Maryland Democratic Gov. Wes Moore spent a few minutes sorting donated food before signing an executive order in late October declaring a state of emergency to allow for distribution of food aid. As the federal government reopens, questions remain about how states will be reimbursed for the costs they incurred. (Photo by Bryan P. Sears/Maryland Matters)

Though Congress ended the record-setting federal government shutdown, many questions remain for states that were already wading through seismic federal changes.

One major uncertainty: whether and how states will be reimbursed for the costs they incurred, as they have been in previous shutdowns. And for the longer term, the shutdown offered a glimpse into the funding challenges facing states. They’ll have to rely more on their own money and staff to keep federal programs going even at a time when many face their own budget problems.

That’s a top concern for the federal food stamp program, known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. Amid conflicting federal guidance during the shutdown, states reacted in different ways: Some issued partial benefit payments, others sent aid to food banks to keep people from going hungry.

But even after the government reopening restores SNAP aid, other challenges loom. The major tax and spending law enacted this summer tied SNAP funding to state error rates, which measure the accuracy of benefit payments. Advocates fear the shutdown will increase error rates because of conflicting federal guidance.

Air travel, SNAP benefits, back pay at issue as federal government slowly reopens

“States are really worried,” said Crystal FitzSimons, president of the Food Research & Action Center, a nonprofit working to address poverty-related hunger.

And states have been rushing to inform rural residents, veterans and older adults that they will soon be forced to meet work requirements or lose SNAP benefits. It’s just the first in a wave of cutbacks to the nation’s largest food assistance program required under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that President Donald Trump signed in July.

FitzSimons said the shutdown highlighted the importance of SNAP and how “untenable” many of the upcoming changes will prove for states. For now, states are working to get benefits to people immediately, and then will focus more on questions of reimbursement and ongoing changes to SNAP.

“The hope is that states will be able to move quickly and then turn their attention to all the changes,” she said.

While public attention has centered on the shutdown chaos in recent weeks, more fundamental changes are occurring outside the spotlight, said Eric Schnurer, founder and president of Public Works, a consulting firm specializing in government performance and efficiency.

“The ground is shifting under their [states’] feet even as this goes on,” he said. “Even if the Trump administration and his policies were to pass on in another three years, there are serious structural changes in the relationship between state and federal government.”

Since taking office, the Trump administration has stripped states and cities of billions of dollars that Congress approved for education, infrastructure and energy projects. And the president’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act mandates deep cuts to social service programs, including Medicaid and food stamps.

Under the law, states will be required to pay a greater share of administering SNAP in the coming years. That requirement, along with eligibility changes, could result in millions of Americans losing benefits.

“I think the public in general got a taste of what that might look like over the past month,” Schnurer said, referencing the shutdown’s first-ever disruption to SNAP benefits.

State-federal strain

The legislation to reopen the government approved by Congress and signed by the president this week says that states shall be reimbursed for expenses “that would have been paid” by the federal government during the shutdown.

“So that sounds promising for states,” said Marcia Howard, executive director of Federal Funds Information for States, which analyzes how federal policymaking impacts states.

But it’s unclear how that language will be interpreted. For example, states that sent money to food banks for emergency food assistance are less likely to be made whole compared with states that sent funds through existing federal programs like SNAP, she said.

California dedicated $80 million in state funds and deployed the National Guard to food banks across the state. But Virginia launched a temporary state-level version of the federal food stamp program.

Previous administrations have been more flexible with federal funds, making it easier for states to receive funding or reimbursement, Howard said.

“This administration is really more holding states’ feet to the fire perhaps than other administrations have. So I think they’ll be less permissive in who and how they reimburse,” she said.

It could take weeks or months before states know the full fallout from the shutdown, especially with food assistance.

“[States] did such different things, and I think there’s going to be a fair bit of back-and-forth: should this be covered? Should this not be covered?” Howard said.

The shutdown and its aftermath underscore the ongoing strain between state and federal governments, said Lisa Parshall, a professor of political science at Daemen University in New York.

Federal uncertainty can cause state leaders to be more cautious about their own budgets — similar to how an economic downturn can decrease consumer spending, she said.

“There’s a delay of services, there’s a diminishment of capacity and partnership, and those things might be harder to quantify when you’re talking about what is the cost of the shutdown,” she said. “But I think those are real costs.”

And the end of the shutdown does not extinguish those tensions.

“In some ways, even though the shutdown is over, things are not going to go back to ‘normal,’” she said.

More changes coming

Aside from spending cuts and new administrative costs, Trump’s July law made major tax code changes poised to cost many states, said William Glasgall, public finance adviser at the Volcker Alliance, a nonprofit that supports public sector workers.

Most states use the federal tax code as a basis for their own income tax structures, so changes at the federal level can trickle down to state tax systems or states can choose a different structure to avoid those changes.

Last month, a Massachusetts budget official said federal tax changes would cost the state $650 million in revenue this budget year.

So even with the government back open, states have to plan for some level of unpredictability, Glasgall said. And the future of entire agencies like the Department of Education remain up in the air, he noted.

“So there’s still a lot of uncertainty, even with this bill,” he said.

On Wednesday, state budget analysts briefed Maryland lawmakers on the $1.4 billion budget gap they could face as they head into the 2026 legislative session.

That figure does not include the fallout from the federal government shutdown, which may not be known for months, according to Maryland Matters.

In late October, Democratic Gov. Wes Moore declared an emergency and directed $10 million in state funds toward food banks and pantries. Earlier this month, he announced $62 million in state funds would be deployed directly to SNAP recipients.

Rhyan Lake, a Moore spokesperson, told Stateline that Maryland expects the federal government to reimburse the state for its SNAP expenditures during the shutdown.

But lawmakers are still gearing up for a hit from major federal changes.

In addition to cuts from Trump’s domestic tax and spending law, Maryland has lost about 15,000 federal jobs, budget officials said. But many federal workers who took buyouts were paid through September. And the shutdown caused a pause in federal employment data, potentially concealing the true impact.

State Sen. James Rosapepe, Democratic chair of the joint Spending Affordability Committee, said he’s worried the state has only seen the beginning of its federally induced fiscal challenges. He also noted that this week’s shutdown-ending legislation only assures the government remains open through January, meaning another shutdown could be just a couple months away.

“We’re less than a year into the administration, and the effects of things they’ve already done don’t seem to have flowed through yet to the data that we have, which leads me to believe that the worst is yet to come,” he said.

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org.

