WASHINGTON — As they seek to curb President Donald Trump’s aggressive approach to immigration enforcement, congressional Democrats are looking to formalize some guidelines previous administrations used.

Of the 10 policy proposals Democratic leaders offered in negotiations to reopen the Department of Homeland Security, which has been in a funding lapse since Feb. 14 in the midst of widespread uproar over the fatal shootings of two U.S. citizens by immigration officers in Minneapolis last month, seven have been employed in at least some form by previous administrations.

Democrats are asking the Trump administration to reinstate policies it has rejected in its controversial push to carry out mass deportations. Prior policies Democrats want to formalize include use-of-force standards, allowing unannounced visits by members of Congress to facilities that detain immigrants and obtaining judicial warrants before entering private residences.

“Many of the things the Democrats are asking for are to revert to prior policies,” said Theresa Cardinal Brown, a senior DHS official during the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations. “Some of them are responding to the ways this administration is carrying out its operations that previous administrations did not.”

Formalizing the policies in law, as part of a deal to pass a fiscal 2026 funding bill for the department, would make them more permanent.

“Policies and guidance … apply as the current leadership applies them,” Cardinal Brown said. “They’re not absolutes, and they can be changed much more frequently.”

But an agreement between congressional Democrats and the White House on changes to immigration enforcement appears elusive. The White House’s response to the proposals was “incomplete and insufficient,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a Feb. 9 statement. 

No recent movement on negotiations

Democrats late Monday sent over a counterproposal to Republicans and the White House, but did not make public what those changes were, according to a statement from party leaders.

While there is bipartisan support for some of the proposals, like requiring body-worn cameras, others, such as barring immigration agents from wearing face coverings and requiring judicial warrants to enter private property, have been rejected outright by the Trump administration.

A White House official said the “Trump Administration remains interested in having good faith conversations with the Democrats.” 

“President Trump has been clear – he wants the government open,” according to the White House official.

Even with the department shut down, immigration enforcement will continue, due to $170 billion in funding in the massive tax cuts and spending package Trump signed into law last year. 

Democrats’ proposals do not include consequences if DHS doesn’t comply, which raises an issue of effectiveness, said Heidi Altman, vice president of policy at the National Immigration Law Center, an advocacy group that aims to provide free or low-cost legal services for immigrants.

“When Congress is negotiating policy measures, are they also putting teeth to those policy measures, and are they yanking away the funds that we know ICE and CBP will use to violate guardrails to begin with?” Altman said.

Changes demanded after Minneapolis deaths

After Renee Good was shot and killed by immigration officer Jonathan Ross on Jan. 7, lawmakers amended the Homeland Security funding bill to add guardrails, such as appropriating $20 million for body cameras and adding a requirement for DHS to report how funds from the tax cuts and spending package are being spent.

But a second death in Minnesota, that of intensive care unit nurse Alex Pretti on Jan. 24, spurred Democrats to reject funding for DHS without stronger policy changes to the enforcement tactics used by immigration officers at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection. 

Only three of the 10 proposals from Schumer and Jeffries, both of New York, would be entirely new. 

They are: prohibiting ICE and other immigration enforcement agents from wearing face coverings, barring racial profiling after the Supreme Court cleared the way for the practice last year, and standardizing uniforms of DHS agents.

The heads of ICE and CBP rejected Democrats’ request to have their immigration officers forgo face coverings when asked during an oversight hearing before the House Homeland Security Committee last week. 

Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons and CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott, along with congressional Republicans, have argued that masks and face coverings prevent their officers from being doxed. 

Local cooperation

Other proposals, including barring of immigration enforcement of so-called sensitive locations such as religious places, child care facilities, hospitals and schools, would expand previous DHS guidance that restricted enforcement in such places.

The Democratic proposal calls for enforcement to be prohibited at those sensitive locations. Prior guidance allowed for the practice on a limited basis.

Then-acting ICE Director Caleb Vitello rescinded the policy shortly after President Donald Trump took office in January last year. There are several lawsuits brought by religious groups challenging the move by the Trump administration.

A requirement that immigration officials gain permission from local and state governments before undertaking large enforcement operations like the one in Minneapolis would build on previous policies of federal-local cooperation.

But that measure would be a long shot, Cardinal Brown said.

“I think that’s going to be a hard one,” she said. “The federal government has the authority to enforce immigration law anywhere in the country it wishes.”

She said a more realistic option would be for the federal government to inform or coordinate with local authorities for large-scale immigration operations. 

Another proposed requirement that DHS officials present identification also builds on a previous policy.

Another proposal builds on DHS policy of targeted enforcement by ending “indiscriminate arrests,” without warrants.

Under current immigration law, if an officer encounters a person believed to be in the U.S. unlawfully and can escape before a warrant is obtained, a warrantless arrest is lawful.

Democrats want to increase standards on the forms ICE uses to authorize an arrest. These administrative forms are not signed by a judge but instead by an ICE employee.

Judicial warrants

The remaining proposals would revert DHS policies to those in place under prior administrations’ guidance. Those include use-of-force standards, use of body cameras when interacting with the public, allowing members of Congress unannounced oversight visits at detention centers that hold immigrants and requiring a judicial warrant to enter private property.

An internal ICE memo, obtained by The Associated Press, showed that Lyons instructed ICE agents to enter private residences without a judicial warrant – a departure from longstanding DHS policy.

“This judicial warrant issue is so disturbing,” said Ben Johnson, executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, or AILA.  

He said the question of whether a warrant is needed to enter private property was already decided under the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment. 

“The fact that it’s being discussed now is really frightening,” Johnson said.

Body cameras

Providing funds for DHS to acquire body cameras for immigration officers is one proposal Democrats and Republicans seem to have agreed on.

Earlier this month, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem announced that body cameras would be provided to all immigration agents in Minneapolis, and said that as “funding is available, the body camera program will be expanded nationwide.”

During an oversight hearing on Capitol Hill, Lyons said about 3,000 ICE officers currently have body cameras with another 6,000 cameras on the way. Scott said  roughly 10,000 Border Patrol agents, about half the total force, have body cameras.

But body cameras are not a guarantee against misconduct, Altman said.

CBP officials were wearing body cameras when Pretti was shot and killed. Scott said that footage would be released after the investigation is over.

“We see officers in the field right now wearing body-worn cameras engaging in abuse and violence on the daily,” Altman said. 

Oversight visits

One of the proposals would also end a DHS policy to require members of Congress to provide seven-day notice of oversight visits at facilities that hold immigrants, despite a 2019 appropriations law that allows for unannounced visits.

Since last summer, several lawmakers have been denied oversight visits at ICE facilities prompting them to sue in federal court. 

On the day funding for DHS lapsed, Feb. 14, the Department of Justice submitted a brief, noting that because of the shutdown, unannounced oversight visits by lawmakers can be denied. 

The administration argued that during the shutdown, immigration enforcement has been funded by the tax cuts and spending bill, which does not include language allowing unannounced visits, rather than regular appropriations. 

“There is no lawful basis for the Court to enjoin Defendants’ conduct so long as the restricted funds have lapsed,” according to the document.

WASHINGTON — Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear’s faith calls him to address hunger, health access and community care, he said during an event Thursday at the progressive Center for American Progress that previewed a potential campaign in the 2028 cycle.

The Trump administration has “hijacked” faith, the Democrat said, leading to harm instead of helping people. He pointed to the repercussions of the major tax cuts and spending package Republicans passed last year that paid for tax cuts by making changes to food assistance and health care that will result in millions of people losing access to those safety nets.

“Are we using faith to help people or to hurt people?” he said. “It’s that simple.”

More than 100,000 people are expected to be kicked off SNAP and 25 rural hospitals are at risk of closing in Kentucky alone, he said.

“The reason why I talk about faith is it motivates me. (It’s) why I’m willing to get up no matter how mean and cruel the world has gotten and fight to make it just a little bit better,” he said.

Upcoming White House bid?

Beshear, 48, is widely expected to make a presidential run in 2028, and did not rule out a bid when members of the audience asked how he would govern if he won the presidency. 

Like previous presidential hopefuls, he’s gearing up for a book tour. He told the think tank his upcoming book explores how his Christian faith has led him through challenging times as governor, from the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic to deadly tornadoes, and how he believes those values can heal the deep polarization of the country.

“In the end, where we’ve got to go is … I hope that you would say that you are an American long before you’d say you are a Democrat or Republican,” Beshear said.

Beshear was a top candidate for 2024 Democratic nominee Kamala Harris’ running mate before she selected Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz.

Immigration

An audience member asked Beshear how he would address immigration if he were president. The issue has dominated political discourse since the deadly shootings of two U.S. citizens by federal immigration agents in Minneapolis last month. 

Beshear said that every federal immigration officer needs to be retrained, and he expressed concerns about what he called constitutional violations, such as agents entering private residences without a judicial warrant.

“What we see with (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) is an out-of-control law enforcement agency,” he said. “They are so overly aggressive compared to any other law enforcement group in the nation.”

He said enforcement operations like the one in Minneapolis “will continue in other places if the current leadership continues and if they are not fully retrained.”

Beshear said the country needs comprehensive immigration reform that addresses long-term undocumented immigrants in the country and also provides a steady workforce. 

“I think that there is a reasonable way to go forward on immigration,” he said. 

