U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin and Gov. Tony Evers sent a letter Thursday raising concerns about “severe delays” in the U.S. mail system threatening the delivery of absentee ballots during Wisconsin’s August and November elections. 

The letter to Postmaster General David Steiner and members of the USPS Board of Governors noted that many absentee ballots cast during the state’s April elections arrived to local clerks after Election Day and therefore went uncounted. The letter also pushes the board to reverse course on implementing President Donald Trump’s executive order to create a federal mail-in voting list that includes the personal information of absentee voters. 

Trump and Republicans have become increasingly hostile to mail-in voting in recent years — mostly due to unfounded complaints that they were the source of fraud that swung the 2020 presidential election to Joe Biden. 

Earlier this month, Evers also joined the governors of Illinois, California, Connecticut, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Washington in writing a letter to the USPS leadership to oppose the Trump absentee voting order. 

The pair of Democrats noted that in 2024, 500,000 Wisconsin voters, 15% of all voters in the state, used mail-in ballots. Because Wisconsin is a swing state with especially close elections, they wrote, any delays “could very well tip the scales of the election.” 

“The Postal Service has a critical responsibility to ensure that election mail is handled with the urgency and reliability that voters, election officials, and the public rightly expect,” they wrote. “To meet this responsibility, USPS must address delays we saw in Wisconsin’s Spring Election and not move forward with the rule restricting vote by mail. Ensuring the timely delivery of election mail is essential to protecting every eligible Wisconsinite’s right to vote and maintaining public confidence in our elections. When ballots fail to arrive in time to be counted, voters are denied the opportunity to participate in our democracy through no fault of their own. These failures not only disenfranchise individual voters, but also erode trust in the reliability and fairness of our elections.”

They also noted that delays disproportionately affect rural voters in communities with fewer poll locations and absentee ballot drop boxes. 

Earlier this month, the Wisconsin Elections Commission released a list of best practices for absentee voting which included the recommendation that if voters are going to return their ballot by mail, it should be sent at least 10 days before the election. Ballots can also be returned directly to a voter’s municipal clerk’s office, to the voter’s polling place on Election Day or to an absentee ballot dropbox — in communities that use them. 

The Evers, Baldwin letter also notes that WEC sent a similar letter to the Postal Service leadership in May about the mail delays during the spring election. In that letter, the commission relayed the results of a survey of the state’s local election officials, which found that two-thirds of them reported problems with the mail. 

Wisconsin’s early in-person voting process also allows voters to request, fill out and return their ballots all at once at designated locations. For the August primary elections, early in-person voting begins July 28. For the November general election, early voting begins Oct. 30. 

Voters can request  absentee ballots sent to them by mail online at MyVote.WI.gov or by sending a letter or email to their local clerk that includes their full name, voting address, mailing address, the election in which they are voting and a copy of their photo ID.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Labor Department on Thursday defended the agency’s major role in a broader drive by the administration to dismantle the Education Department.  

Grilled by U.S. Senate Democrats, acting Labor Secretary Keith Sonderling stood behind the multiple interagency agreements, or IAAs, Education has so far signed with Labor, likening his agency’s functions in the transfer to a “firm that’s just consulting and helping them move these programs’ money, but not the actual programs themselves.” 

The agreements — also made with the departments of Health and Human Services, State, Treasury, Interior and Justice — are a main part of the plan by the Trump administration to axe the 46-year-old Education Department. 

Sonderling appeared before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions in his bid to serve as the next Labor secretary, where he touted his extensive DOL experience.   

“Few people have had the opportunity to experience the department from so many different perspectives, from the outside in private practice, as a policy adviser, as an agency head, as an adjunct professor, as deputy secretary, as acting secretary, and now as the nominee for Labor secretary,” he said. “These experiences have prepared me to lead this department with a deep understanding of its mission, its people, and most importantly, the Americans we serve.” 

The Floridian took on the role as acting secretary in April, after Lori Chavez-DeRemer resigned amid misconduct allegations. 