State Rep. Christine Sinicki (D-Milwaukee) questions a witness at Thursday's hearing of the Assembly labor committee about the unemployment insurance bill produced by the Unemployment Insurance Advisory Council. (Photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner)

A business lobbyist Thursday sought to salvage a new unemployment insurance bill that has sparked opposition from some Democrats and advocates for people with disabilities.

The bill came from the joint labor-management Unemployment Insurance Advisory Council. The council is historically a source of consensus legislation to update Wisconsin’s laws on jobless pay, but its 2025 proposal includes provisions Democrats have strongly opposed.

The senior Democrat on the Assembly’s labor committee has disavowed the bill because it includes a financial penalty for people who receive federal disability pay if they apply for unemployment insurance when they’re laid off from a job.

The council bill also contains several other changes that Democratic lawmakers have unanimously opposed and Gov. Tony Evers has vetoed in the past.

At a public hearing Thursday on the legislation, AB 652, Scott Manley of Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce emphasized that the measure had the unanimous support of both the management and labor members of the advisory council.

Manley chairs the council’s management caucus. Representatives from the council’s labor caucus did not take part in the hearing.

“There’s a reason we have a council,” Manley told the Assembly Committee on Workforce Development, Labor and Integrated Employment. “It’s a process we believe in. We think it’s a process that works. And we would ask everybody in the community to respect that process.”

WMC and other business groups have repeatedly backed Republican legislators’ bills to change the state’s unemployment laws when they bypassed the joint advisory council.  Evers has regularly vetoed such bills.

Manley said that it would be unprecedented for an advisory council bill to split the Legislature on party lines, however.

“My fear is that if the Legislature decides to turn this into a partisan issue, despite the fact that it was unanimously supported by labor and management, that Gov. Evers would consider vetoing the bill,” Manley said.

If that happens, he said, the bill’s $25 bump in the state’s maximum weekly jobless pay — the first increase in more than a decade — would likely be put off until 2027.

Victor Forberger, a lawyer who specializes in unemployment law, said even that increase, bringing the maximum benefit to $395 a week, was inadequate compared with surrounding states.

Minnesota tops out at $914 a week, Forberger testified. Iowa’s maximum is $602 and Michigan’s is $446, with an increase to $530 in 2026.

“We’re not keeping pace with the states around us,” Forberger told the committee. “We’re not even coming close to that

The disability-jobless pay conflict

The advisory council bill’s highest-profile point of contention applies to people who receive Social Security Disability Income.

Since 2013, Wisconsin law has automatically disqualified SSDI recipients from collecting jobless pay, even if they get laid off from a job and otherwise meet the requirements for unemployment compensation.

A federal judge ruled in 2024 that the SSDI jobless pay ban violated federal law. After an additional court order this summer, the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development is now reviewing the cases of people denied unemployment compensation in the last 10 years due to the SSDI ban, and is issuing payments to those who qualify.

The joint advisory council unemployment bill repeals the ban on unemployment insurance for SSDI recipients. But it would also cut their jobless pay by 50% of their SSDI pay.

That provision led Rep. Christine Sinicki (D-Milwaukee), the ranking Democrat on the labor committee, to keep her name off the list of sponsors for the advisory council bill.

“I simply cannot support taking benefits from those who are disabled,” Sinicki said when she, along with the committee’s other two Democrats, voted against the bill’s formal introduction Thursday. “They receive very little money to begin with. And now to reduce their benefits to me is unconscionable.”

Manley defended the 2013 law that excluded SSDI recipients from the unemployment insurance program.

“SSDI is intended to compensate somebody for their loss of earning capacity based on a disability,” he said. “And unemployment is supposed to compensate somebody through the loss of their earnings because they were laid off or their job was eliminated or some other reason that’s no fault of their own. So, that’s why the policy decision was made in the first place that we wouldn’t allow people to have both benefits.”

While the court ruled against a blanket exclusion from unemployment compensation for people getting SSDI, Manley argued that offsetting their jobless pay by a portion of their disability income is comparable to existing provisions that offset unemployment benefits based on other wage income.

But SSDI is not like a wage, said Forberger, whose lawsuit overturned Wisconsin’s SSDI jobless pay ban.

“SSDI is essentially getting your Social Security benefits early,” Forberger testified. While Social Security payments are based on lifetime earnings at retirement age, he said, unemployment is based on a recent job loss, and unemployment benefits are based on earnings in the last year and a half.

The average SSDI benefit in Wisconsin as of December 2023 was about $1,400 per month, he said. SSDI recipients take part-time jobs because their disability income “is not enough to support themselves,” Forberger said. “They need additional money to make ends meet.”

The federal Social Security Administration, which administers the disability program, encourages recipients to work so they might make a transition back to the workforce and no longer need benefits. “Essentially, what Wisconsin is saying to disabled folks here is . . . ‘We don’t want you working anymore,’” Forberger said.

Other provisions

Several other items in the advisory council bill previously were part of Republican bills that Evers vetoed in the past when they reached his desk.

One would require DWD to establish a website where employers could report unemployment compensation recipients who “ghosted” job interviews or didn’t show up for the first day on the job after an offer.

Another would require audits of 50% of all work searches by people collecting jobless pay. In 41% of work search audits that DWD conducted, “claimants failed to fulfill weekly work search requirements,” said Brian Dake of Wisconsin Independent Businesses. “We believe this data justifies the need for more audits.”

 A third provision stipulates specific checks that DWD should make to ensure that a person who makes an unemployment claim isn’t stealing another person’s identity or engaged in some other fraudulent activity.

The bill also would mandate electronic filing of payroll information for business owners with fewer than 25 employees.

Forberger, in his testimony, rejected all those provisions as ineffectual or unnecessary.

“Ghosting interviews is already illegal in this state,” he said, with stiffer penalties than outlined in the bill. Employers, he added, are unlikely to go to the trouble of filing a report and take the time for the hearings that would follow.

Forberger observed that the department already consults a wide range of databases in checking out claims. And he said small employers have sought his help after making mistakes and getting in trouble with the department in filing required payroll documentation.

“To mandate online-only filing is just going to make it that much harder for these employers,” Forberger said.

(According to DWD communications director Haley McCoy, in 2024 about 97% of taxable employers with fewer than 25 employees submitted their wage reports electronically. “Fewer and fewer employers file on paper every quarter with current figures showing less than 3% filing by paper,” McCoy told the Wisconsin Examiner.)