RFK as campaign model

Another audience member asked Beshear if a potential 2028 Democratic presidential run would resemble Robert F. Kennedy’s 1968 campaign style that aimed to unite the country deeply divided in the midst of the Vietnam War, massive poverty and the Civil Rights Movement. Kennedy was a top candidate for the Democratic nomination before his June 1968 assassination.

Beshear said he would.

“Absolutely,” he said. “When I think about his campaign … you think about hope, you think about connection. He made you feel that progress was possible, that we could go up against huge adversaries like poverty and we could do better.”

WASHINGTON — Democratic members of Congress said Wednesday the Trump administration was using the “authoritarian playbook” when it tried to secure a grand jury indictment against them for releasing a video that reminded members of the military and intelligence communities they can refuse illegal orders. 

Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly and Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin said during a joint press conference they don’t expect this will be the last time administration officials seek to punish them for the video. They also expressed frustration and dismay that more Republicans haven’t spoken out.

“This isn’t the judicial system at work,” Kelly said. “It’s not supposed to be a president deciding right out of the gate here that members of the United States Senate should be hanged, calling for our execution. And then, I guess when he realized that was not a good idea, or somebody told him that that’s ridiculous. Then he went with prosecution for something that is in the First Amendment.”

Slotkin, a former CIA officer, said the unsuccessful attempt to convince a District of Columbia federal grand jury to indict her and the other five lawmakers in the video is not something she expected to happen in America.

“If things had gone a different way, we’d be preparing for arrest,” Slotkin said.  

The Department of Justice and the office of United States Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro did not respond to a request for comment. 

No word from Justice Department

Slotkin said she and the other Democrats learned about the attempt to indict them from news articles. The Justice Department didn’t reach out to say what they were trying to charge the lawmakers with or what law they allege they may have violated. 

Kelly noted during the press conference that he is waiting to learn if a federal judge will issue a preliminary injunction, blocking the Defense Department from downgrading his retirement rank and pay as a Navy captain for appearing in the video. 

Kelly, Slotkin, Colorado Rep. Jason Crow, Pennsylvania Reps. Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan, and New Hampshire Rep. Maggie Goodlander, all Democrats with backgrounds in the military or national security, posted the video on Nov. 18.

“No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution. We know this is hard and that it’s a difficult time to be a public servant,” they said. “But whether you’re serving in the CIA, in the Army, or Navy, or the Air Force, your vigilance is critical.”

Trump reaction, DOD investigation

President Donald Trump reacted on social media a few days later, falsely claiming the video represented “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”

The Defense Department opened its investigation into Kelly later that month and Secretary Pete Hegseth announced in January that officials had started the process to downgrade Kelly’s retirement rank and pay. 

Kelly filed a lawsuit shortly afterward, asking a federal court to block the Defense Department from moving forward and alleging its actions violated his constitutional rights, including the First Amendment. 

House members speak out

The four House Democrats in the video held a press conference of their own in the afternoon, criticizing the Trump administration for seeking a grand jury indictment and hinting at possible legal action of their own. 

“My lawyers just sent a letter today to the Department of Justice, putting them on notice that there will be costs,” Crow said. “We will not just sit back and let them lob false allegations after false allegations at us.”

Crow declined to answer several questions about what exactly he meant and his office did not return a request for details from States Newsroom. 

Houlahan said Trump administration officials do not get to pick which parts of the Constitution they are going to respect and which they are going to ignore, especially when criticized by members of Congress.  

“The First Amendment is not optional. It is not conditional. It does not expire because someone who’s in power is threatened by it,” Houlahan said. “It does, thankfully, limit the power of our government, especially when that power is tempted to punish lawful speech.”

Deluzio said the Trump administration’s actions show they wanted to “throw us in prison for stating the law.”

“I have little doubt that Donald Trump and those around him are willing to abuse their power. We’ve seen it with us, with other perceived political opponents,” Deluzio said. “There has to be accountability and there has to be justice. And I know that all of us will see that through.”

Goodlander said it was “truly sad and it is downright dangerous” that Trump became “so unglued by a cornerstone and completely uncontroversial principle of American law” that illegal orders should not be obeyed.

“A principle of law that was born of the hard-earned, the unparalleled tragedies of the Holocaust. A principle that has always guided us,” Goodlander said. “A principle that makes us who we are as Americans.”

U.S. jobs increased by 130,000 in January, buoyed by hires in health care, social assistance and construction.

But in another sign of anemic hiring last year, estimates for 2025 were revised down by more than a million jobs to a level of low growth rarely seen outside of recessions. 

The revisions show the United States added only 181,000 jobs last year — the first year of the new Trump administration — one of the lowest increases ever outside recessions. 

Jobs dropped in 2020 at the height of the pandemic and in 2008-2009 in the Great Recession, but otherwise the last time was a lower increase in jobs was in 2003, when they rose 124,000 after two years of decreases, during a period labeled a “jobless recovery” by economists.  

Economist Claudia Sahm, who had predicted 2025 would be “a year without jobs, but no recession” before the annual revisions based on more complete data, said Wednesday that “the downward revisions are huge” in an X post.

The new revisions changed the most for January 2025, which went from a gain of 111,000 to a loss of 48,000 jobs. Only one month, October, saw an upward revision: A reported loss of 173,000 jobs was trimmed to a loss of 140,000 jobs. There are now four months of job losses reported last year, up from three. 

Overall, the number of total U.S. jobs at the end of the year was revised down by 1,029,000, from a little more than 159.5 million to a little less than 158.5 million. 

State by state jobs estimates for January are not yet available. 

There have been about 29,000 layoffs announced so far in 2026,according to notices tracked by WARN Tracker. They include 7,705 layoffs in California, 6,109 in New Jersey, 3,999 in Pennsylvania, 3,483 in Washington state and 2,607 in Texas. 

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

Disaster relief for six Wisconsin counties inundated by historic flooding back in August has again been denied by the federal government. It’s the second time that Waukesha, Ozaukee, Washington, Grant, Milwaukee, Door and Grant counties have been denied assistance from the Trump administration since the floods drowned parks, damaged homes and trapped people in their cars in the middle of the night. 

This latest denial was in response to an appeal filed by Gov. Tony Evers in November, after the first denial came from  the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). At the time, Evers stressed that the extreme storms had left over $26.5 million in disaster costs. 

In a statement Monday, Evers called the new denial “completely unsatisfactory,” saying that the Trump administration  had again denied the  relief for Wisconsin “without any explanation” and calling for the decision to be reversed. “Wisconsinites have been hard at work to build back from these historic flooding events, but folks are not out of the woods yet,” said Evers. “Efforts to rebuild will cost tens of millions of taxpayer dollars that local communities will be on the hook for, and it’s really disappointing to see our federal leadership turn their backs on Wisconsin, our families, and our communities in our time of need. We will continue to advocate to the Trump Administration and our federal partners that Wisconsin needs these resources to rebuild and recover, and we will continue to do what we can to support our local partners however we can in the meantime.” 

FEMA’s letter to Evers said that assistance “is not warranted,” but does not otherwise explain the rationale for the denial. 

Evers declared a state of emergency on Aug. 11, as communities across Wisconsin picked themselves up from the storms. A ceaseless downpour began on Aug. 9, though the extent of the flooding wasn’t apparent to many until after the sun went down. In Milwaukee County, the Wisconsin State Fair had to close early as people fled the grounds in waist-high water. People who traveled the roads that evening found themselves trapped by floodwaters, requiring rescue from local authorities and neighbors. 

Swaths of Hart Park in Wauwatosa were left underwater, and the storm’s aftermath left neighborhoods strewn with downed trees and abandoned vehicles. Flooding also challenged emergency response in Waukesha County, though no injuries or missing persons reports had been received by the sheriff’s department. In Milwaukee, reports of people missing from homeless encampments emerged in the days after the floods. 

Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley called the denial for disaster relief “deeply disappointing” in a statement Monday. “My administration has worked to rebuild and recover after last summer’s historic storms and flooding,” said Crowley. “Without federal assistance, the financial burden of these public infrastructure repairs falls to local governments to cover. Communities rely on intergovernmental partnerships in times of crisis, and this decision by the Trump administration erodes that public trust. To move forward, my administration will continue working with the State of Wisconsin, our municipalities, and community partners to identify responsible funding solutions to rebuild our roads, bridges, parks, and public buildings. Our residents should not be forced to shoulder the full cost of disasters beyond their control, and we will continue advocating for the resources our community deserves.”

Leaders from the other counties, most of them Republican-leaning, that were denied disaster relief have not commented. The executives for Door, Washington, and Ozaukee counties could not be reached and Robert Keeney, the county board chairman for Grant County, refused to comment on the denial. 

Hillary Mintz, public information officer for Waukesha County, told Wisconsin Examiner that the county was disappointed by the denial. Although Mintz expressed gratitude that federal assistance for individual residents was approved by the Trump Administration, she explained that the county had estimated in the fall that an additional $300,000 in public repairs would also be needed. Mintz said that Waukesha County is working out how to plug that gap, but that its needs may not be as severe as some communities in Milwaukee, which are still dealing with storm damage.

This article has been updated with comment from Waukesha County.

President Donald Trump gives a speech at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland, on Jan. 21, 2026. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Education reinforced the right to prayer in public schools in guidance issued Thursday.

Under the guidance to state and local education agencies, students, teachers and school officials have “a right to pray in school as an expression of individual faith, as long as they’re not doing so on behalf of the school,” the department said. 