Sonderling was also named by the president in June to serve as acting director of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics and confirmed by the Senate in March 2025 as deputy Labor secretary. 

The committee will vote July 23 on whether to advance Sonderling’s nomination to the full Senate. 

‘It makes zero sense’

At the hearing, a handful of Democrats dug into the Trump administration’s continued dismantling of the Education Department and Labor’s role regarding several of Education’s programs. 

“Right now, you are working with (Education) Secretary (Linda) McMahon to take over the Department of Education programs to help Trump abolish that department,” said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., who noted that Sonderling has built his “own anti-worker record at DOL.” 

Murray pointed out that “it makes zero sense that DOL, an agency whose expertise is in supporting wage earners and job seekers, is being tasked now with taking over complex education programs from the Department of Education to help kindergartners and elementary school students.” 

Through multiple IAAs, the Department of Labor is taking on expanded roles in administering Education’s programs surrounding elementary and secondary education; postsecondary education; and career, technical and adult education. 

The Education Department has stressed in fact sheets that it would maintain its statutory responsibilities and oversight of the programs regarding the IAAs.

In the lower chamber, a package of 10 bills permanently transferring several of Education’s functions to other departments and largely reflecting many of the earlier IAAs advanced out of the House Committee on Education and Workforce on Wednesday.

Programs still run by ‘career experts’

Sonderling stood behind the administration’s efforts, saying “it makes a lot of sense” for DOL to handle more grant responsibilities and work with Education.

The nominee also emphasized that the interagency agreements are “not dealing with policy,” but instead with providing the Department of Education “a service.” 

Sen. Tammy Baldwin, a Wisconsin Democrat, said the Trump administration’s scattering of education programs across the federal government, including at DOL, creates a system that’s “much more complicated and much less efficient, particularly for states and public school districts.” 

But Sonderling argued that those programs “still all remain” at the Education Department and are “being run by career experts” at Education.

He added that “for efficiency purposes, we’ve moved a few tranches of employees to the Frances Perkins Building (DOL’s headquarters), where they all have their own offices, they all have their own computers, they have parking, and they are working out of that building.”  

Pressed by Baldwin on any evidence the nominee will present that “transferring these programs to the Department of Labor has made anything better for students, teachers, parents,” Sonderling expressed his commitment to providing the senator with that data. 

“There’s a right way to do reform — come to the committee and say, ‘Hey, look, this is in statute but there’s a better way to do it, so let’s work on a better way to do it,’” said Sen. Tim Kaine.

“The wrong way to do it is to treat the (Education Department) like it’s a furniture store and having a discount going out of business sale and hand off pieces willy-nilly to agencies that don’t have the expertise to deal with them,” the Virginia Democrat said. 

“That’s my concern about what’s happening right now.” 

One year ago, President Donald Trump signed the first piece of legislation Republicans in Congress had introduced at the start of his second term.

Passed using the complicated budget reconciliation process that enabled GOP lawmakers to enact the legislation without Democratic votes, HR 1 paired $4.5 trillion in tax cuts over 10 years with $1 trillion in cuts to federal healthcare programs as well as other initiatives to cut federal spending.

With the legislation’s first birthday on July 4, critics of the Trump administration and Democratic politicians have been using every opportunity to highlight the legislation’s role in driving unpopular results.

Healthcare cuts are among the most prominent of those outcomes. They include a series of changes to Medicaid — the state-federal health insurance program for people at or below the federal poverty guideline, with annual incomes of just under $16,000 per year for a single person or $33,000 for a family of four.

For medical and hospital care, Medicaid is called BadgerCare in Wisconsin. Medicaid also covers long-term care services for people who qualify, including home healthcare for the elderly and people with disabilities, and goes under a variety of names including Family Care and IRIS.

On Tuesday, the anti-Trump political activist group Indivisible and members of the healthcare union SEIU Wisconsin gathered in front of the Wisconsin Republican Party headquarters in Madison with an out-of-service ambulance to denounce  cuts to healthcare attributed to HR 1.