Forberger said the bill’s work search audit requirement was redundant, because DWD already conducts work search audits of every person who is approved for benefits. He said he’s heard from many people who don’t understand what constitutes a work search and how to report it.

“When they’re getting audited, they’re getting disqualified,” Forberger said. “If you really want to improve the system, DWD needs to start doing some training and helping people how to navigate the system.”

This report has been updated to clarify that work search audits are conducted for people who are approved for  unemployment benefits. 

An aerial view shows an Amazon data center last year in Ashburn, Va. A new study found that most states offering subsidies for data centers do not disclose the recipients of those tax benefits. (Photo by Nathan Howard/Getty Images)

Most states offering incentives to data centers don’t disclose which companies benefit, according to a new report.

At least 36 states have crafted subsidies specifically for data center projects, according to Good Jobs First, a nonprofit watchdog group that tracks economic development incentives. But only 11 of those states — Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin — disclose which companies receive those incentives.

In a new study, the organization examined a lack of transparency in data center deals, which are proliferating across the country as technology demands increase.  

Despite data centers’ significant energy requirements, states frequently compete heavily to land the projects, which invest millions or even billions into new construction. But the study noted those projects often employ nondisclosure agreements, project code names and subsidiary names that hide the firms behind the new server farms.

“Only when governments disclose information on which companies get public money and what they do with it can there be meaningful analysis, greater public participation, and wiser use of public financial resources,” the report says.

Good Jobs First specifically examined sales and use tax exemptions that benefit data centers. The study does not account for local property tax abatements, corporate income tax credits and discounts on electricity and water rates.

Virginia, the largest data center market in the world, forgoes nearly $1 billion in state and local sales and use tax revenue each year without telling the public which companies benefit or how much they receive, the study said.

Good Jobs First underscored state calculations that show data center subsidies do not provide a return on taxpayer investments. It recommends states eliminate or curtail data center subsidies. “At the very least, states should practice full transparency,” the report said.

Good Jobs First says states must reassess their investments in data centers with federal cuts looming that will strain state finances.

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org.

Cleveland “Cleve” Francis, a UPS driver who retired this year, in Louisville, Kentucky. Trade and transportation jobs saw most of the gains in a new jobs report. (Photo courtesy of UPS)

The United States gained 42,000 jobs in October, the first increase since July as measured by ADP, a private payroll processing company and the only source of jobs estimates during the government shutdown, as federal jobs reports have been paused.

ADP’s report, released Wednesday, showed job increases mostly in West Coast states, which gained 37,000 jobs between September and October, and continued job losses on the East Coast. The New York area, including New Jersey and Pennsylvania, lost 20,000 jobs while coastal states from Delaware to Florida lost 8,000 jobs.

Most of the job increases were in trade and transportation, which includes stores, wholesale and shipping jobs. In that sector, there were 47,000 new jobs for the month.

Those industries added jobs despite uncertainty over tariffs, said Guy Berger, a labor economist and senior fellow at the Burning Glass Institute, a labor market think tank based in Philadelphia. But Berger said it’s unclear whether the job gains will be long lasting or will disappear in new rounds of high tariffs on consumer goods.

“They’re feeling headwinds but they’re very ping-pongy, It’s like, ‘Who knows what the next bit of news will be or how you’re going to have to adjust your supply?’” Berger said.

“In years past this would have been considered quite weak, but the number was positive at least,” Berger said. “Because immigration flows have been squeezed during the current administration and maybe have even gone negative at this point, we don’t need a lot of jobs each month to keep the labor market on an even keel.”

The ADP report is based on weekly payroll data for 26 million private-sector employees. It does not include an estimate of the unemployment rate, unlike the suspended federal report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It also does not break down the statistics by race or gender.

Last month’s job gains were concentrated in large businesses with more than 500 employees, which gained 70,000 jobs for the month, while jobs dropped overall for small and medium-size businesses, according to the report.

The median annual pay growth was 4.5% for those in the same jobs and 6.7% for those in new jobs, the same as September and little changed for more than a year, the report said, indicating that “shifts in supply and demand are balanced.”

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

Food stocked on shelves within the Rooted & Rising food center in Milwaukee. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

Rooted & Rising, a food center and Hunger Task Force partner, has provided nourishment to people living in Milwaukee’s Washington Park neighborhood for over three decades. The lapse in federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, known in Wisconsin as FoodShare, that began on Saturday is increasing desperation, according to staff. Over the last week, Bill Schmitt, executive director of Rooted & Rising, told the Wisconsin Examiner, “197 households came through the food center…And that’s about a 60% increase over what we would usually see.” 

On Friday, Gov. Tony Evers declared a state of emergency in Wisconsin due to the lapse in federal SNAP funding. 

By Monday afternoon people from more than 50 local households had already arrived at Rooted & Rising to pick up canned goods and  locally grown produce. Schmitt said the numbers on Monday showed a sustained spike. 

Rooted & Rising provides food once a month, or every 30 days, from noon to 4 p.m., in a neighborhood where, according to the food center’s website, the unemployment rate exceeds 15% and 50% of households live below the poverty line. 

“We know a lot of people came out last week,” Schmitt said, referring to the over 60% spike the pantry saw just before  SNAP benefits were cut off. “We’re just trying to keep pace with the demand and make sure that people still have a dignified, respectful experience here and they’re not having to wait too long.” 

Rooted & Rising’s shelves are stocked with assorted canned goods, boxes hold ripe fruits and vegetables and freezers preserve perishables including meat. People sit in chairs while staff buzz past carrying boxes and help load bags into cars. First-time visitors must present an I.D. and a current piece of mail.

On Monday, elderly people and parents with small children visited the food center, gathering  enough food in their carts to last three days or so. “It’s families just like yours and mine really,” said Schmitt. “It is primarily working families. And people are fitting in visits to the food center with their work schedule when they can, or someone’s coming on their behalf. And we know across the state, it’s 700,000 individuals that rely upon these benefits. And the majority of those families…They’re trying to make ends meet.” 

While there was a rise in the number of families visiting the food center at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Rooted & Rising has seen a more recent uptick over the last year. In addition to the regulars, many people are either new families or people who hadn’t visited the food center in quite some time. “Our assessment of it is like wages just aren’t keeping pace with inflation,” said Schmitt. “There’s obviously been a sustained period of inflationary pressure in the economy more broadly, and subsequently we’ve seen, I mean, even before this government shutdown, our numbers were considerably higher than the year previous.”

