Protesters gather to march in Wauwatosa alongside the families of Antonio Gonzales, Jay Anderson Jr., and Alvin Cole in 2020. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

Update: Rep. Shae Sortwell issued a statement Wednesday morning disputing claims from Democratic Reps Ryan Clancy and Andrew Hysell that the riot bill was taken off the Assembly’s executive agenda. Sortwell accused Clancy and Hysell of “spreading misinformation” regarding the bill.

“To be clear, the chair never pulled the bill because he has not officially scheduled a vote on it yet after receiving a hearing two weeks ago. I am in discussions with colleagues on the committee, which is standard practice for bill authors after a public hearing. I ask both Democrat representatives to brush up on legislative policy on how bills actually move.”

Wednesday afternoon Rep. Ron Tusler, who chairs the assembly committee, which held public hearings on the riot bill, wrote in an email statement to Wisconsin Examiner that the riot bill needs work before it can be scheduled.

Tusler wrote that the bill “is not on the agenda because, in its current form, it fails to be good legislation. I wanted to give the bill author a chance to explain the bill out of respect for Representative Sortwell and the victims of riots. But in its current form, this bill has constitutional, common-sense, and enforcement issues. Assembly Bill 88, as it exists now, was never going to be scheduled for an executive session until those problems were/are addressed.”

 

A Republican-sponsored bill that would have defined a riot as a gathering of at least three people that could pose a threat of property damage or injury has been removed from the Assembly Judiciary Committee’s executive session agenda. The bill has been criticized for being overly broad, and potentially chilling First Amendment protections of protest and free speech. Besides defining a riot, the bill also exposed accused rioters and riot organizers to felony charges and civil liability including restitution for attorneys’ fees and property damage, and carried a prohibition on government officials with authority over law enforcement from limiting an agency’s response to quell unrest. 

Rep. Andrew Hysell (D- Sun Prairie), a member of the Assembly Committee on Judiciary, said that he criticized the bill because it “actually weakens existing law for the very people it was supposed to help.” The committee held a public hearing on the bill on May 7, at which  a large number of Wisconsinites voiced opposition to the bill. Rep. Shae Sortwell (R- Two Rivers), one of the bill’s authors, testified in favor of the bill, saying that it’s needed to prevent protests from spinning out of control into riots, property destruction, and injury. Sortwell and other republican supporters of the bill referenced protests and unrest in 2020 in Kenosha and  Madison. 

Among those who testified against the bill was Rep. Ryan Clancy (D-Milwaukee). Like other critics, Clancy said the bill was written vaguely in order to be applied broadly to crack down on protest movements. “While myself and many of my Democratic colleagues are tired of wasting our time and our constituents’ resources on badly written, unconstitutional bills like AB-88, I’m ecstatic that Republicans have abandoned this one for now,” Clancy said in a statement after the bill was shelved by the Assembly committee. “It’s clear that passionate, thoughtful testimony from the public, free speech advocates and civil rights experts – along with excellent technical critiques from Rep. Andrew Hysell – has stopped this so-called ‘anti-riot’ bill dead in its tracks.”

Clancy added that “in reality, however, this isn’t an ‘anti-riot’ bill: it’s a threat to free speech, expression and assembly disguised as a public safety measure. Thankfully, it’s now unlikely to move forward this session.” 

During the May 7 committee hearing where people spoke either in favor of or against the bill, one person wore a hat which used an expletive to denounce President Donald Trump. Committee Chair Ron Tusler (R- Harrison) demanded that the man remove the hat because it was offensive. Tusler threatened to have law enforcement remove the man, and called the hearing into recess. Later, when the hearing continued, the man was allowed to continue wearing the hat. Clancy told  Tusler his emotional reaction to the hat and his impulse to call for police was an example of how a broad, penalty-heavy bill for protests like AB-88 is a bad idea.

In his statement, Clancy urged his colleagues to spend “less time trying to dismantle our rights and getting angry at rude hats” and more time “addressing the actual needs of Wisconsin residents. Until that changes, we must all remain vigilant to fight back their next, terrible idea.” 