“We are here to give voice to the millions of Americans who have lost access to healthcare and to the tens of thousands of Wisconsinites who have lost healthcare,” said Jean Grow, co-leader of Indivisible’s Milwaukee chapter.

The group aimed its barbs not just at Trump but at Republican U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, the party’s nominee for governor in the November 2026 election, who voted with the rest of his party in the U.S. House of Representatives for HR 1.

“Who in this state is primarily responsible for these cuts? Tom Tiffany,” Grow said, to hearty jeers from the crowd of about two dozen during the lunchtime protest.

HR 1 also cut the federal nutrition assistance program SNAP — known as FoodShare in Wisconsin — by 20% by 2034, about $187 billion.

The changes will pass on to most states a portion of the program’s costs, which the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington says could lead “the lowest-income people, including children, older adults, veterans, and people with disabilities” in every state to lose access to food assistance.

The so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act “has been brutal for Wisconsin families,” said Secretary of State Sarah Godlewski, a Democrat who is running for lieutenant governor, at a press conference Wednesday at the Democratic Party’s Capitol Square offices that focused on Tiffany’s record.

“We know that the impact it’s going to cause — things like potentially 270,000 Wisconsinites are going to lose healthcare,” said Godlewski. “We know tens of thousands of Wisconsinites are going to lose access to FoodShare.”

While Trump and GOP congressional leaders initially called HR 1 the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” critics quickly mocked it as “the Big Ugly Law” or variations on that theme. In September, the Republicans rebranded the bill as “The Working Families Tax Cut.”

The CBPP, however, found that the tax cuts are “tilted to the wealthiest households.”

The Congressional Budget Office “finds that the new law’s program cuts and tax cuts will make households with incomes in the bottom 20 percent of the income scale worse off: they will lose more from the cuts in health coverage, food assistance, and other programs than they will gain in tax cuts,” the  CBPP reported in February.

For the bottom 10% by income, average annual incomes will fall by $1,200 — 3.1% — the CBPP reported, citing the CBO. Meanwhile, the top 10% will see their annual incomes rise $13,600 on average.

HR 1’s advocates said the healthcare spending reductions would only address waste, fraud and abuse.

Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin) said during a virtual press conference in June that the changes — such as new work-reporting requirements for some Medicaid participants — would impose administrative burdens and red tape that will block people who are qualified to receive benefits.

“They’re trying to kick people who are fully eligible off the program,” Baldwin said. The press conference was organized by the advocacy groups Protect Our Care and Main Street Alliance.

Most of the Medicaid changes won’t take effect until 2027. Enrollment in the program has already been dropping, however. Federal data tracked by the Georgetown University Center for Children and Families show that in Wisconsin, more than 75,000 Medicaid recipients had left the program in the first five months of 2026.

Dr. Kristen Dall-Winther, a family physician in Birchwood, Wisconsin, also took part in the press conference with Baldwin.

“I see how access to affordable healthcare can make the difference between something that’s a manageable condition and a medical crisis. I also see the difficult choices patients are forced to make when healthcare becomes too expensive, which it generally, universally is now,” Dall-Winther said. “When funding is reduced, healthcare providers face greater financial strain, especially in rural areas where many of our facilities are already operating on razor-thin margins.”

U.S. Senate Democrats introduced legislation on Thursday to require Congress to sign off on any deployment of federal troops to the polls, as President Donald Trump and his administration refuse to rule out the idea.

Fears of troops or other federal agents at voting sites have long loomed over the approaching midterm elections in November. Democrats and voting rights advocates have grown alarmed in recent months as Trump has publicly entertained the possibility. Other administration officials have mocked or sidestepped questions about possible deployments.

The legislation, the Protect Our Polls Act, would require Congress to pass a resolution approving any deployment beforehand. Federal law prohibits troops and other armed federal personnel from polling places, but contains an exception to “repel armed enemies of the United States” — fueling speculation that Trump could invoke this exception to bypass the ban.