Prior to last year, Rooted & Rising would see between 250-350 households a month. In October,  517 households came to the food center for assistance. 

“It is both the actual impact of the delayed food share benefits going out, but really it’s also like the uncertainty of it that we all know in our own lives,” Schmitt said. 

Leah Boonnam, 33, comes from one of those new families. Monday was the third time she’d come to Rooted & Rising.  She started coming to the food center back in the summer. “It’s a long story,” she said after loading groceries into her car. “I’m a widow. My husband passed a few years ago. So we don’t get FoodShare, I don’t get anything like that. We live off the survivors benefits. And so we’ve had to move a lot, like downsize.” 

A friend told Boonnam to check out the food center, which has been a big help to her family. While she works various jobs, Boonnam’s husband was her family’s main provider. “My plan is to finish paying off my debt to school so I can return and finish my degree, my masters,” she told the Wisconsin Examiner. “However, when I started my program, my husband had passed. It was right at the start of COVID and everything. So, he was the one that was the major breadwinner for our family.” Boonnam said she works hard, but “nothing compares to having two incomes in a household.” 

“I wish people didn’t feel so bad about having to come here,” she added. “This is a really beautiful thing that is available to us. I mean, this is such a help.”

”A lot of the fresh organic stuff that they get here is from the food pantries, and these are local businesses that are helping to support local people,” Boonnam said.

Another visitor, a friendly 48-year-old man who only wanted to be identified by his first name, Isaac, said he’d been coming to Rooted & Rising for about six years. “It’s very important because things are getting hectic and people don’t have no other options,” he said of SNAP.  If food assistance programs were to halt completely, Isaac said he worries  “crime might raise, or a lot of chaos.” He hopes that after the current federal shutdown is over, states will “plan ahead and think ahead,” grow food bank networks and provide “things that can assist folks who are in crisis. … We’ll make it, just a little more tender love and care.”

Bonny Walters, an older woman who has helped out at Rooted & Rising for more than 30 years, has seen the numbers of people needing the food center “increase a lot,” she said.  She hopes that even if people don’t help out at a food center, they understand that the need is real. 

With the future of SNAP still up in the air and the government shutdown continuing, Schmitt said the generosity of neighbors is more important than ever. Across Milwaukee County, food drives are being held to help provide a cushion for local residents who rely on FoodShare to survive. So far, over $74,000 has been raised — enough to provide over 222,000 meals. The Brewers Community Foundation made a $10,000 donation. Local elected leaders have criticized  the Trump administration for using hunger and food security as a political bargaining chip in Washington D.C. 

Schmitt explained that Rooted & Rising, as part of Milwaukee County’s emergency food network, is designed to meet the emergency nutritional needs of families on a monthly basis. “We do not have the capacity, or the resources, or even the physical space or stocks to fill the gap of the loss of FoodShare,” he said. 

“There’s a really visceral situation when you’re talking about people in your communities not having enough to eat and like, skipping meals, or you know, going hungry sometimes, too,” he added. “It’s crazy to think about that — in the wealthiest country in human history that this is an issue that we’re confronting right now. But, people have really been stepping up and we’re going to continue to rely upon that generosity of our community members and partners to kind of recognize that this is a unique moment, and one that requires all of us to work together and kind of meet the moment, meet the need of our fellow community members.”

Workers, including one man in a wheelchair, discuss a project they are working on in Houston, Texas. (Getty Images)

A state program to help people with disabilities find employment is running short of funds, the state labor department reported Monday, leading to a waiting list for people seeking the agency’s services.

The Department of Workforce Development will seek $4.6 million from the state Legislature to fully fund the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation in the 2026 fiscal year.

The division serves about 19,000 people at any one time and enrolls about 1,000 new participants each month who have disabilities and are looking for work opportunities, said Haley McCoy, director of communications at DWD.

The unemployment rate for people with disabilities is about twice that for the general population, said Melanie Cairns, managing attorney for Disability Rights Wisconsin.

“The Division of Vocational Rehabilitation provides vital support and services that people with disabilities need in order to work and to find better work,” Cairns said.

Those services include assessment of a person’s current job skills and discussions about the individual’s work goal and what services and supports they need to pursue that goal, Cairns said. Those can include grants for training in a specific occupation or skills, job coaching and other forms of support.

Federal funds cover 78.7% of the program’s cost, with the state required to pitch in 21.3% to match that. The additional state appropriation DWD is seeking would unlock the corresponding additional federal money.

The 2025-27 state budget appropriated $21.3 million in state funds for the 2026 fiscal year — $2.4 million less than the state spent in 2025 and $4.6 million less than what the state had projected it would need, according to DWD.

Unless the shortfall is made up, the agency will have to put potential new participants on a waiting list, according to DWD. McCoy said about 2,000 people are currently awaiting an employment plan through the division and would be put on the waiting list as a consequence.

DWD has scheduled a virtual public hearing for Thursday, Nov. 13, at 2 p.m., to explain the need for the waiting list and seek comment from the public about that prospect.

“We want to find a solution to continue to provide employment services for anyone with disabilities who wants to find a job,” said DWD Secretary-designee Amy Pechacek in a statement Monday. “We welcome the public to participate in this public hearing and are working with all stakeholders to address this issue.”

A produce cooler at Willy Street Co-op in Madison, Wisconsin. FoodShare funding from the federal government will stop Nov. 1 if the federal government shutdown continues. (Photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner)

Milwaukee elected leaders gathered outside the county’s Marcia P. Coggs Health and Human Services Building on Friday, providing updates to residents and praising the community’s resilience amidst the ongoing federal government shutdown. 

“Milwaukee County is strong and resilient, but the health and wellbeing of our residents and families should never be casualties of political fights in Washington,” said Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley. “Until this federal shutdown ends, we will do what we always do: look out for our neighbors and step up to help in times of need. I’m grateful to our community partners and encourage every resident who is able to join us in caring for our community.”  

Beginning Saturday Nov. 1, people across the state who depend on the Wisconsin FoodShare assistance program will be at risk of losing that aid, due to the discontinuation of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) as a result of the government shutdown.

A Milwaukee County press release said that over 230,000 local residents will be left without food assistance “with no clear end in sight”. The release also noted that if the shutdown continues into December, then Section 8 housing benefits will also be on the chopping block. This aspect of the shutdown could lead the Milwaukee County Department of Health and Human Services to not pay federally mandated portions of rent costs, placing a strain on tenants and small-scale landlords. 