This article has been updated to add a statement from Rep. Shae Sortwell accusing Reps Ryan Clancy and Andrew Hysell of spreading misinformation about why the bill was taken off the executive session agenda. The article was updated again Wednesday afternoon with Committee Chair Rep. Ron Tusler’s statement regarding the riot bill. It has also been edited to correct Rep. Ron Tusler’s last name. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Capitol Police remove a protester in a wheelchair from the House Energy And Commerce Committee hearing room during the committee markup of part of the budget reconciliation package on May 13, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Jemal Countess/Getty Images for Protect Our Care)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. House committee tasked with overhauling energy policy and Medicaid to achieve $880 billion in spending cuts on Tuesday began what was expected to be a long, grueling session with debate on dozens of amendments.

Republicans on the panel argued during opening statements the proposed changes are necessary to realign several programs with President Donald Trump’s campaign promises and some long-standing GOP policy goals, primarily an extension of the 2017 tax cuts.

Democrats contend the legislation, one of 11 measures that will make up the GOP’s “big, beautiful bill,” would kick millions of people out of Medicaid, the state-federal program for lower income Americans, some people with disabilities and a considerable number of nursing home patients.

Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., said the GOP bill is aimed at reducing waste, fraud and abuse within Medicaid “by beginning to rein in the loopholes, by ensuring states have the flexibility to remove ineligible recipients from their rolls and removing beneficiaries who enrolled in multiple states.”

“We make no apologies for prioritizing Americans in need over illegal immigrants and those who are capable but choose not to work,” Guthrie said. “Our priority remains the same: strengthen and sustain Medicaid for those whom the program was intended to serve — expectant mothers, children, people with disabilities and the elderly.”

Democratic New Jersey Rep. Frank Pallone, ranking member on the panel, rejected comments that the GOP bill was “moderate” and said it clearly was not aimed at addressing waste, fraud and abuse.

“Medicaid is a life-saving program that 80 million Americans count on every day,” Pallone said. “It provides health care to 1 in 3 Americans and nearly half of all children in the United States. It covers close to half of all births. And it’s the largest source of funding for long-term care for seniors and people living with disabilities. With this bill, Republicans are essentially telling millions of Americans, ‘Gotcha, no more health care for you.’”

Pallone added that Republican lawmakers were “intentionally taking health care away from millions of Americans, so they can give giant tax breaks to the ultra-rich, who frankly don’t need them.”

Just before Pallone spoke, several protesters in the room, including at least three people in wheelchairs, began chanting “No cuts to Medicaid” and were led out by U.S. Capitol Police, who charged 25 people with illegally demonstrating in the Rayburn House Office Building.

Photos of constituents

Democrats gave numerous opening statements at the start of the markup, each holding up a large photograph of one of their constituents on Medicaid and sharing stories of how the program helped them get or keep access to health care after complex diagnoses, like congestive heart failure, leukemia and cerebral palsy.

Democratic lawmakers expressed concern those people would lose access to the health care program if the GOP bill becomes law.

“You don’t just gut the largest insurer of low income Americans without real harm,” said Illinois Democratic Rep. Robin Kelly. “Call it what it is — abandonment, disinvestment and pure disregard for human life.”

Florida Republican Rep. Kat Cammack rebuked some of the Democrats’ comments, which she said sought to fearmonger and lie to people about what was in the GOP bill.

“The posters that our colleagues on the left have held up are touching. The stories, they’re very emotional. And I agree that we want to protect those most vulnerable,” Cammack said. “As a pregnant woman, I want to make sure that pregnant women, expectant mothers have access to resources around the country.”

Cammack added that “not a single person in those posters is going to be impacted by this legislation.”

Floor action as soon as next week

Republicans have already approved eight of the reconciliation bills in committee and are scheduled to wrap up work on the remaining three measures this week. The Ways and Means Committee began debating the tax bill shortly after Energy and Commerce began its markup, and the Agriculture panel was scheduled to begin its debate Tuesday evening.

Later this week, the House Budget Committee plans to bundle all 11 bills together and send the full package to the floor. The entire House is set to vote on the legislation before Memorial Day.

GOP leaders cannot afford much disagreement over the entire package, given their paper-thin majority in the House. If all of the current members are present at the vote, just three Republicans can oppose the package and still have it pass.

The same margin exists in the Senate, which is expected to make substantial changes to the package should the House approve the measure and send it across the Capitol.