“He is trying to nationalize the elections and he is telling us in his own words what he is trying to do,” Sen. Elissa Slotkin, a Michigan Democrat, said at a news conference at the Capitol. “On top of that, Trump’s nominees for his Cabinet positions have come up here and refused to rule out uniformed military or federal law enforcement being sent to the polls on Election Day.”

White House justification

The bill would require the White House, 48 hours before any deployment, to provide Congress with intelligence, legal justifications, deployment plans and evidence that state and local officials are unable to address the threat themselves. 

It also prohibits military personnel from using federal funds to access election records, a provision designed to block troops from seizing ballots.

Slotkin is offering the bill alongside Sens. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, Ruben Gallego and Mark Kelly of Arizona, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Alex Padilla of California, Jacky Rosen of Nevada and Raphael Warnock of Georgia.

“One of the things I’m very proud of is that I served to protect the Constitution of the United States and our democracy,” said Gallego, a Marine veteran. “I swore that oath, and the last thing any Marine, sailor, Army, Coastie, Air Force, spacemen — whatever they call them nowadays — wants to do is to undermine that. We’re here to protect democracy, we’re not here to undermine democracy.”

White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement that if Democrats “really cared about securing our elections,” the party would pass the SAVE America Act. 

The legislation would require voters to provide documents, such as a birth certificate or passport, proving their citizenship. The measure has stalled in the Senate amid opposition from Democrats and a handful of Republicans.

In May, Trump told reporters that he would “do anything necessary to make sure we have honest elections,” in response to questions about sending National Guard personnel or federal immigration agents to voting locations in November.

Amendments blocked

At a Senate hearing in April, Slotkin pressed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on sending troops to the polls. He called the questions “another gotcha hypothetical.”

The Democratic legislation comes a week after Slotkin said Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee blocked two amendments to ban troops at the polls during work on the National Defense Authorization Act. The committee typically works on the defense spending bill behind closed doors.

The Protect Our Polls Act has virtually no chance of passing the Republican-controlled Congress. Still, its introduction underscores the level of concern among Democrats as Trump’s efforts to influence the midterm elections come into focus.

The Department of Justice has spent a year demanding states turn over unredacted copies of their voter rolls, including sensitive personal data on voters. DOJ officials have said in court that the department wants to share the data with the Department of Homeland Security, which operates a powerful computer program that can identify possible noncitizen voters. 

The DOJ has sued 30 states and the District of Columbia for the data, but no judge has so far ruled in the administration’s favor.

Investigations

The Department of Justice is also engaged in several election-related investigations over past elections. 

The FBI raided a Georgia elections warehouse in January and seized ballots from the 2020 election. Election officials have been subpoenaed in Minneapolis and the FBI last week searched the office of an Ohio voting rights group.

And Trump signed an executive order that restricts voting by mail. It would require states to provide lists of voters to the U.S. Postal Service before using the mail to send ballots and directs Homeland Security to share lists of voting-age citizens with every state. The order remains in effect for now, despite a series of lawsuits challenging it.

“There’s a common theme here,” Padilla said at a Democratic forum on election security on Tuesday. “All of these things are illegal and many unconstitutional.”

Far from “unconditional surrender” or the “total and complete victory” President Donald Trump claimed would result from his unilateral decision to launch a war against Iran, the protracted U.S. military action is reportedly winding down with a memorandum of understanding between U.S. and Iranian officials that includes lifting U.S. sanctions, unfreezing Iranian assets, ending the U.S. blockade, reopening the Strait of Hormuz with Iran still in control, creating a $300 billion reconstruction fund, and the promise of further negotiations to end Iran’s nuclear program. 

In other words, the provisional agreement to end the war that has cost $30 billion and 13 U.S. lives appears to more or less restore the status quo before the war started. The biggest achievement of the outlined deal is to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, which wasn’t closed until the U.S. started bombing. Details of a proposed effort to keep Iran from building a nuclear weapon are still not figured out. Iran’s hardline regime is still in power.