“I have been clear as day: no one wins in a shutdown,” said U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin. “Republicans and Donald Trump need to finally come to the table to end this shutdown and lower health care costs for families…Wisconsin families just want to live a comfortable life where they can put food on the table, afford their health care and monthly bills, and not have Washington politics butting into their life. While Wisconsin’s House Republicans are on day 42 of a paid vacation and President Trump is just coming home from another foreign trip, Wisconsinites are going to wake up tomorrow to find their health care premiums are skyrocketing and food assistance is being taken from them. Enough is enough.”

Food drive donations are being accepted at locations across the county including:

• Milwaukee City Hall (200 E. Wells St)
• Milwaukee County Courthouse (901 N. 9th St)
• Zeidler Municipal Building (841 N. Broadway)
• Marcia P. Coggs Health & Human Services Center (1230 W. Cherry St)
• Hillview (1615 S. 22nd Street)
• Fiserv Forum (1111 Vel R. Phillips Avenue)
• All Milwaukee public schools 
• All Milwaukee library branches
• The Mason Temple Church (6058 N. 35th St)
  

Residents can also donate to NourishMKE or Feeding America if they’d like to provide financial assistance to programs. While republicans blame the shutdown on democrats wanting to protect people living in the country without legal documentation, democrats say they’re attempting to preserve Affordable Healthcare Act health insurance subsidies which, if allowed to expire, would lead to inflated health costs for people across the country, including some 310,000 Wisconsinites, many of whom would see their insurance payments rise between 45 and 800%.

“This hunger crisis did not need to happen,” said Congresswoman Gwen Moore in a statement. “The Trump Administration is purposefully withholding $5 billion in contingency funding, so they can inflict maximum pain and hardship on the American people…Unlike what Republicans claim, this won’t only hurt my district, but their constituents throughout Wisconsin, including rural areas. SNAP is a lifeline, not a political weapon.” 

Milwaukee Mayor Cavalier Johnson said he was grateful that neighbors were uniting “so that hunger does not rule the day.” Johnson said, however that, “donations and food drives are a temporary fix. We need resolution to this shutdown so that the federal government can resume the important work we ask of it.”

As the government shutdown continues, federal employees who work in Milwaukee County are also feeling the pressure. Many have been furloughed from their jobs, or are working without pay. At Mitchell International Airport, federal air traffic and security workers are not getting paid, as are Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) workers. The Veteran Affairs Regional Benefits Office in Milwaukee is closed due to furloughed employees. 

Sign on the door of the Dane County Job Center in Madison, Wisconsin. (Wisconsin Examiner photo)

Unemployed Wisconsinites could lose a week’s jobless benefits if they don’t show up for an interview if a new draft bill becomes law.

The same measure would also turn up the scrutiny on the weekly work searches that people who’ve lost a job must undertake to collect unemployment insurance.

Gov. Tony Evers has repeatedly vetoed bills authored by Republicans in the Legislature that contain those and other changes to Wisconsin’s unemployment compensation system.

In his veto messages, Evers, a Democrat, has consistently criticized GOP lawmakers for trying to change the rules on jobless pay without working through Wisconsin’s joint labor-management Unemployment Insurance Advisory Council.

This time, however, the proposals have come from the advisory council itself.

On Sept. 24, the council voted to advance a bill that was endorsed by both its labor and management members. Despite that unanimous backing, some worker advocates are condemning the draft legislation.

“This is a terrible, terrible bill,” said lawyer Victor Forberger, whose practice focuses on representing people whose claims for unemployment compensation have been rejected by the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development.

State Rep. Christine Sinicki (D-Milwaukee), the ranking Democrat on the Assembly’s labor committee, has repeatedly scolded Republican lawmakers for proposing unemployment insurance changes without going through the advisory council.

But after reading the advisory council’s draft legislation, Sinicki said, “I will not be voting for the bill, and we will probably offer an amendment to it.”

Shane Griesbach, a union official who chairs the council’s labor caucus, defends the council proposal, highlighting that it includes an increase in the maximum weekly unemployment benefit for the first time in more than a decade.

“It was a compromise between both labor and management on various issues,” Griesbach told the Wisconsin Examiner.

The draft bill has not yet been formally introduced in the Legislature. On Tuesday, Oct. 28, members of the Assembly Committee on Workforce Development, Labor, and Integrated Employment were told by email to hold their calendars open for a hearing on Nov. 13.

Labor-management negotiations

From the launch of Wisconsin’s unemployment compensation system in 1932 — the first of its kind in the country — the Unemployment Insurance Advisory Council has been a standing feature, intended to reflect the interests of both sides.

“The Wisconsin UI advisory council — with five representatives each from labor and management — was designed to balance the needs of workers and employers in unemployment insurance policy,” said Laura Dresser, associate director of the High Road Strategy Center, a think tank at the University of Wisconsin-Madison that focuses on the impact of economic policy and trends on working people.

“It is a good idea, and part of the Wisconsin Idea, to build this sort of policy infrastructure around the people who rely on and fund the system,” Dresser said. “But if either labor or management thinks they can get a better deal from the Legislature than the advisory council, that undermines the policy-making power of the council itself.” 

Among the controversial provisions of the draft bill is a disability pay penalty.

Under the typical protocol for bills that come from the advisory council, Sinicki, as the ranking minority party member of the labor committee would be listed as a coauthor of the legislation.

But Sinicki objects to the bill’s proposed penalty for people with unemployment claims who receive federal disability payments. If that doesn’t change, “I will not put my name on the bill,” Sinicki said

Since 2013, people laid off from work have been denied unemployment compensation if they also received Social Security Disability Income. This summer, a federal judge ended that ban, and the advisory council’s draft bill removes the ban as well.

But the draft bill also includes an “offset” that would claw back money from the SSDI recipient’s jobless pay each week. Over the course of one month, the amount clawed back would equal 50% of the recipient’s monthly disability check.

Earlier this year, DWD proposed to the advisory council ending the SSDI jobless pay ban but deducting 100% of federal disability income.

In September, Sinicki and state Sen. Kristin Dassler-Alfheim (D-Appleton) introduced their own bill to repeal the SSDI unemployment pay ban and criticized DWD’s offset recommendation. Nine days later, the department told the Unemployment Insurance Advisory Council it was dropping the offset proposal entirely and simply recommending an end to the SSDI jobless pay ban.  

The advisory council brought back the offset, however, at 50% rather than 100% of the federal disability income, in the draft bill approved Sept. 24.