$880 billion cut

The Energy and Commerce Committee’s bill up for debate Tuesday met the panel’s goal of cutting at least $880 billion in federal spending during the next decade, according to a letter from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Congress’ official scorekeepers, however, hadn’t released their full analysis of the panel’s bill before the start of the debate and amendment process, known in Congress as a markup.

Once those details are made public, lawmakers and the voters who elected them will have a much more detailed look at how each of the proposed changes will affect federal revenue, spending and the number of people who could lose access to Medicaid.

Democrats released a CBO analysis last week showing the impact of various proposals, though Energy and Commerce GOP staff cautioned Monday during a background briefing that what they proposed in the actual bill didn’t completely align with those scenarios.

The bill would make considerable changes to Medicaid if the House and Senate approve the legislation as written, which seems highly unlikely, given objections from several GOP senators, including Missouri’s Josh Hawley.

The House legislation would require able-bodied people between the ages of 19 and 65 to work, participate in community service, or attend an education program for at least 80 hours a month. There would be exceptions for pregnant people, Medicaid enrollees with dependent children and people with complex medical issues, among other exclusions.

That provision would take effect on Jan. 1, 2029, according to an explainer on the bill from nonpartisan health research organization KFF.

States would be required to check eligibility for all Medicaid patients every six months, lowering the threshold from one year for people eligible for the program under the expansion in the 2010 Affordable Care Act. That would need to begin by Oct. 1, 2027.

Republicans are seeking to get the 12 states that allow immigrants without legal status into their Medicaid programs to change course by lowering the percent the federal government pays for those states’ expansion population enrollees from 90% to 80%. That would take effect Oct. 1, 2027.

The legislation seeks to block Medicaid funding for a narrow subset of health care providers who offer abortion services, which appeared to target Planned Parenthood.

The prohibition would apply to “providers that are nonprofit organizations, that are essential community providers that are primarily engaged in family planning services or reproductive services, provide for abortions other than for Hyde Amendment exceptions, and which received $1,000,000 or more (to either the provider or the provider’s affiliates) in payments from Medicaid payments in 2024,” according to a summary of the GOP bill. It would take effect as soon as the bill becomes law and last for a decade.

The Hyde Amendment allows federal funding for abortions that are the result of rape, or incest, or that endanger the life of the pregnant patient.

Planned Parenthood, SBA Pro-Life react

Planned Parenthood Action Fund President and CEO Alexis McGill wrote in a statement that defunding the organization and overhauling Medicaid would mean that “cancers will go undetected; it will be harder than ever to get birth control; the nation’s (sexually transmitted infection) crisis will worsen; Planned Parenthood health centers will close, making it significantly harder to get abortion care; and people across the country will suffer — all so the supremely wealthy can become even richer.”

SBA Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser applauded the potential change to federal funding.

“It’s time to stop forcing taxpayers to fund the Big Abortion industry. Thanks to Speaker (Mike) Johnson and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Brett Guthrie, this year’s budget reconciliation bill contains the commonsense language to make that happen,” Dannenfelser wrote. “Taxpayers should never be mandated to prop up an industry that profits from ending lives and harming women and girls.”

More than 80 organizations, including the National Women’s Law Center and the Center for Reproductive Rights, wrote in a letter to congressional leaders that cutting off Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood “would be catastrophic, shutting down health centers and stripping millions of patients across the country of access to essential and affordable health care.”

“In many communities, Planned Parenthood health centers are the only affordable provider with expertise in sexual and reproductive health,” the organizations wrote. “For those communities, the gap left by Planned Parenthood health centers would mean that many patients would have nowhere to turn for care.”

President of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Stella Dantas wrote in a statement the GOP’s changes to Medicaid might create challenges for pregnant patients seeking to access care and that some states may roll back their expansion of postpartum coverage from a full year.

“Pregnant patients who keep their coverage under Medicaid will still face challenges accessing care as labor and delivery unit closures escalate as a result of Medicaid cuts, leaving patients to travel longer distances to give birth,” Dantas wrote. “Ob-gyns are also concerned that the cuts will threaten the 12 months of postpartum coverage that we have fought so hard to achieve, and which will leave so many without access to medical care during the year after delivery when two-thirds of maternal deaths occur.