None of this sounds like a win to Wisconsin U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin, who has repeatedly tried and failed to get her colleagues to pass a War Powers resolution to assert congressional warmaking authority, end the bombing and stop what she calls Trump’s illegitimate and “100% unnecessary” war.

“We have no assurances that war won’t continue, and no evidence that Americans are any better off today than they were before this all started,” Baldwin said in a press call Wednesday, calling the Iran war “a disaster for Wisconsinites.”

Baldwin is not alone. According to an April Marquette University Law School poll, 63% of Americans said there was not sufficient reason to start the war, and 68% said they disapproved of the way Trump has handled it.

Even Wisconsin’s Republican Sen. Ron Johnson, an ever-dependable Trump ally, told Bloomberg Television this week, “I don’t like the final outcome here. I’m sure President Trump doesn’t like the outcome. He would have liked unconditional surrender. It didn’t happen.” 

Johnson threw in a loopy tangent, blaming “gun control” for the inability of the Iranian people to overthrow their country’s brutal regime, calling it “a good lesson for the American people.” 

But Baldwin and Johnson appear to be mostly in agreement that, unproductive as it was, it’s better to wind down the war than to continue pushing forward with a costly and fruitless military adventure.  

“Look, peace is unequivocally a good thing, and something I have been fighting for since this president launched this unnecessary war,” Baldwin said Wednesday.

Speaking to Bloomberg on Tuesday, Johnson said: “If you’re going to recognize reality and realize that they still had a stranglehold over the straits and you want to open the straits up, there’s got to be some give and take.” 

So there it is: without knowing the details, Johnson supported Trump’s deal to end the war because it got Iran to reopen the strait it closed because Trump started the war in the first place. As for Iran’s nuclear program, “We can always go back in, the minute they make a move toward their nuclear sites, we can bomb them again,” Johnson asserted, echoing Trump.

“I don’t know what’s in the memorandum of understanding,” he added.

Being left in the dark about the details did not appear to trouble Johnson. Baldwin, in contrast, made it a point of her press conference, noting that Trump had repeatedly declared victory in Iran only to have the war continue.

“We need to make sure that whatever is in this agreement is real and also good for the American people,” she said, flagging the surge in gas prices that cost the average Wisconsin family $378 more since the war started as well as a huge hike in fertilizer prices that has taken a heavy toll on farmers.

The Iran nuclear deal Trump tore up, negotiated under the administration of President Barack Obama, included intrusive inspections that ensured Iran’s nuclear weapons capacity was not advancing, Baldwin noted. “I can’t see possibly how we could end up with a stronger deal curtailing Iran’s nuclear program 60 days from now than we did back in 2015 after months of multilateral negotiation,”  she said. “But again, Trump ripped up that deal, and we’re going to possibly, probably end up in a much worse place when we finally see this wind down and end.

Asked whether it still makes sense to push Congress to step up and pass a War Powers resolution, Baldwin answered, “absolutely.”

“When this president brought us into his war of choice, we weren’t under attack, we weren’t under any imminent threat of attack from Iran, he brought us into an illegal war.” Ever since then, Democrats have been introducing War Powers resolutions. 

“At first we had one Republican join us, then two, then three, then four. We are going to carry on until we are able to bring this to a close,” Baldwin said. 

Unlike Johnson, she was not reassured by Trump’s assertions that if the deal doesn’t work out, the U.S. can just start bombing again.

“I think it’s quite possible that some of my Republican colleagues who had previously joined us were taking the president’s word that a deal to end the war, an agreement to end the war, was upon us, and around the corner. I think they’ll soon find out that that’s not the case,” she said.

No matter how many conflicting assertions Trump makes about the war, it’s up to Congress to do its job. 

Reading Time: 5 minutes

It’s boom times for Wisconsin’s congressional delegation: Most members have seen their personal wealth substantially rise since arriving on Capitol Hill, according to a NOTUS analysis of congressional financial disclosures.