Forberger said that at either 100% or 50%, requiring an offset against disability income is likely to wipe out jobless pay for many SSDI recipients.

Resurrecting vetoed changes

Other provisions in the advisory council draft have previously passed the state Legislature with only Republican votes, and then been vetoed by Evers.

‘Ghosting’ interviews: Unemployment insurance recipients accused of “ghosting” a scheduled job interview — failing to show up — would lose their weekly jobless pay for that week. A recipient would also lose benefits for a week for declining a job offer or failing to report on the first scheduled work day after being offered a job.

Republican lawmakers this year passed legislation that also would penalize “ghosting” interviews and rejecting job offers. No Democrats voted for the legislation, and Evers vetoed the bill, AB 169, on Friday. 

“I object to creating additional barriers for individuals applying for and receiving benefits from a program that is designed to support people and families experiencing economic hardship, as well as creating additional mandates for the department in administering these benefits,” Evers wrote in his veto message.

Forberger said the ghosting penalties — which have been introduced and vetoed in past years as well — are unneeded, with unemployment insurance claims remaining at close to record lows.

“We’ve still got a huge worker shortage in the state,” Forberger said. “This does absolutely nothing.”

Work search audit quotas: Another provision in the advisory council bill would require DWD to audit the work searches of half of all people making unemployment claims.

Evers vetoed a bill in 2023 that included the work search audit requirement.

“I object to this bill because the department already has substantial eligibility requirements and fraud prevention mechanisms in place to protect the unemployment system from potentially fraudulent activity,” Evers wrote at the time.

In response to a Wisconsin Examiner inquiry, DWD Communications Director Haley McCoy said via email that the department’s unemployment insurance division “has a well-established work search auditing program.” People making unemployment insurance claims must report their required work searches each week, which are subject “to random or targeted audits,” McCoy said.

McCoy declined to specify the department’s current audit frequency, calling that information “sensitive” and confidential “to protect program integrity.”

Identity proofing requirements: The advisory council bill includes new requirements for unemployment insurance applicants to prove their identities, and would require DWD to follow specific steps, including comparing applications for jobless pay against databases tracking death records, employment records, citizenship and immigration records.

On Friday Evers vetoed AB 168, which included similar identity proofing requirements.

“The department already implements comprehensive fraud prevention strategies, including identity verification, making the proposal to mandate identity proofing both unnecessary and overly burdensome of claimants,” Evers wrote in his veto message.

A benefit increase

The advisory council bill includes a one-time $25 increase in the maximum weekly payment that goes to jobless workers: to $395 a week starting in 2026, from $370 a week.

“The last time unemployment has seen an increase in the weekly benefit rate was 2013,” said Griesbach, the council’s labor caucus chair.

Griesbach said that benefit increase, the unemployment insurance clawback for disability pay, the “ghosting’ penalty and the work search audit requirements were all products of the advisory council’s consensus process.

“All those things were part of an agreed-upon bill between labor and management and negotiation and compromise by both groups,” Griesbach told the Wisconsin Examiner. “It was an agreed-upon bill, and there were a lot of different topics that were discussed, and that was the compromise that was reached.”

Forberger said the proposed benefit increase keeps Wisconsin’s top unemployment benefit well below other Midwestern states.

In Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota and Illinois, the maximum weekly benefit is at least $500 a week or more. Only Indiana, with a maximum benefit of $390 a week, would be lower, he said.

“This is a paltry increase,” Forberger said of the Wisconsin proposal. “It’s nothing to brag about.”

The advisory council bill’s increase is also less than DWD had recommended in its proposals to the council. The department proposed raising the maximum weekly  benefit by $127 in 2026, to $497, and then indexing the maximum to the consumer price index in 2027.

Sinicki acknowledged that by giving new life to Republican-authored unemployment insurance bills that she’s sharply criticized in the past, the advisory council’s bill has put her in a difficult position.

The ghosting penalty, for example, is an “attempt to throw more people off of unemployment insurance,” Sinicki said. She also voiced skepticism of increasing work search audits without funding more staff positions.

But the disability penalty, she said, is more than she would be willing to support.

“This puts me in a very tough spot, and also puts a lot of Democrats in a very tough spot,” Sinicki said. “As a Democrat, I cannot vote to take away benefits from disabled people.”

A volunteer stocks produce at the Independence Food Basket, a food pantry operated by the Community Access Center in Independence, Kan. Like other food pantries across the country, the organization has been providing food assistance to more families even before a disruption to the federal food stamp program. (Photo by Kevin Hardy/Stateline)

INDEPENDENCE, Kan. — Just a few years ago, the Community Access Center’s food pantry here served up to 250 families per month. But that figure has skyrocketed as the price of groceries has pinched more and more families.

Now, the small food pantry serves about 450 families a month in this community of about 8,500 people. Serving that growing number has become increasingly difficult with the high cost of food, cuts in federal aid — and an unprecedented disruption in the nation’s largest food assistance program looming.

Chris Mitchell, who leads the nonprofit that operates the Independence Food Basket and provides other services, said the amount the organization spends on food to supplement donated items increased from $1,700 per month in 2018 to $4,000 per month now.

“And that’s getting it from the food bank without taxes,” he said.

Like other providers across the country, the Independence Food Basket is bracing for a spike in demand when an estimated 42 million people are expected to lose access to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as SNAP. Monthly benefits will not be provided beginning Saturday because of the ongoing federal government shutdown.

The unparalleled stress of a SNAP disruption on food pantries and the food banks that collect, warehouse and distribute food comes at a time when they were already stretched thin. High grocery prices have pushed more Americans to look to food banks for help. But organizations providing food relief have lost more than $1 billion in federal aid and are bracing for the impacts of legislation that will permanently limit the reach of SNAP.

Food banks now are asking local governments and donors to step in as they prepare for long lines. Many operations have increased orders ahead of the expected SNAP chaos, though some food pantries say they may have to ration food if supplies dwindle too quickly.

“You’d have to be living under a rock somewhere to not know that the prices of groceries went up and stayed up,” Mitchell said. “Now, you’re going to take away the means that people in poverty can afford food.”

The rising price of food has driven up not just visits to pantries, but also costs for the charitable food system in recent years.

Social service providers also are bracing for the impact of permanent changes to food stamps and other social services enacted in President Donald Trump’s major tax and spending law signed in July. The first in a wave of cutbacks to SNAP ended exemptions from work requirements for older adults, homeless people, veterans and some rural residents, likely pushing millions out of the food stamp program.