President Donald Trump’s administration has sought to protect religious liberty in public schools and beyond, and a growing number of GOP state legislators have tried to infuse Christianity in public education. 

Trump announced the guidance during remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, calling the move a “big deal.” 

The president predicted that Democrats would sue over the guidance, but said he was confident his administration would win any legal challenge. 

The guidance also makes clear that “public schools may not sponsor prayer nor coerce or pressure students to pray.”

In 1962, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that school-sponsored prayer in public schools violates the Constitution. 

The new guidance calls on school officials to “allow the individuals who make up a public school community to act and speak in accordance with their faith, provided they do not invade the rights of others, the school does not itself participate in religious action or speech as an institution, and the school does not favor secular over religious views or one religious view over another.” 

The guidance leans on a handful of recent Supreme Court rulings surrounding religious expression and religious freedom in public schools, such as Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, which found that the actions of a Washington state high school football coach who prayed at the 50-yard line after games were constitutionally protected. 

The Education Department is required by law to periodically reissue guidance on prayer in schools, according to the department.

Trump had previewed Thursday’s guidance while speaking in September 2025 at a Religious Liberty Commission hearing. 

The president established that commission in May 2025 in an effort to “safeguard and promote America’s founding principle of religious freedom.”

Education Secretary Linda McMahon said the administration is “proud to stand with students, parents, and faculty who wish to exercise their First Amendment rights in schools across our great nation,” in a statement alongside the announcement.

“Our Constitution safeguards the free exercise of religion as one of the guiding principles of our republic, and we will vigorously protect that right in America’s public schools,” she said. 

Rep. Elijah Behnke (R-Town of Chase) said that the Trump accounts are “designed to help families build long-term financial security” and allow children to “grow alongside the American economy.” (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Assembly Republicans proposed Tuesday that Wisconsin match federal policy by putting $1,000 of state funds into savings accounts for newborn babies in Wisconsin during President Donald Trump’s term. 

The federal tax and spending bill signed into law by Trump in July 2025 included a provision that will allow for parents in the U.S. to create “Trump accounts,” which would be an IRA account, for their children. Under the provision, the federal government will provide $1,000 into the account for babies born between Jan. 1, 2025 through the end of 2028 and who are U.S. citizens with a valid Social Security number.

Rep. Elijah Behnke (R-Town of Chase) said that the accounts are “designed to help families build long-term financial security” and allow children to “grow alongside the American economy.” The money in the accounts will be invested in low-cost index funds tied to the U.S stock market, and the accounts will be managed by a private company.

Behnke said “starting early makes a powerful difference” for children who will have the funds set aside, which could be used for down payment on a house, higher education or starting a business in the future. 

“We’re concerned that they’ll never be able to buy a home. Maybe this gives them a chance down the road,” Behnke said. 

The bill will provide a state match of $1,000 to the accounts for babies born in Wisconsin.

Parents must opt in and open the accounts for the funds to be set aside and then invested. Children, parents, family members, friends and employers will also be able to contribute up to $5,000 per year per child to the account with funds unable to be accessed until recipients turn 18. 

The investment account plan is not the only Trump administration policy that Wisconsin Republicans have sought to replicate at the state level this session. Others include exempting tips and overtime pay from the state income tax.

Behnke said lawmakers would tap the state’s budget surplus for the initiative. According to the bill draft, the state would set aside $60 million in annual funding for the 2025-27 budget cycle for this purpose. 

“We have a surplus, thankfully, and it’s over a $1 billion, and obviously we’re discussing some property tax relief, but 60,000 kids [are] estimated to be born in Wisconsin each year, so that would be about $60 million put into account for the next couple years,” Behnke said. 

Recent projections from the Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau estimate that the state’s budget surplus at the end of June 2027 will be $2.37 billion, which is about $1.5 billion above the projected balance when the current state budget was enacted last year. Evers has called for lawmakers to use over $1 billion from the surplus to address rising property taxes throughout the state. Republican lawmakers have signaled some willingness to work on the issue, including Behnke who said that “we’d all be taxed out of our homes if we don’t do something to fix it.” 

Behnke said he did not know where the state Senate and Gov. Tony Evers stand on his proposal. Their support will be necessary for the policy to become a reality. 

“I’ve asked one elected Democrat and he said he would get back to me,” Behnke said. “[Evers has] been very focused on kids’ education, and since we can use this fund for higher education, I mean, I think some of it would be attractive for him to sign.” 

Behnke is also the lead Assembly author on a bipartisan bill that would give children born or adopted in Wisconsin $25 in a state-managed 529 account to help kickstart their educational savings. The bill has bipartisan support and recently received a public hearing in the state Senate last week.

Democratic lawmaker urges caution

One of the Democratic coauthors on that bill, Rep. Alex Joers (D-Waunakee), told the Wisconsin Examiner he recommends caution in pursuing a state match to the “Trump accounts.” He said he thought the effort was a “flashy” one meant to “grab headlines.” 

“It’s a little bit risky to be putting our state funds towards a federal program that isn’t technically set up yet,” Joers said. “We’re basically having to make a dedicated state funding decision based on a federal program that hasn’t begun yet, so that’s to me a little bit fiscally concerning.”

The Trump administration has said that the accounts are supposed to become available on July 4, 2026.

Joers noted that the state has to “balance its ledger,” unlike the federal government, and Wisconsin policymakers are discussing using the budget surplus for property tax relief, boosting aid to schools, funding for child care and other priorities. 

Joers said the “WisKids” bill is designed to be sustainable year after year, meanwhile the “Trump accounts” bill would expire after 2028.

Wisconsin has had a 529 account program for the last 25 years that is primarily managed through Edvest. According to the bill coauthors, there are over 400,000 accounts and assets totaling $8.6 billion under management. 

Parents would need to claim the $25 before their child turns 10, under the legislation. The funds in the account could be used for college, technical education, credential programs or apprenticeships. Withdrawals from a 529 account are tax-free for qualified expenses including tuition, room and board.

“The reality is that most Wisconsin families still aren’t saving early for their child’s education, and many aren’t saving at all,” Behnke said in written testimony about the proposal. “WisKids is designed to change that… We know this approach works. Oklahoma saw a dramatic increase in family-owned 529 accounts after launching a similar program. A small investment at birth encouraged parents to keep saving and gave them a different way of thinking about their child’s future.”

Joers said that calculations show the $25 would potentially grow to be about $100, but the purpose of the bill is to act as a “tap on the shoulder” for parents and guardians to get them interested in starting an Edvest account.

The “WisKids” bill would not need additional state general purpose revenue, but would instead tap into existing funds held by the state Department of Financial Institutions (DFI).

According to a fiscal estimate by the agency, the legislation would use an existing college savings program trust fund, which is funded by administrative fees established by the college savings program board and imposed on college savings program accounts. The state stopped collecting fees on 529 accounts in 2005, but the funds have remained growing in the account and are ready to be used, Joers said.

Under the legislation, the minimum balance of the trust fund that must be maintained to meet the reasonably anticipated needs of the college savings program would have to be calculated and if the trust fund balance falls below that amount, the DFI would stop making deposits until the trust fund balance is sufficient.

“It’s in line with what their program was established for, but they can’t just do that. They need legislation to be able to do that,” Joers said. 

Joers noted that Edvest accounts can be rolled over into a retirement account should the funds not be used for educational purposes.

Promoting the Trump accounts proposal, Behnke said that parents could supplement the account in a way that would be “life-changing.”

“Just with mom and dad, skipping one quick meal, or one small luxury a month — lets their kids become a millionaire,” Behnke said.

“That’s a bipartisan consensus that we want our kids born in Wisconsin to be best set up for the future,” Joers said. But, he cautioned, it’s important to do it in a way that’s “sustainable, and not just going along with the headlines of the day.”

Vice President JD Vance delivers remarks during the annual March for Life rally on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 23, 2026. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration plans to expand a policy that blocks foreign aid dollars from going to organizations that discuss, refer or perform abortions to also include groups that address transgender health care or have policies on diversity, equity and inclusion, Vice President JD Vance said Friday.

“We’re expanding this policy to protect life, to combat DEI and the radical gender ideologies that prey on our children. And with these additions, the rule will now cover every non-military foreign assistance that America sends,” Vance announced at the March for Life anti-abortion rally on the National Mall.  

“All in all, we have expanded the Mexico City Policy about three times as big as it was before,” he added. “And we’re proud of it, because we believe in fighting for life.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request from States Newsroom for more details on the policy expansion or when it would be implemented. 

Defending administration’s record

Vance said during the rally he needed to “address an elephant in the room” that President Donald Trump and others in the administration have not made enough progress on anti-abortion initiatives during the first year of unified Republican control of the federal government.  

“I want you to know that I hear you and that I understand,” he said. “There will inevitably be debates within this movement. We love each other. But we’re going to have open conversations about how best to use our political system to advance life, how prudential we must be in the cause of advancing human life. I think these are good, natural and honest debates.”

Vance mentioned that Trump nominated some of the Supreme Court justices that overturned Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that had guaranteed a constitutional right to an abortion for nearly 50 years. 

He also noted that Republicans in Congress included a provision in the “big, beautiful” law that blocks Medicaid funding from going to Planned Parenthood for one year for any type of health care. Federal law had already barred funding from going to abortions, with limited exceptions.