That surge in their financial portfolios is primarily driven by real estate, retirement accounts and, in one case, a well-placed billboard, NOTUS’ analysis indicates. In all, five of Wisconsin’s 10 delegation members reported median net worths of more than $1 million in 2024, the most recent year covered by federal disclosures.

Overall, the Wisconsin delegation is much wealthier than the average Wisconsinite, who has a median net worth of about $76,000, according to U.S. Census Bureau data.

Republican Sen. Ron Johnson’s median net worth nearly tripled in recent years, from $24 million in 2010, when he was first elected to the Senate, to $64.9 million in 2024.

One of the assets driving the uptick in Johnson’s median net worth is an industrial building he and his wife own in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. The property was worth between $1 million and $5 million in 2010. In 2024, Johnson valued it at between $5 million and $25 million, according to his latest financial disclosure.

In a decidedly political twist, part of Johnson’s wealth is tied up with his own reelection campaign committee. Federal Election Commission records indicate Johnson’s campaign owes Johnson more than $8 million from personal loans he’s made to the committee. In his 2024 personal financial disclosure, Johnson lists these loans as assets, valuing them between $5 million and $25 million.

Johnson’s office did not respond to requests for comment.

Therein lies a major challenge in pinpointing lawmakers’ net worths: They are only required to publicly disclose the value of their assets and liabilities in broad ranges. So if an asset increased from $4.9 million to $5.1 million, it grew 4%, but the category range (going from $1-$5 million to $5-$25 million) would have increased 400%.

Lawmakers also aren’t required to disclose the value of several assets including personal property, vehicles or their personal residence, although they do have to declare the value of their mortgage as a liability along with other debts including credit card balances and student loans.

To best estimate lawmakers’ wealth, NOTUS calculated the median of their minimum net worth — minimum total assets minus maximum liabilities — and maximum net worth — maximum total assets minus minimum liabilities.

Johnson is hardly alone among Wisconsin lawmakers whose personal wealth has grown substantially while they earn a $174,000 annual salary.

Among the others: Republican Reps. Glenn Grothman, Bryan Steil, Scott Fitzgerald and Tom Tiffany, as well as Democratic Rep. Mark Pocan.

Steil, elected to Congress in 2018, and Grothman, elected in 2014, have both become millionaires since they entered Congress.

Grothman’s median net worth has more than doubled, from $885,000 in 2014 to more than $2.2 million in 2024. Several accounts Grothman disclosed owning in 2014, including state retirement accounts and two individual retirement accounts, steadily increased in value. And the value of a condominium he owns in West Bend, Wisconsin, greatly increased, from a reported minimum value of $15,001 in 2014 to $100,001 in 2024, according to his financial disclosures. The condominium could be worth as much as $250,000, according to Grothman’s latest disclosure.

Grothman’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

Steil’s median net worth more than doubled from 2018 to 2024, from $812,000 in 2018 to nearly $1.9 million in 2024, according to his financial disclosures. Several of Steil’s brokerage and retirement accounts jumped in value, including Vanguard Target Retirement, Mid Cap Growth Index Fund and Strategic Equity Investor accounts. He also added a Vanguard U.S. Growth Fund account worth between $250,001 and $500,000 that’s now among his largest assets.

Steil’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

Fitzgerald’s median net worth increased from $3.5 million in 2021, his first year in the House, to $6.3 million in 2024. His financial disclosure report from 2020, the year he was elected, is blank and has not been amended.

A spokesperson for Fitzgerald did not return a request for comment.

Fitzgerald’s wealth spike is primarily driven by real estate investments. The minimum disclosed value of his Wisconsin farm increased from $500,001 to $1 million over those three years, and he disclosed a property in Watertown, Wisconsin, in 2024 that’s worth at least $250,001. He also disclosed a Big Horn, Montana, property worth between $1 million and $5 million, although the property’s value range did not change between 2021 and 2024.

