and the authors of that proposal, including Habush Sinykin, have said they want to work with Republicans. “Compromise is an absolute necessity in the Senate… If lawmakers were willing to work across the aisle — and they don’t even have to meet in the middle, they just have to make some meaningful progress towards supporting the core functions of the program — then there would be absolutely no problem getting this across the finish line,” he said. “The problem is only there if lawmakers insist on it being a partisan bill.”

Offshore wind faces intensified operational and maintenance challenges from bigger turbines and aging fleets, risking project efficiencies, durability, and profitability   Shoreline Wind’s new white paper underscores an urgent need to review and update existing O&M strategies, as the industry enters new territories and matures globally   Esbjerg, Denmark, 16th September 2024 – With the offshore wind …

The post Larger turbines and aging assets pose fresh challenges for offshore wind O&M appeared first on Alternative Energy HQ.