Vance argued that in addition to judicial rulings and federal laws, members of the anti-abortion movement must strive to change hearts and minds as well. 

“We’re not trying to argue to the Supreme Court anymore,” he said. “We’re trying to argue to our fellow citizens that we must build up that culture of life. And as you know, that effort is going to take a lot of time, it’s going to take a lot of energy and it’s going to take a little bit of money.”

Later in his speech, Vance sought to discourage people from concentrating on professional lives and instead called on them to focus more on getting married and having children. 

“You’re never going to find great meaning in a cubicle or in front of a computer screen,” he said. “But you will find great meaning if you dedicate yourself to the creation and sustenance of human life.”

Trump didn’t attend the rally in person but recorded a video message that was played just before Vance spoke, telling attendees he “was proud to be the first president in history to attend this march in person” six years ago. 

“In my first term I was honored to appoint judges and justices who believed in interpreting the Constitution as written. That was a big deal. And because of that, the pro-life movement won the greatest victory in its history,” Trump said. “Now the work to rebuild a culture that supports life continues in every state, every community and every part of our beautiful land.”

Calls for action on medication abortion

Trump and some in his administration have come under scrutiny lately for not moving faster to complete a safety review of mifepristone, one of two pharmaceuticals used in medication abortion, which is approved for up to 10 weeks gestation. 

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, and Lila Rose, founder of the anti-abortion group Live Action, both released statements in December calling on Trump to fire Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary over the pace of that review.

Anti-abortion organizations want the administration to end the ability of doctors or other qualified health care providers to prescribe mifepristone and the second pharmaceutical used in medication abortion, misoprostol, via telehealth and have it shipped to patients. 

Several Republicans in Congress have joined their call, with Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chairman Bill Cassidy, R-La., holding a hearing on mifepristone earlier this month. 

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected efforts from anti-abortion organizations to limit access to mifepristone in a June 2024 ruling, writing they never had standing to bring the lawsuit in the first place. 

Trump told House Republicans during a policy retreat at the Kennedy Center earlier this month they must be “flexible” about the Hyde Amendment, which blocks federal funding for abortion with limited exceptions, in order to broker a health care deal that can reach his desk. 

Dannenfelser rebuked Trump for the comment, writing in a statement that to “suggest Republicans should be ‘flexible’ is an abandonment of this decades-long commitment. If Republicans abandon Hyde, they are sure to lose this November.”

GOP leaders tout major law

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., also spoke at the March for Life rally, touting the “big, beautiful” law as “the most pro-life and pro-family legislation that has been signed into law in decades.”

“For the first time since Roe v. Wade was reversed, we have the White House, the Senate and the House all working together to deliver meaningful and historic pro-life victories,” he said. 

The law included several policies that Johnson said will aid Americans in having children, including an expansion of the child tax credit and the adoption tax credit as well as the investment accounts for babies. 

Johnson said the provision that blocks Medicaid patients from going to Planned Parenthood for non-abortion health care services, depriving the organization of that income, was a massive policy victory for Republicans. 

“We stand here today with one united voice to affirm the federal government should not be subsidizing any industry that profits from the elimination of human life,” Johnson said. 

New Jersey Republican Rep. Chris Smith, speaking just after Johnson while other GOP lawmakers stood on the stage, said eliminating access to mifepristone must be accomplished. 

“I’ve been here since Ronald Reagan’s first election, 1981,” Smith said. “And I can tell you, this leadership is the most pro-life, so committed. And behind me are just absolute heroes. Men and women who take up the fight every single day.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., didn’t attend the rally in person but submitted a video that touted the Planned Parenthood defunding provision. 

“Thanks to that landmark legislation, this year, some of the nation’s largest abortion providers, including Planned Parenthood, are prohibited from receiving Medicaid funding,” Thune said. 

Other Republicans attending the rally included Alabama Rep. Robert Aderholt, Arkansas Rep. French Hill, Florida Rep. Kat Cammack, Georgia Rep. Andrew Clyde, Maryland Rep. Andy Harris, Michigan Reps. Bill Huizenga and Tim Walberg, Minnesota Rep. Michelle Fischbach, Missouri Rep. Bob Onder, Pennsylvania Rep. Dan Meuser, South Carolina Rep. William Timmons, Texas Reps. Michael Cloud and Dan Crenshaw, Utah Rep. Mike Kennedy, Virginia Rep. John McGuire and Wisconsin Rep. Glenn Grothman.

"What major purchase does anyone in this room make without knowing the cost before you make the purchase? It is inconceivable to me that we do not know what something is going to cost of that magnitude before we actually consent to the cost,” Sen. Mary Felzkowski said. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

A bill to implement state-level enforcement of federal hospital price transparency requirements in Wisconsin, with the goal of bringing down the cost of health care, received pushback from hospital representatives and support from employers on Wednesday.

Sen. Julian Bradley (R-New Berlin) told the Senate Licensing, Regulatory Reform, State and Federal Affairs Committee that ensuring that the cost of services provided would help with health care affordability.  

“When hospitals clearly share pricing information, patients can make informed decisions. Trust in the system grows and costs come down naturally,” Bradley said, adding that the bill would ensure Wisconsin “reaps the benefits” of changes made by the Trump administration. 

During his first term, President Donald Trump’s administration implemented rules to require hospitals to post pricing information online. The effects of the changes on patients’ costs have been mixed. At the start of his second term, Trump signed an executive order intended to bolster the effort and in December, the administration proposed a new rule that aims to simplify how price data is organized and shared with people. 

SB 383 would instruct the Wisconsin Department of Health Services to enforce federal price transparency requirements for hospitals. 

Bradley and Rep. Robert Wittke (R-Caledonia), the bill coauthors, said it is needed to help ensure that federal policies are being followed.

“Sometimes we need to take action to make sure that it goes all the way through the state and all of our residents have access to the things that are expected through federal law,” Wittke said. 

Bradley said the lawmakers aren’t trying to penalize hospitals, just ensure people have access to information. 

If a hospital is found to be out of compliance under the bill, Wisconsin DHS would be able to take several actions including providing a written notice to the hospital, requesting a corrective action plan or imposing a financial penalty. DHS would also need to keep a public list of any hospitals that have violated the requirements.

Hospitals would also need to be certified as being in compliance with the requirements when seeking judgment from a court against a patient who owes a debt for services.

Lawmakers introduced a similar bill in 2023, but it failed to receive a floor vote in the Senate and advance in the Assembly.

The current version of the bill includes a provision that says that if federal laws change and are eliminated, then provisions in the bill that establish state level requirements for publishing prices will take effect.

Under those provisions, each hospital would need to make a list of “shoppable services” — ones that can be scheduled in advance such as a knee replacement — available with the standard charge for each item that would be publicly available. A hospital’s list would need to include at least 300 “shoppable services,” and if a hospital doesn’t provide that many, it must list all of its shoppable services.

The change is meant to avoid overlapping and varying requirements, though hospital representatives expressed concerns that would happen anyway.

The Wisconsin Hospital Association (WHA) opposes the bill. Christian Moran, the WHA vice president of Medicaid and payer reimbursement policy, said during the hearing that the organization’s opposition to the bill is not opposition to price transparency.

“Our opposition is to the added regulatory complexity that is created by layering on state level enforcement and state level regulations and unlimited fines on Wisconsin hospitals when robust federal regulation and enforcement already exists,” Moran said.

Moran said no Wisconsin hospitals have been fined for noncompliance since the first federal regulations went into effect. 

“Personal experience, it’s somewhat inevitable: if you pass legislation on the state level that mirrors the federal level it will eventually not match up,” John Russell, president and CEO of Prairie Ridge Health, said. 

Hospital representatives also expressed concerns that not enough attention was being given to the role of health insurance companies. 

“The solution proposed to you in [SB] 383 is to double up on existing enforcement for hospitals while ignoring the state’s current responsibility to enforce and monitor insurance compliance,” Moran said.

Brian Stephens, CEO of the Door County Medical Center, said the state should be more focused on the “middlemen” including insurance providers, saying that bolstering the transparency of hospital costs has its limitations. He spoke to the work that his medical center has done over many years to improve transparency of prices.

“There’s a disconnect in this country between the concerted efforts of health care providers to provide reasonable and transparent prices and the costs that people are paying for health insurance. Unfortunately, hospital price transparency efforts have not put a dent in that dichotomy,” Stephens said. “Perhaps we need to be asking for more transparency from health insurance companies and other middlemen to understand the real drivers of health care costs in our country. Perhaps hospitals have just become a good punching bag for folks who need an effective sound bite. The reality is that, despite our wholehearted commitment to providing reasonable upfront prices, transparency has its limitations. What are the odds that a person waking up with pain will take the time to bring out his or her phone and search the most affordable hospital or clinic prior to seeking treatment.”

Sen. Steve Nass (R-Whitewater) said the testimony focused on the insurance companies’ role sounded like “a lot of finger-pointing.” 

Several other states have adopted laws or are in the process of advancing bills to bolster price transparency including Colorado, Washington State and Ohio. 

Patrick Neville, a former Republican state representative in Colorado who helped pass a similar law in his state, testified on the Wisconsin bill, saying provisions in his home state have already helped. He told the story of one patient who was charged nearly $80,000 for a hysterectomy, but didn’t have to pay the cost.