“Backsliding on our recent progress in increasing access to postpartum coverage puts lives at risk.”

American Public Health Association Executive Director Georges Benjamin wrote in a statement that House Republicans’ planned overhaul of Medicaid “does nothing to improve public health.”

“Instead, it would undermine much of the progress we have made to expand access to affordable, quality health insurance and implement other evidence-based measures to protect the public’s health,” Benjamin wrote. “We urge the House to reject this bill and instead work in a bipartisan manner on legislation to improve public health and expand access to health care for all Americans.”

 

Protesters gather to march in Milwaukee on May Day, voicing opposition to President Donald Trump's policies. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

A massive May Day protest stretched along multiple city blocks in Milwaukee, as marchers walked from the South Side to Zeidler Union Square Park in downtown. The annual protest brought union organizers, immigrant rights advocates, Indigenous community activists, students from across Wisconsin and other members of the public together to make a stand against the policies of President Donald Trump.

Despite rainy weather, hundreds of participants turned out for Milwaukee’s May Day march, with another protest planned in Madison on Friday. Prior to the march, the morning began with prayers and words from community leaders. Mark Denning, a member of the Oneida Nation, said to the crowd on Thursday that “all prayer goes to the same place” and that “all creation stories are true.” Denning said, “as we stand here together under this sheltering sky that’s giving us this beautiful rain…I want to share that your ancestors are forever. Your future is forever.” 

“Natives stand as a lesson to each and every one of you that the injustices of the past cannot be the injustices of the future,” said Denning, calling himself “a remnant of the wars that have been done on my people” and the May Day marchers “a remnant of the wars that must be corrected.” Denning went on to tell the crowd “you are now of this place! You are now of this land, and of these waters! And you will not be denied because this is where your children will be born and have a future!” The crowd cheered in response.

Although the May 1 march for immigrant workers’ rights is an annual tradition in Milwaukee, this year brought with it a new sense of fear buffered by local determination. Waves of arrests have swept communities nationwide, populating social media feeds with images of immigrants and  international students detained by masked, plain-clothes federal agents.

In Milwaukee, local advocates recently learned that agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) have been paying visits to the homes of sponsors of unaccompanied immigrant minors, causing fear of possible deportations. After ICE raids at the Milwaukee County Courthouse provoked outrage, Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan was arrested and accused of obstructing federal agents who arrived outside her courtroom to arrest a man appearing for a hearing. Protests erupted the weekend after Dugan was arrested, building momentum leading up to the May Day march.

Milwaukee marchers  joined a larger network of groups organizing May Day protests in at least 32 states. Rain showers came and went as the marchers traversed the city. People of all ages came out, including  high school students and their young siblings and grey-haired elders. Different sections of the march had different chants and atmospheres. Palestinian flags waved in the breeze alongside American flags (some of which were upside down), Mexican flags, LGBTQ+ flags, and numerous other banners. Milwaukee police officers escorted the demonstration on motorcycles and bicycles, while unmarked surveillance vans patrolled  the perimeter. 

Within an hour, the marchers arrived at Zeidler Union Square Park in the downtown area. Gathering around a central pavilion, the crowd listened to Christine Neumann-Ortiz, executive director of Voces de la Frontera, who said people had come from as far away as Arcadia in Trempealeau County to be part of the event. “We know that when we unite we are stronger, and we can achieve what seems impossible,” said Neumann-Ortiz.

Speakers called for the charges to be dropped against Dugan, for ICE to stay out of local courts, for constitutional rights to be defended and for people to take a stand against fear. Missy Zombor, president of the Milwaukee Public School Board, said that the school district is ready to honor and fight for the ideals and sense of hope that her own grandparents sought when they immigrated to America. 

Zombor said that the school district will honor its safe haven resolution. “Our schools are and will always be safe havens for children,” she said, “regardless of their background, their immigration status, their identity, or their circumstance.” The Milwaukee Public School District, Zombor said, is strengthened by the diverse languages, cultures and backgrounds of  the student body, which includes many student activists. “Our schools are going to continue to promote a curriculum that gives students the knowledge and power to question the world in a way that helps students uproot the causes of racism and inequality,” said Zombor. “Our schools are going to teach the next generation of change-makers.” 