The administration also has pulled direct aid to food banks.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture in March nixed more than $1 billion from two programs that helped food banks and school meal programs buy local foods including fruits, vegetables and proteins.

Also this spring, the administration abruptly cut $500 million from a program that sends domestically produced meat, dairy, eggs and produce to food banks. The items that were delivered through The Emergency Food Assistance Program were some of the healthiest, most expensive items organizations distribute, ProPublica reported.

In Missouri alone, that move canceled 124 scheduled deliveries to food banks, including 146,400 pounds of cheese, 433,070 pounds of canned and frozen chicken and 1.2 million eggs.

“Food banks have been operating on fumes since the pandemic,” said Gina Plata-Nino, interim SNAP director at the Food Research & Action Center, a national nonprofit working to address poverty-related hunger. “As much as we love the food banks and the superhero work that they’re doing, they can only do so much.”

Already rising demand

Plata-Nino said food banks and food pantries were intended as emergency food aid, but have become “a way of life” for many who struggle to afford groceries.

A disruption in SNAP benefits will cause millions to make impossible decisions about how to stretch their limited dollars, Plata-Nino said. She noted that the majority of SNAP recipients make less than $1,100 per month. (The liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates the average SNAP benefit this fiscal year is about $188 per month per person.)

“People are already making really difficult choices,” she said, “and I hate to call it a choice, because it’s not a choice when you don’t have one.”

In Texas, the San Antonio Food Bank has been responding to a surge in need from furloughed federal workers. With major Defense Department operations across the area, San Antonio is home to the largest number of federal employees in Texas.

Eric Cooper, the food bank’s president and chief executive officer, estimates it will serve about 50,000 more people who have gone without paychecks this month. Each year, the food bank serves about 577,000 people across 29 counties.

He recalled one furloughed U.S. Social Security Administration employee who recently visited for the first time. Though she weathered previous shutdowns, she now takes care of her grandchildren.

“She’s like, ‘Hey, I showed up to get food because I don’t know if I’m going to get paid, and I can’t let my grandbabies go hungry,’” Cooper said.

Given the disruption to SNAP, Cooper said the food bank has been gearing up to not only increase inventory but also manage limited supplies and heightened emotions among the public.

“Should the demand start to outpace our supply, we will start to ration,” he said. “Rather than giving a week’s worth of food or two weeks’ worth of food, we’re going to be giving less.”

Generally, the need for free food spikes during times of natural disasters or recessions, said Michelle Ness, executive director of PRISM, a nonprofit providing housing and food assistance in suburban Minneapolis.

But Minnesota food shelves, known as food pantries in other parts of the country, have seen a 150% increase in visits since the pandemic, she said.

“This is during nonemergency times, nondisaster times — needs are going way up,” she said. “Right now, food shelves are at just about the max capacity we can handle.”

To meet the projected increase in demand because of the SNAP disruption, Ness said her organization’s food shelf is considering launching a sort of express lane that would allow people to quickly pick up prepackaged boxes of food. She hopes donors will increase their giving to avoid rationing food.

“If anything, I would like to be able to give out more food, because people will have greater needs without getting SNAP benefits,” she said. “That’s a lot of food that they’re not going to have to fill their refrigerator and cupboards.”

A daily necessity

While nonprofits happily take donated food items, much of the stock is purchased. And that doesn’t come cheap — even with discounts for purchasing foods in bulk from nonprofit food banks.

The Food Group, a Minneapolis food bank that supplies PRISM and other operators, has had to raise its prices and cut back on certain expensive items — including eggs, said Executive Director Sophia Lenarz-Coy.

In the past year, The Food Group has raised its wholesale prices of spaghetti by 26%. Jasmine rice has gone up 6%, and dry potatoes have increased 11%. Between 2022 and 2025, a case of frozen ground beef has increased from just under $50 to $63.08 — a 28% spike. Cases of margarine have risen 39% over that time, and diced tomatoes have gone up 23%.

“I think it’s really hard to overstate just how grocery prices have changed in the last three years,” said Lenarz-Coy.

While higher earners can make adjustments in their monthly budgets, she noted that food is often the only flexible item in lower-income household budgets.

“Housing costs, how much you need to pay for transportation or medical costs or day care — those are all fixed costs,” she said. “The place where people can flex is on food, but those flexes just don’t get you as much as they used to.”

Back in southeast Kansas, Mitchell, of the Community Access Center, has come to appreciate the urgency of hunger.

Mitchell previously worked in homeless services. Oftentimes, people can get by temporarily staying with friends and families, but food is a constant, daily need, he noted.

“It’s like going without liquid,” he said. “You just don’t last very long without it. And that’s probably what hurts me the most about this cutoff.”

The looming SNAP disruption has him bracing for panic among those who rely on the pantry.

The per capita annual income in Independence is just under $30,000, and about a quarter of all children live in poverty, according to U.S. Census Bureau figures.

To meet surging demand, Mitchell is considering further limiting the pantry’s already rationed offerings, whether families have one person or six in the household.

“That kills my heart,” he said. “But that’s so everybody gets some. … I’ve got this many people, and I’ve got to make sure that I can put something in each hand.”

Located inside a beige cinderblock building, the one-room food pantry is set up like a grocery store, with freezers for meats, refrigerators for fresh veggies and shopping carts for browsing.

Mitchell is proud to offer that kind of choice for people, which makes the process more dignified and reduces the likelihood that food goes to waste.

But a rush of visits next week — and concerns about hoarding and public safety — may force the nonprofit to reinstate its pandemic-era practice of handing out prepackaged boxes outdoors.

“It feels like going backwards,” Mitchell said.

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org.

A woman shops at the Feeding South Florida food pantry in Pembroke Park, Fla., this month. Food banks across the country are gearing up for massive demand from an interruption to federal food aid because of the government shutdown. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

There’s no way his local government can fill the void created by a disruption in the federal food stamp program, but local official Gregg Wright says his Minnesota county had to do something.

“This is pretty much a crisis for families,” said Wright, a member of the Olmsted County Board of Commissioners.

Last week, the board unanimously voted to send up to $200,000 to a local food bank to help neighbors at risk of losing food assistance because of the federal government shutdown.

Olmsted County, which has a population of about 165,000 and is home to the renowned Mayo Clinic in Rochester, expects to lose about $1.7 million per month in benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as SNAP. It’s a predicament facing leaders across the country preparing for an unprecedented pause in the nation’s largest food assistance program as the shutdown drags on.