“Because we had the consumer protections in this bill in Colorado, and they weren’t compliant with price transparency. They couldn’t actually collect that $80,000,” Neville said. “That was really important and powerful for the actual consumer in this case, and so it’s actually working in Colorado.” 

Neville added that the Colorado legislation did not codify the federal rules, but he wishes it had. 

“Any president could get rid of those rules at any point and I think the way this bill is crafted… It’s hugely important,” Neville said. “That’s a clever way to craft it.” 

Several employers testified in favor of the legislation. 

Erik Sonju, president of Fitchburg-based Power System Engineering, described the unpredictable jumps in health care costs that his company has grappled with since 2018 when he started in his position. He said that 2023 was the year the “straw broke” as they dealt with a 20% increase in insurance rates and he wasn’t able to get clear answers about the rising cost. 

Sen. Mary Felzkowski (R-Tomahawk) told the committee that the cost of health care is too high. 

“This is common sense. What major purchase does anyone in this room make without knowing the cost before you make the purchase? It is inconceivable to me that we do not know what something is going to cost of that magnitude before we actually consent to the cost,” Felzkowski said.  

Felzkowski is the lead coauthor on two of the other bills the committee took up. SB 796 would require insurers to submit information about claims to the Wisconsin Health Information Organization (WHIO), a nonprofit organization that collects health care claims data, and SB 797 would provide a $600,000 grant for the WHIO to establish an online dashboard of health care claims information and to add new payer data.

The committee also took testimony on SB 703, coauthored by Wittke and Sen. Rob Hutton (R-Brookfield), which would establish that employers who sponsor group health insurance plans have a right to data relating to the employees and dependents covered under those plans, including claims data, utilization reports and other information necessary to understand and manage health care costs.

Wittke said the bill will maintain privacy protections by requiring employers to designate a HIPAA compliance privacy officer and ensure that the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance maintains oversight. The bill also includes a provision prohibiting data from being sold to any party without the permission of the plan sponsor and the person to whom the claims data relates.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia stands outside U.S. District Court in Greenbelt with his wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, left, and Lydia Walther-Rodriguez with CASA, after a federal judge ruled earlier this month he was allowed to remain free. (File photo by William J. Ford/Maryland Matters)

A federal judge in Tennessee is ordering federal prosecutors to turn over some documents to lawyers for Kilmar Abrego Garcia as they try to show his indictment on human smuggling charges was the product of vindictive prosecution.

U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw’s nine-page ruling — issued under seal Dec. 3, but unsealed at noon Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Nashville — said a “subset” of more than 3,000 government documents he reviewed appear to undercut the government’s defense against vindictive prosecution.

“Specifically, the government’s documents may contradict its prior representations that the decision to prosecute was made locally and that there were no outside influences,” Crenshaw wrote.

The order is a partial victory for Abrego Garcia, the Salvadoran native who lives in Maryland, where he was stopped by immigration agents in March and deported to a notorious prison in El Salvador. His removal came without due process and despite an earlier court order that prohibited  immigration officials from deporting Abrego Garcia to his home country, for fear of violence.

A series of court battles ended with the U.S. Supreme Court in April ordering Abrego Garcia be returned to the United States. He was finally brought back to the U.S. in June, where he faced new charges of human smuggling, stemming from a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee where he was let go without a citation.

Abrego Garcia argues that the smuggling charge was concocted years after the fact to punish him for embarrassing the administration in court, and should be thrown out.

The charges of “conspiracy to unlawfully transport illegal aliens for financial gain” and “unlawful transportation of illegal aliens for financial gain” are tied to a 2022 traffic stop in Putnam County, Tennessee, where he was pulled over for speeding. There were nine passengers in the back of his car.

Abrego Garcia was not arrested. No ticket was issued.

But three years later, as he was winning his case to be returned to the U.S., federal prosecutors were revisiting that traffic stop. A Homeland Security agent told a federal judge earlier this year that he was told on April 28 of this year to investigate the traffic stop.

Abrego Garcia pleaded not guilty to the charges, that his attorneys have claimed were filed as retaliation against their client. They claim senior officials in the Justice Department pushed for the indictment, citing television interviews where Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said the investigation began after “a judge in Maryland … questioned” the government and accused it of “doing something wrong,” according to Crenshaw’s order.

The government denies involvement by higher-ups, saying the decision to prosecute Abrego Garcia was made solely by Robert McGuire, the U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee.

Crenshaw’s order includes a timeline of events. In it are several communications between McGuire and D.C.-based U.S. Associate Deputy Attorney General Aakash Singh that began on April 27, one day before a federal agent was assigned to investigate the 2022 traffic stop.

In an April 30 exchange, Singh writes that Abrego’s case is “a top priority.” McGuire writes “we want the high command looped in.”

In a May 15 email, McGuire writes about the pending indictment.

“Ultimately, I would hope to have ODAG [Office of the Deputy Attorney General] eyes on it as we move towards a decision about whether this matter is going to ultimately be charged,” he wrote, according to Crenshaw’s order.

McGuire adds: “While ultimately, the office’s decision to charge will land on me. I think it makes sense to get the benefit of all of your brains and talent in this process and as we consider this case. I have not received specific direction from ODAG other than I have heard anecdotally that the DAG and PDAG would like Garcia charged sooner rather than later.”

Singh is updated about the indictment over the next week, according to Crenshaw’s timeline.

“These documents show that McGuire did not act alone and to the extent McGuire had input on the decision to prosecute, he shared it with Singh and others,” Crenshaw wrote.

Abrego’s attorneys successfully made a case before Crenshaw that prosecutors had acted vindictively. They sought the release of documents through discovery. Federal prosecutors balked and withheld those documents, citing privilege.

Crenshaw, in his now-unsealed order, said allowing the privilege assertion to trump due process protections would undermine rulings by other federal courts.

“The Court recognizes the government’s assertion of privileges, but Abrego’s due process right to a non-vindictive prosecution outweighs the blanket evidentiary privileges asserted by the government,” Crenshaw wrote. “If the work product, attorney-client, and deliberative process privileges asserted by the government precluded all discovery in the context of a vindictiveness motion, defendants would never be able to answer the question ‘what motivated the government’s prosecution?'”

The James H. Shannon Building (Building One), on the National Institutes of Health campus in Bethesda, Maryland. (Photo by Lydia Polimeni,/National Institutes of Health)

The Trump administration will review frozen grants to universities without using its controversial standards that discouraged gender, race and sexual orientation initiatives and vaccine research.

In a settlement agreement filed in Massachusetts federal court Monday, the National Institutes of Health and a group of Democratic attorneys general who’d challenged the new criteria for grant funding said the NIH would consider grant applications made up to Sept. 29, 2025, without judging the efforts related to diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, or vaccines.

The settlement provides an uncontested path for the agency while courts decide whether the administration can use its controversial analysis. The administration did not agree to permanently ditch its campaign to evaluate health research funding decisions based on schools’ DEI programs.

NIH officials “will complete their consideration of the Applications in the ordinary course of NIH’s scientific review process, without applying the Challenged Directives,” the settlement said, adding that the agency would “evaluate each application individually and in good faith.”

The settlement was signed by U.S. Department of Justice lawyers and the attorneys general of Massachusetts, California, Maryland, Washington, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Wisconsin.

In a Tuesday statement, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell said the agreement commits the Department of Health and Human Services to resume “the usual process for considering NIH grant applications on a prompt, agreed-upon timeline.” 

The 17 attorneys general sued in April over $783 million in frozen grants. 

A trial court and appeals court in Massachusetts sided with the states, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in August that the trial judge lacked the authority to compel the grants to be paid, especially in light of a similar decision involving the Education Department.

Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan leaves the Milwaukee Federal Courthouse on May 15, 2025. Judge Dugan appeared in federal court to answer charges that she helped Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, an undocumented immigrant, elude federal arrest while he was making an appearance in her courtroom on April 18. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Updated at 9:14 p.m. Thursday, Dec. 18

After six hours of deliberation, a federal jury found Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan guilty of felony obstruction but not guilty of misdemeanor concealing a person from federal immigration law enforcement. The high-profile federal trial stemmed from Dugan’s interaction with federal agents who came to her courtroom to arrest a man who was appearing before her on April 18.

“You don’t have to agree with immigration enforcement policy to see this was wrong. You just have to agree the law applies equally to everyone,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Kelly Brown Watzka told the jury in closing arguments.

Dugan’s case gained national attention, with her defense attorneys saying in closing arguments that the federal government was trying to make an example of the 66-year-old judge in an effort to “crush” those who try to stand up to federal power. Defense attorney Jason Luczak asked the jury to consider whether they were willing to accept the level of government overreach he and other attorneys argued was exemplified in the case. 

Dugan invoked her Fifth Amendment rights and didn’t testify during the trial. 

During their deliberations, the jurors asked multiple questions of the judge. Among them was whether Dugan needed to know exactly who immigration officers had come to the courthouse to arrest. The question went to the obstruction charge Dugan faced, and U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman decided that in fact Dugan would need to have known the federal agent’s target in order for the obstruction charge to apply. Prosecutors argued vehemently against Adelman’s decision.

Jurors also asked to see the policies of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in regards to serving warrants. 

Later, after another jury question, Adelman advised jurors that Dugan needed to have “sufficient knowledge” of a “pending proceeding,” as defined in statute, in order to obstruct that proceeding. 