Tiffany’s median net worth ticked up slightly from $230,000 in 2020 to $296,000 in 2024, according to his latest disclosure.

Some of his income comes from on high: He owns a billboard in Oneida, Wisconsin, worth between $1,001 and $15,000 that consistently generates between $5,000 and $15,000 each year, according to his disclosures.

Tiffany’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

Pocan’s median net worth has also risen, from $541,000 in 2012 to $778,000 in 2024.

Most of his net worth comes from Budget Signs & Specialties, a printing company Pocan fully owns. It sells custom signs, awards and apparel, as well as campaign materials to Wisconsin Democratic candidates, and is valued between $500,001 and $1 million. It was valued between $250,001 and $500,000 in 2012.

Political candidates and committees have paid Pocan’s Budget Signs & Specialties more than $1.2 million since 2004, according to FEC data. That includes about $12,700 so far during the 2026 election cycle, with $7,600 collectively coming from Pocan’s own congressional campaign committee and the committee of Sen. Tammy Baldwin.

Baldwin’s campaign committees and the Democratic Party of Wisconsin are among Pocan’s biggest political customers over the last 22 years, FEC filings indicate.

The state Democratic Party has paid Pocan’s company more than $500,000 for materials such as yard signs and T-shirts since 2008. Committees for Baldwin’s House and Senate campaigns have collectively spent $171,000 since 2004.

In addition, Pocan’s campaign committee has paid his business more than $91,000 for printing and copying services and signs since 2018, according to FEC filings.

Pocan’s office declined to comment on the congressman’s net worth increase and business.

Baldwin’s median net worth has dipped slightly from $623,000 in 2012 to $588,000 in 2024, according to her financial disclosures.

Baldwin’s office said in a statement that the Wisconsin Democrat has “no knowledge of where her assets are invested or the composition of her portfolio” and communicates with her trustee through the Senate Ethics Committee.

One of the delegation’s wealthiest members is also its newest.

Republican Rep. Tony Wied, whose median net worth is nearly $10.1 million, arrived in Washington in 2024 after selling his chain of dinosaur-themed gas stations and convenience stores.

Wied holds between $50,000 and $100,000 in Black Hills Corp., an electric and gas utility in the West, and at least $250,000 in companies that produce tractors, trucks and automotive parts, including an investment in the Canadian National Railway.

That’s notable because Wied sits on the House Agriculture Committee and House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, where he serves on the subcommittee for rural development, energy and supply chains. These committees have oversight jurisdiction for the industries in which Wied personally invests.

Wied reports his stock trades each month to the House Ethics Committee in compliance with current law and guidelines, spokesperson Aidan Strongreen said.

“Congressman Wied’s investments are managed solely through an independent financial adviser, and he has no role in any of their decisions,” Strongreen said.

Only two members of Wisconsin’s congressional delegation have net worths below the Wisconsin household median, according to a NOTUS analysis of their annual financial disclosures: Republican Rep. Derrick Van Orden and Democratic Rep. Gwen Moore.

Van Orden’s median net worth is -$88,000, while Moore’s is also in the red, at -$75,000, according to their most recent financial disclosures.

On her most recent disclosure, Moore reported no assets. She disclosed a mortgage balance on her home in the range of $50,000 to $100,000. Lawmakers are not required to publicly disclose the value of their personal residence, and most do not.

Moore’s net worth has dropped almost $100,000 from $24,000 in 2008, according to her disclosure.

Van Orden does have some assets, primarily a Navy Mutual Whole Life policy valued between $50,001 and $100,000, his disclosure shows. But his overall net worth is pulled down by a mortgage and a “revolving charge account,” a category that includes credit cards and home equity and personal credit lines.

This story was produced and originally published by Wisconsin Watch and NOTUS, a publication from the nonprofit, nonpartisan Allbritton Journalism Institute.

Here’s how much the wealth of Wisconsin’s congressional delegation has changed since going to Washington is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.