Former Milwaukee judge Jim Gramling Jr. called Dugan’s arrest “a very unfortunate and very dangerous thing.” Gramling said that the unusual, public arrest of a judge at the courthouse “was clearly designed to intimidate other judges and those who seek justice in our courts.” He added  that federal authorities had a week to invite Dugan into the U.S. Attorney’s Office to discuss the case. Instead, Gramling said, “they wanted a public display to embarrass her, to humiliate her, and to intimidate others in the justice system from resolving immigration matters.” 

Gramling stressed that judges need to be free of pressure from outside influences, so that they can decide cases based on the facts before them. “And yet we have a president who’s threatening the firing of judges, because of decisions that he doesn’t like,” said Gramling. “And now we have a judge treated like a common criminal by that president’s agents.” Dugan is a long-time and respected member of the community, Gramling said, having served in  leadership roles at local non-profits  and that she doesn’t deserve what’s happened to her. 

Milwaukee student activists also spoke, saying that student voices should not be stifled, and that free speech means little when young people fear retaliation. The students called for Milwaukee police officers to be taken out of Milwaukee Public Schools. Removing school resources officers was a decision made by the school board after years of student organizing. But the state Legislature has demanded that Milwaukee return police to schools as a condition of state aid.  

Immigration operations add a new layer of fear for students who already dread the return of school resource officers. Milwaukee police have a standard operating procedure which limits the department’s  involvement in immigration matters, stating that “proactive immigration enforcement by local police can be detrimental to our mission and policing philosophy when doing so deters some individuals from participating in their civic obligation to assist the police.” 

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (DACA) students joined the May Day march, denouncing ICE and encouraging people to stand in solidarity with immigrants. “Don’t let fear imprison you in the shadows,” one student said from the stage. “Join us. We will keep each other safe.”

Recent visa terminations are discouraging international students at Wisconsin colleges from participating pro-Palestinian organizing, students said. 

The post Visa terminations have ‘chilling effect’ on UW international students, protest organizers appeared first on WPR.

Earlier this week, Mark Rober sparked off a giant online battle by testing autonomous driving tech. In a long video, titled Can You Fool A Self Driving Car?, he set lidar against optical systems like the ones Tesla uses. The result? Instant backlash, praise, confusion—basically, the whole internet lost its mind. Now, someone else has re-run the same test, and, unsurprisingly, the results are both familiar and a little bit different.

In short, lidar tends to see more clearly, and more accurately, in certain situations compared to optical systems. That shouldn’t be much of a surprise, as after all, it’s a high-definition radar system that can sense objects in complete darkness.

Nevertheless, when Rober’s video highlighted Tesla’s failure to detect a wall that looked like a real road, fans of the brand came out with their pitchforks, so to speak. To their credit, Rober’s test didn’t use Full Self-Driving (Supervised) but rather Autopilot.

More: Tesla Autopilot Smashes Through Fake Road Wall While LiDar Lexus Stops Like A Pro

That’s where Kyle Paul, a Tesla owner himself, comes into play. He decided to rerun the same test with the same general parameters, but this time using FSD rather than Autopilot. He printed out his own wall that looked just like the real road it sat on and drove his Model Y up to it multiple times.

In every test, the Tesla failed to see the wall until he was literally inches away from it. As Rober suggested in an interview, it’s plausible that the ultrasonic parking sensors noticed the wall rather than the autonomous driving tech.

That said, Paul then switched things up by bringing in a Cybertruck to run the same test. Interestingly, it passed the test with flying colors by stopping on its own every time it began to approach the wall. What’s the difference? Other than the obvious fact that FSD is more advanced than Autopilot, the Cybertruck was on Tesla’s latest FSD hardware called HW4. The Model Y, a 2022 year model edition, wasn’t as it was running HW3.

The Missing Pieces

Notably, some in the comment section pointed out the tests that Paul didn’t do. For instance, he didn’t test FSD with a mannequin or in the rain—two factors that could offer a more realistic sense of how the system performs in everyday conditions.

Nevertheless, this should at least help calm the noise around Rober’s video. There’s clearly some truth to the criticisms, and those who continue to challenge Tesla’s approach to autonomous driving aren’t entirely off the mark.

Sceenshot Kyle Paul