Closing arguments

Prosecutors made their closing arguments in the federal trial Thursday, asking jurors to consider what happens when judges decide which laws they want to follow based on their own personal beliefs. Dugan was accused of interfering with federal agents as they tried to make an immigration arrest outside her courtroom, and with helping their target to evade arrest. Jurors, Assistant U.S. Attorney Kelly Brown Watzka said in her closing argument, must draw a line, without which “there is only chaos,” and that “chaos is what the rule of law is intended to prevent. 

Calling immigration enforcement a “polarizing issue” nationwide, prosecutors said that Dugan was not on trial for her personal beliefs, but because she “stepped outside of the law.” As they flashed slides and footage to the jury, the prosecution heavily featured statements from Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Kristela Cervera, who accompanied Dugan into the hallway at the courthouse to confront the agents. Cervera testified against Dugan saying, “judges shouldn’t be helping defendants evade arrest,” a quote prosecutors highlighted to the jury. 

Dugan knew that the agents had a warrant, prosecutors argued, yet concealed Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, the immigrant they were there to arrest. Dugan’s obstruction of the agents was completed the moment she led Flores-Ruiz and his attorney, Mercedes de la Rosa, to a non-public door to exit her courtroom, the prosecution asserted. Flores-Ruiz exited into the same hallway where agents were waiting for him, and they arrested him shortly afterwards outside the courthouse. But “it simply does not matter what happened next,” prosecutors said. 

Although de la Rosa, whom prosecutors described as “naive and inexperienced,” took the door to the public hallway where agents were waiting, they told the jury Dugan intended for Flores-Ruiz and his attorney to use a staircase to exit on the fifth floor. To buttress their argument, prosecutors played courtroom audio that captured Dugan talking with court reporter Joan Butz and saying “down the stairs” as well as Dugan saying, “I’ll do it…I’ll take the heat,” and Butz responding, “I’d rather get in trouble.” 

Prosecutors argued that had Flores-Ruiz taken the stairs instead of going out into the hallway, that the agents “would have never found” the Mexican-born man, who was in the country without legal authorization. Repeatedly, prosecutors said that no one should ever “second guess” the decisions of ICE agents and law enforcement. 

Dugan was described as “stern” and “angrily pointing” in the hallway, rounding up nearly the entire arrest team and telling them to go to the chief judge’s office. Cervera led the agents to the office, testifying that she felt “abandoned” by Dugan and  “roped into” Dugan’s plan. “No one is above the law,” the prosecution stressed.

Attorney Jason Luczak, delivering the closing  for Dugan’s defense, tried to poke holes in the prosecution’s narrative. “This is a very important case; this is a very unprecedented trial,” Luczak said. “Make no mistake…the government is trying to make an example” out of Dugan, he said. He added that the jury had the power to check what he described as “overreach” by the federal government. 

Luczak stressed that prior to the second Trump administration, ICE arrests had never occurred at the Milwaukee County Courthouse. When the arrests began in late March, individuals had been reportedly arrested in elevators and before attending family court, actions which should have been reported up the agency’s chain of command but weren’t, he said. “They’re not even following their own policies,” Luczak said. “This caused concerns, legitimate concerns, among the judges.” 

The jury was asked to consider whether they really believe that Dugan would put her career at risk for Flores-Ruiz. “This case is riddled with doubts,” said Luczak, stressing that the jury could only convict if they find Dugan guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. “There are consequences on rubber-stamping what the government wants you to rubber-stamp,” he said.

Jurors were reminded of the many emails sent by various judges asking for a policy, sharing stories of having people detained during court, and the slew of questions they had about how the county courthouse could respond. Chief Judge Carl Ashley had released a statement saying that ICE presence at the courthouse discouraged participation in the justice process and eroded trust in the courts’ integrity. 

Luczak also cast doubt on Cervera’s testimony. Jurors were played mute security camera video and asked to decide whether they believe Cervera that Dugan told the agents three times that they needed a judicial warrant, something that didn’t appear to happen in the video. “Judge Cervera is wrong,” said Luczak. “I don’t know if she’s lying, but I could think of some reasons why.” Cervera, the attorney argued, was trying to save herself by throwing Dugan under the bus. “You’re either a friend or an enemy of the government,” he said, asking the jury to consider why prosecutors relied on her statements so heavily. 

When Dugan spoke with the agents, Luczak said, “she’s not being confrontational, she’s being a judge.” He also highlighted that agents contradicted themselves in testimony and in the interviews they gave to FBI agents after the incident. Luczak pointed out that the agents never ran down the hallway to the elevators, as they’d implied. The audio evidence provided by prosecutors had also been taken from multiple microphones and put into one file, and was not audible in many areas, Luczak told the jury, adding, “I don’t think you can see this as very good evidence at all.” 

“If you don’t trust the evidence that the government is putting forward, it’s just another reasonable doubt,” Luczak said. Dugan never concealed Flores-Ruiz from the agents, who never entered her court to keep eyes on him, he said, adding that she never told de la Rosa to take the stairs. Luczak highlighted that prosecutors showed the jury video of the hall, with the filmer going down the stairs and not into the hallway, the opposite of what actually occurred. He called the government’s downplaying of concerns around ICE “tone deaf,” and questioned why Cervera herself texted her sister to warn her about sweeping arrests coming to the courthouse if she, too, didn’t have concerns.

“Justice is not what the government is seeking today,” Luczak. “They’re just wrong.” He told the jury to rely on Dugan’s emails to determine her state of mind, including one where she wrote: “We are in some uncharted waters with some very serious and even potential tragic community interests at risk in the balance.” 

The jury was given instructions by Adelman, and began deliberations shortly after 2 p.m. At around 3:45 p.m., the jury sent out a question to the judge. Interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin Brad Schimel, who lost a bid for the Wisconsin Supreme Court earlier this year, made an appearance in the gallery as Adelman read the question from jurors about whether they were allowed to see ICE policies, which were included among the exhibits. 

Defense calls former Mayor Barrett as character witness

As witness testimony in the trial against Dugan concluded Thursday morning, Milwaukee County judges and public defenders spoke about the confusion and questions they faced when Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) began arresting people at the county courthouse. Former Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett was also called to the stand as a character witness, testifying that he’s  known Dugan for over 50 years since they were in high school together. 

Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judges Katie Kegel and Laura Gramling-Perez testified for the defense about emails local judges sent each other, asking for guidance and sharing stories about having people “snatched” out of their courtrooms and seeing ICE agents sitting in cars outside the court. 

One judge chimed in on the chain, “does this mean that Milwaukee County is cooperating with ICE?” Milwaukee County does not cooperate with ICE detainer requests in the jail. The Milwaukee Police Department also has its own policies limiting cooperation with ICE.

Judges air concerns about courthouse arrests

In one of her emails, Gramling-Perez strongly urged the creation of a policy on courthouse arrests by ICE. Under such a policy, she testified, ICE agents would be required to check in with the chief judge before conducting any enforcement. When the arrest team arrived the morning of April 18, they checked in with security who notified their supervisors at the Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Office. Security initially believed the agents would need to be escorted by the sheriff’s office, but a sergeant told them that wouldn’t be necessary. 

Gramling-Perez reviewed emails on the stand that said “the historic protocols are now shifting quickly,” and explaining  that although state and local law enforcement have conducted arrests around the court in the past, those activities were always guided by clear policies or practices which were respected by law enforcement. “The ICE detentions are a different animal,” one email stated.

Prosecutors repeatedly attempted to get Gramling-Perez to say that ICE arrests were allowed in public hallways, per the “key takeaways” that she outlined in her email to Dugan and other judges. Gramling-Perez, however, didn’t budge. When prosecutors showed her images of documents they claimed were part of her presentation, she said she’d never seen them before. When they pressed her to say that ICE arrests could happen in public hallways, she countered that her emailed explanations were not all inclusive, that she is not an expert on the matter, but that even public hallway arrests have their limits. 

Gramling-Perez testified that although discussion of a policy had begun, no policy had yet been established by the chief judge. 

Attorney Maura Gingerich, a public defender, was also called to the stand as a defense witness. Gingerich testified wearing a black suit with a black mask she said she wore for health reasons — attire similar to what she wore on April 18, when security cameras captured her photographing the plain-clothes ICE, FBI, DEA, and Border Patrol task force members in the courthouse hallway. Gingerich testified that she took photographs of the agents to send to her supervisor, so that the chief judge would be notified that the agents had returned and could offer guidance. 

“I think that it was very stressful to see what I thought were a number of law enforcement on the sixth floor without uniform,” Gingerich testified, noting she had already gone to another courtroom when Dugan approached the agents. One of the prosecutors  suggested  Gingerich followed the agents to another courtroom and was cooperating with Dugan,  saying, “I know what you guys were trying to do,” but Gingrich denied that characterization. Gingrich said she never saw Dugan that morning. 

Barrett calls Dugan ‘extremely honest’; Dugan invokes the Fifth Amendment

Former Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett testified as a character witness for Dugan, saying he has known her and the Dugan family for half a century. They first met when they attended the same high school.

Barrett described Dugan as very active in the community, an enthusiastic participant in community organizations and in  her church. “I think that she is extremely honest and I know that she will tell you exactly how she feels,” Barrett testified, adding that he feels that Dugan is a good person. 

The defense rested its case ahead of a lunch break. Dugan invoked her Fifth Amendment rights not to testify. Defense attorney Steven Biskupic noted on the record that he objected  to draft instructions the judge gave the jury, after Adleman chose jury instructions crafted by the prosecution instead of the defense.

Dugan faces up to five years in prison and a $350,000 fine for the felony conviction, but as a nonviolent offender with a record of service to her community is unlikely to be sentenced to time behind bars. Her sentencing hearing has not yet been scheduled.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio speak to reporters on Dec. 16, 2025, following a closed-door briefing with all senators about U.S. military action in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — U.S. senators left a closed-door meeting Tuesday with Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio split over the Trump administration’s strikes on alleged drug-running vessels near Venezuela, particularly an early September follow-up strike that killed two survivors clinging to boat wreckage.

Hegseth and Rubio delivered the all-member briefings to Senate and House lawmakers on Capitol Hill as the death toll from U.S. military strikes on alleged drug traffickers in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean has surpassed 90, and as U.S. Navy ships are amassed off the coast of Venezuela.

Controversy over the possibility of war crimes during the Sept. 2 follow-on strike that killed shipwrecked survivors drew attention after The Washington Post reported details last month, calling into question Hegseth’s orders.

Hegseth told reporters Tuesday he briefed members on a “highly successful mission to counter designated terrorist organizations, cartels, bringing weapons — weapons, meaning drugs — to the American people and poisoning the American people for far too long. So we’re proud of what we’re doing.”

Dems decry edited video

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told reporters Hegseth again refused to show unedited footage, which Schumer described as “deeply troubling,” of a second strike on Sept. 2 that killed two people who survived the initial strike. 

“The administration came to this briefing empty handed,” Schumer, D-N.Y., said. 

“If they can’t be transparent on this, how can you trust their transparency on all the other issues swirling about in the Caribbean? Every senator is entitled to see it. There is no problem with (revealing) sources and methods” because the senators will view it in the Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, a secure area of the Capitol where classified information is generally shared.

Schumer added that an “appropriate version” of the video should be disclosed to the public.

Senate Republicans downplayed loud concerns from Democrats, pointing to former President Barack Obama’s numerous counterterrorism drone strikes in the Middle East.

“We’ve been using the same technique for 24 years, and nothing has changed except the hemisphere,” said Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla.

Public release called for

Hegseth told reporters the unedited video will be shown to members of the Senate and House committees on the Armed Services Wednesday, alongside Admiral Frank Bradley, commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, who oversaw the strikes.

Hegseth did not address why the department declined to show the unedited video to all 100 senators. 

He did say, “Of course, we’re not going to release a top-secret, full, unedited video of that to the general public.”

Several Democratic senators have called for the video to be publicly released.

Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., said he was told during the meeting that the video won’t be released because of “classification concerns.”

“It is hard to square the widespread, routine, prompt posting of detailed videos of every strike, with a concern that posting a portion of the video of the first strike would violate a variety of classification concerns,” Coons said.

Coons added “it’s increasingly important that the national security team of the Trump administration increasingly respect and recognize the role and power of Congress.” 

He highlighted a provision in Congress’s annual defense authorization bill that compels Hegseth to release the video or lose 25% of his travel budget. The massive defense bill is expected to pass this week.

Body count from boat strikes rising

U.S. Southern Command posted a video on social media Monday night of the military’s latest strikes on three boats “operated by Designated Terrorist Organizations in international waters” in the eastern Pacific. The strikes killed eight people, according to the post.

President Donald Trump has officially promoted his military actions in the Caribbean as a fight against drug trafficking and overdose deaths in the United States, particularly from illicit fentanyl. 

On Monday Trump issued an order declaring the powerful synthetic opioid as a “Weapon of Mass Destruction.”

The smuggling routes for illicit fentanyl and the chemicals used to make it follow the path from China to Mexico to the U.S., and is highlighted as such in the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency’s 2025 National Drug Threat Assessment.

The administration has designated several drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, including “Cartel de los Soles,” an alleged Venezuelan group that the Department of State described as spearheaded by Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

Trump has hinted at a land invasion of the South American country.

When asked by States Newsroom on Tuesday whether Hegseth addressed during the meeting what type of drugs were alleged to be in the targeted boats, Mullin and Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, said cocaine.

“We’ve always heard it’s mainly cocaine. It doesn’t matter. It’s drugs,” Mullin said.

Sullivan said “it’s the same groups” smuggling the cocaine as the ones smuggling fentanyl.

Cocaine mixed with illicit fentanyl has become “an increasing public safety concern” over the last eight years, according to the National Drug Threat Assessment. 

Overall, all U.S. drug overdose deaths have decreased in recent years, according to the assessment and latest data published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

People gather to sing and show support for Judge Hannah Dugan ahead of her federal trial. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

A federal jury will begin hearing the case against Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan, 66, on Monday in a lawsuit that has drawn national attention, weighing how far the Trump administration can go in squashing resistance to its nationwide crackdown on immigrants. 

The case revolves around events in  April, when Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a 30-year-old Mexican immigrant who had  been charged with battery, appeared in Dugan’s courtroom. Federal agents also arrived at the courtroom that day, seeking Flores-Ruiz, whom they said entered the country illegally over a decade ago. 

Dugan confronted  the federal agents as they waited outside her courtroom. Later, she led Flores-Ruiz  and his attorney out of her courtroom through a side door which led  into the same hallway where the federal agents were waiting. Flores-Ruiz was followed into the elevator and outside by the agents, who chased and then arrested him. 

Days later, Dugan was arrested and handcuffed by FBI agents and charged with obstruction and concealing an individual. FBI Director Kash Patel posted photographs of Dugan in handcuffs and celebrated her arrest, writing on X, “No one is above the law.” 

In early April, prior to Flores-Ruiz, ICE arrested two other people at the Milwaukee County Courthouse. Officials expressed concerns that the arrests were causing defendants, witnesses and victims to avoid coming to court or cooperating with law enforcement. 

Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley objected to what he characterized as intimidation tactics in enforcing its immigration crackdown and wielding the power of the state against  “anyone who opposes these policies.” In a statement, Crowley said, “we have an obligation to administer our courts in a safe, efficient manner that delivers due process for anyone.” 

Christine Neumann-Ortiz, executive director of the immigrant rights group Voces de la Frontera, said that the Trump officials  “basically want to be unleashed to do whatever they want to commit these raids in courtrooms across the country.” Milwaukee-area Democratic Sens. Chris Larson and Tim Carpenter and Reps. Christine Sinicki, Darrin Madison, Supreme Moore Omokunde, Angelito Tenorio, and Sequanna Taylor issued a joint statement calling the county courthouse “a sanctuary for justice and peace where the accused come forward willingly in a fair an unbiased process”, and warned that “arresting people out of a courtroom will lead to a breakdown of civil society.” 

At the end of April, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended Dugan with pay. Her case catalyzed protests outside the Milwaukee FBI Office, and was repeatedly mentioned at the summer’s No Kings protests. In July, Republican lawmakers introduced a bill to withhold pay for suspended judges. 

“In these rare circumstances, these judges’ actions and alleged misconduct rose to such a level that suspension was warranted,” the bill’s authors, Sen. Cory Tomczyk (R-Mosinee), Assembly Majority Leader Tyler August (R-Walworth) and Rep. Shae Sortwell (R-Two Rivers) wrote in a memo.  “Simply put, Wisconsin taxpayers must be protected from the misconduct and/or commission of a crime by rogue judges.”

If convicted, Dugan, who has pleaded not guilty, faces six years in prison. Her legal team initially attempted to have the case thrown out,  t arguing that Dugan is covered by  judicial immunity. That argument was rejected by U.S. Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph of the Eastern District of Wisconsin, who wrote that judges have civil immunity for official actions, but not criminal immunity, and that the case should go forward.

“As she said after her unnecessary arrest, Judge Dugan asserts her innocence and looks forward to being vindicated in court,” Dugan’s defense attorneys said in a statement.

On Thursday night, a crowd gathered outside the federal courthouse to support Dugan. 

Therese Heeg, 66, told the Wisconsin Examiner that she felt a responsibility to attend the rally to “protect our democracy for my children, my grandchildren, my son-in-law who’s unable to live in the U.S. because he’s from Africa, my best friend’s children who are Hispanic who are afraid for their lives, even though they’re citizens.” Heeg said she’s worried about immigration enforcement coming to the city to take people away. “Every single day there’s more and more atrocities happening right here,” said Heeg. “We are trapping people in camps…I used to wonder what it was like to live under the Nazis, and now I know, I’m living it. It’s shocking, it’s hard to comprehend at the same time that it’s happening every single day. 

Jury selection on Thursday was  closed off from the public and media by U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman, who is hearing the case. Adelman was responding to concerns from both the prosecution and defense that public questioning would taint the jury. An audio feed allowing media to listen to the jury selection process was restored following a legal   challenge by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Sister Barbara Pfarr, who is among the leaders of the faith-based social justice group MICAH, said that the national attention on Dugan’s case shows that the judge struck a nerve by standing up to the  Trump administration. Pfarr was disturbed by the effort to restrict press access during jury selection, and wondered whether anything similar would happen during the trial. “That’s the other big reason that I’m here, we’ve lost our democracy.”

Kilmar Abrego Garcia speaks before dozens of supporters Friday outside the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in Baltimore. (Photo by William J. Ford/Maryland Matters)

Kilmar Abrego Garcia is a free man, at least temporarily.

Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran immigrant and Maryland resident, appeared early Friday for a check-in at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement field office in Baltimore, less than day after a federal district judge ordered him released from ICE detention in Pennsylvania.

At his last ICE check-in, in August, Abrego Garcia walked in but didn’t walk out: Authorities detained him and held him until Thursday. But Friday, Abrego Garcia walked out of the building to cheers and chants, led by members of the immigrant rights group CASA to a black car that took him to rejoin his family in Prince George’s County.

Before Abrego-Garcia walked inside the building Friday, he thanked his supporters who rallied there, talked about spending the holidays with his family and offered advice for others suffering similar legal battles against the Trump administration.

“I stand before you as a free man, and I want you to remember me this way with my head held up high,” Abrego Garica said in Spanish, through a CASA translator.

“I stand here today with my head held up high, and I will continue to fight and stand firm against all of the injustices this government has done upon me,” Abrego Garcia said. “Regardless of this administration, I believe this is a country of laws, and I believe that this injustice will come to its end. Keep fighting. Do not give up. I wish all of you love and justice. Keep going.”

One of his attorneys, Simon Y. Sandoval-Moshenberg, told reporters and a few dozen protesters outside the field office that the federal judge who ordered Abrego Garcia freed Thursday said Friday that he could not be detained by ICE at his latest check-in.

Based on a temporary restraining order filed by his attorneys, Sandoval-Moshenberg said the judge will schedule a hearing at U.S. District Court in Greenbelt that Abrego Garcia will be able to attend.

“The legal fight is far from over,” Sandoval-Moshenberg said. “I wish I could say that with this, the government is going to leave well enough alone. This man has suffered enough.”

Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin called the judge’s decision to let Abrego Garcia free “naked judicial activism.”

“This order lacks any valid legal basis and we will continue to fight this tooth and nail in the courts,” McLaughlin said in an email Friday morning that repeated her statement from the day before.

Abrego Garcia’s return to the Baltimore ICE office came one day after U.S. District Court of Maryland Judge Paul Xinis ordered the Trump administration to release him from the Moshannon Valley Processing Center in Pennsylvania, where he had been held since September. He was released Thursday evening and spent the night at his home in Beltsville.

Since he was first detained by immigration officials in March and wrongly deported to his home county of El Salvador, Abrego Garcia’s case has shone a spotlight on the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration crackdown.

Abrego Garcia was originally deported to a brutal prison in El Salvador, despite a previous court ruling that prohibited his transfer there because of fear of violence by Salvadoran gangs.

Months later — and months after the U.S. Supreme Court’s April order that the Trump administration “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return –he was brought back to the U.S. on June 6, only to face charges of human smuggling in Tennessee. The judge in that case eventually ordered Abrego Garcia released to home detention while his claim of vindictive prosecution in the Tennessee case proceeded.

Xinis, who got involved in the case when Abrego Garcia was first deported, issued a ruling Thurday that was highly critical of the administration’s actions in the case. She found that Abrego Garcia’s latest detention, since his August ICE check-in, was “again without lawful authority,” because the Trump administration has been holding him for deportation but has not made an effort to remove him to a third country.

The government’s “conduct over the past months belie that his detention has been for the basic purpose of effectuating removal, lending further support that Abrego Garcia should be held no longer,” Xinis wrote in her opinion.

Costa Rica has agreed to accept Abrego Garcia as a refugee, but Justice Department lawyers could not give Xinis a clear explanation of why the Trump administration would not send him there. Instead, the administration has proposed deporting Abrego Garcia to several countries in Africa.

Back in Baltimore on Friday morning, dozens of supporters braved the cold to hold up signs, chant and then clap and cheer when Abrego Garcia walked back outside the ICE building a free man, chanting “todos somos Kilmar,” or “we are all Kilmar.”

“It’s definitely a good day, but it is a good day to know that he’ll be able to spend the holidays with his family, “said Baltimore City Councilmember Odette Ramos, who attended the rally.

“He and his family have been so brave to go through all of this and to have their story really symbolize, frankly, what so many others are going through,” she said. “The fight’s not over.”

Maryland Matters is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Maryland Matters maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Steve Crane for questions: editor@marylandmatters.org.

A new report urges federal policy makers to reverse the decline in resources and staff for federal statistics agencies. (J Studios/Getty Images)

Federal agencies that count jobs, measure incomes, track health information and provide countless other forms of data are under unprecedented strain, according to a new report — compounding years of neglect by Congress and the federal government.

The report, released Wednesday by the American Statistical Association, calls on the federal government to reverse course, bolstering support for the national statistics infrastructure with staff, expertise and resources. It’s part of an ongoing project by the association to monitor the work of federal statistics agencies.

“In combination, we are seeing the system approach a crisis point unless immediate action is taken by Congress and the Executive Branch to reform the current trajectory,” the report states.

It’s a call that state and local officials say matters to them as well.

“It  might make people’s eyes glaze over, but for 235 years, we’ve understood the value of using federal data in particular,” said Zach Brandon, president of the Greater Madison Chamber of Commerce. “This has been an underpinning of how this country has been built and the resources we use to understand not only where we’ve been but where we’re headed.”

Federal data informed a 2019 think tank report that found Wisconsin was uniquely poised to become a national hub for biomedical research and development, Brandon said. That conclusion culminated in the state’s selection for a biohealth technology hub under a program included in the 2022 federal CHIPS and Science Act.

He considers accurate data not just a record of the past, but an assist to forecasting the future — “a flashlight that helps you see the challenges and the opportunities before they just become anecdotes.”

Brandon is skeptical that the private sector can provide an adequate substitute. “Even if it could be as robust, we likely couldn’t afford it,” he said.

Resources needed, report finds

The statistical association’s report states that for federal agencies to produce accurate data promptly that can be trusted, they need expert staff and enough resources for now and the future.

Instead, however, federal budgets have shortchanged them for years, it states. The Trump administration is proposing more of the same in its 2026 budget, with cuts to all 13 of the federal statistical agencies, the report warns.

“Immediate action must be taken to halt the severe decline in the federal statistical agencies’ ability to meet their basic mission and be positioned to keep up with increasing information needs and to address uncertainty in the trustworthiness of federal statistics,” the report states.

The 43-day federal shutdown that began Oct. 1 and ended Nov. 12 was an especially dramatic gap in data collection — among other things, for the monthly national and state jobs reports.

“People rely on reliable, consistent and timely data from the federal government when they make decisions,” said Haley McCoy, communications director for the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, which produces Wisconsin’s reports drawing on surveys conducted by the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Whether a business owner is considering opening a new plant or shutting one down, “they need to have the most robust information that they can have to make a solid decision,” McCoy said. “It’s like taking the boat out on the water without looking at the weather forecast.”

That data was missing for the month of September because the shutdown began before the federal report could be completed, and the October data was never collected. DWD will post the state’s September numbers Wednesday — two months behind schedule.

“Those are the last statewide numbers that will come out this year,” McCoy said. “The most recent data we have are three months old.”

The next releases will come in January — November jobs numbers early in the month and December numbers later. But the October numbers are unlikely to be produced or posted ever, she said.

Long funding decline

The statistical association report documents declining fiscal support for federal statistical agencies over the last 15 years — suffering losses of 16% or more in real dollars since 2009, while facing new mandates from Congress.

Most agencies have also lost 20% to 30% of their staff, the report finds — from senior managers with important statistical knowledge to specialized data scientists and experts in methods that ensure greater accuracy.

The report finds that the Trump administration’s actions that have weakened the statistical agencies outweigh actions that would support them.

The administration has left leadership positions vacant, disrupted operations by relocating or attempting to relocate agencies, and eliminated some data collection projects unilaterally without consulting Congress, the public or stakeholders.

That’s coupled with deteriorating safeguards for the integrity of federal data. “In several cases, delays in releasing key data and administration officials’ statements questioning agencies’ neutrality have raised concerns about the protections for credible, objective statistics,” the report states.

Public trust of federal statistics has plummeted, according to the report. A University of Chicago survey found that among U.S. adults, trust in federal statistics fell from 57% in June to 52% in September.

Increased support recommended

The report makes a series of recommendations — for increased staffing, support for innovation, stable and sufficient funding for statistical agencies to fulfill their mission under federal law and systematic management of the agencies and their work, as well as other changes.

It also calls on the administration and Congress to strengthen public trust, including ensuring the data collected for statistical purposes isn’t used for law enforcement or to impose regulations.

At DWD, according to McCoy, there have not yet been concerns about the accuracy or reliability of the federal data it relies on, such as for state job reports.

“We trust how the data is collected,” she said. “It goes through rigorous checks for accuracy.”

But concerns remain about gaps in the data as some collection projects — such as  a report on food security — get turned off, McCoy said.

Steve Pierson, the statistical association’s director of science policy, told the Wisconsin Examiner Tuesday that so far data from the government has continued to be trustworthy.

“We believe that the federal statistics being issued are absolutely still objective and credible,” Pierson said. “What would really help, though, is comments to that effect from the administration.”

Pierson said he believes there are reasons for hope even in the face of grave concerns about the nation’s statistical resources.

Congressional budget writers have rejected the Trump administration’s proposals to cut budgets for the BLS and the National Center for Education Statistics — the latter of which the administration proposed virtually eliminating, he observed.

Key staffers in Congress “hear our concerns, and they share that they’re also concerned,” Pierson said. “That is encouraging.”