While attorneys general and governors from 25 states and the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration on Tuesday to try to force it to pay SNAP benefits next month, the administration says it will not release funds until the congressional budget impasse is resolved.

That leaves food banks, food pantries and local governments scrambling to prepare for an onslaught of demand. States are declaring emergencies, deploying National Guard members and sending millions of taxpayer dollars to local food banks. Nonprofits are bracing for long lines, bare shelves and even panic or civic unrest as some 42 million Americans are expected to lose access to the safety net program in a matter of days.

“The enormity of this issue is almost hard to comprehend,” said Wright, who noted that his county is just one of the more than 3,000 across the country.

The local food bank estimated it could serve SNAP families for one month by spending about $400,000 on bulk food purchases. Rather than front that whole amount, the county board challenged community members to help raise another $200,000.

Wright said the county is unable to keep funding food assistance for long.

“We can’t continue to do this without raising taxes, because it isn’t in our budget,” he said. “ … Who could plan for this? Who would expect that this would come from the federal government?”

Minnesota is among 10 states where counties administer the food stamp program rather than state governments. Across the country, state and county governments have been redirecting local resources to try to fill the shutdown gap.

California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom has set aside $80 million in state funds and deployed members of the National Guard to help food banks.

Virginia Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin declared a state of emergency, saying the commonwealth would use its own funds to temporarily help SNAP recipients.

In Louisiana, state leaders are preparing to use $150 million monthly to help continue SNAP aid, while Nevada plans to funnel $38.8 million toward local food banks.

Minnesota Democratic Gov. Tim Walz announced the state would divert $4 million to food shelves across the state.

“This is meant to be a bridge,” Walz said during a Monday news conference. “It will not make up and backfill everything.”

Food banks across the country are already facing increased demand.

Virginia Witherspoon, executive director of Channel One Regional Food Bank in Rochester, Minnesota, said the phone was “ringing off the hook” last week. The nonprofit distributes food to partners across 14 counties and operates its own food shelf in Rochester. That pantry saw an average of about 450 families per day last month, but by last week was already averaging 550 per day, Witherspoon said.

“I don’t blame anyone who is rushing to their local food shelf and stocking up because they’re afraid they won’t be able to feed their families,” she told Stateline. “What I would say is that food shelves in Minnesota — we’re here, we’re open, we want to serve you. We’re doing our absolute best.”

Channel One and other operators, though, are concerned about the potential for panic by families scrambling for food.

Witherspoon told the Olmsted County Board of Commissioners her organization has considered asking for a police presence, but wants to be careful about what kind of message it sends to the public. She said even increasing food distribution from once to twice a week could cause people to rush in.

She said it reminds her of the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, when she went on local television to tell people not to worry, though she was privately concerned about running out of food.

“It’s tough. On the one hand, I’m in public sounding the alarm to you, to our donors, to our government,” she told commissioners. “But on the other hand, we don’t want to make the public panic and all come shop at once. It’s really not a good situation, and we’ve never been here before.”

Debate over federal funds

The predicament facing nonprofits and local governments is unprecedented: Food stamps have not been disrupted during other government shutdowns. And even the Trump administration previously offered assurance that it would tap into a multiyear contingency fund to continue paying SNAP benefits.

The administration reversed that position on Friday, when the U.S. Department of Agriculture said it would not release funds in November and warned states they would not be reimbursed for spending their own revenues on the food program.

SNAP has about $6 billion in its contingency fund — short of the roughly $9 billion needed to cover a full month of the program.

It’s unclear what the administration’s position means for states that have already begun setting aside their own dollars.

Following Virginia’s emergency declaration, the newly created Virginia Emergency Nutrition Assistance program is expected to send money to SNAP beneficiaries starting on Nov. 3.

The governor estimates that about $37.5 million will be allocated per week to Virginia’s roughly 850,000 SNAP recipients, the Virginia Mercury reported.

Neither the governor’s office nor the Virginia Department of Social Services responded to Stateline requests for comment.

North Dakota officials said they had enough cash on hand to cover November SNAP benefits, but are unable to load the funds onto people’s electronic payment cards, the North Dakota Monitor reported.

State and federal lawmakers, advocates and attorneys general across the country have pushed the administration to release November SNAP funds.

Last week, the chief executive officer of the National Conference of State Legislatures asked the USDA to issue clear guidance on states’ ability to spend and be reimbursed for ongoing administrative costs.

North Carolina Democratic Attorney General Jeff Jackson, one of the officials who sued the Trump administration Tuesday, said 1.4 million people — including nearly 600,000 children — would lose SNAP aid in his state.

“They have emergency money to help feed children during this shutdown, and they’re refusing to spend it.”

Contingency plans

In New Hampshire, Republican Gov. Kelly Ayotte announced a state “contingency plan” to help SNAP recipients. Pending approval from other state leaders, the plan would divert $2 million to the New Hampshire Food Bank to open up to 20 locations for SNAP recipients twice a week over the next five weeks.

Officials in Ayotte’s office and the state health department did not respond to Stateline requests for comment.

Elsy Cipriani, executive director of the New Hampshire Food Bank, said the organization is still working out details with the state. She said the group would likely ask to see people’s electronic benefit transfer (EBT) cards — the debit cards people use to access SNAP benefits at grocery stores — to ensure the state-purchased food goes to SNAP recipients.

“While we don’t intend to replace SNAP benefits — because we can’t; there is no way that we can replace that — we are hoping to provide some relief,” she told Stateline.

In Minnesota, county leaders are working overtime in some areas to respond to questions from SNAP recipients and help find other food assistance.

That additional workload comes without any state or federal reimbursement, said Tina Schenk, the health and human services director in rural Meeker County.

“That’s just to respond to our community, because that’s our job,” she said. “But that’s very different work than we normally do.”

The reserve funds of Meeker County, home to about 23,000 people, aren’t large enough to cover even one month’s worth of SNAP benefits, Schenk said. So county staff are instead working with local nonprofits and reaching out to families who will be hardest hit by an interruption in benefits to connect them with other state grant programs.

The sole local food shelf is increasing its orders with a central food bank, Schenk said — but so is nearly every other operation in the state.

“Are they going to have enough to fulfill these orders? That’s a question that I don’t know the answer to.”

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org.

Children from the KU Kids Deanwood Child Care Center complete a mural celebrating the launch of a local child tax credit in 2021 in Washington, D.C. New research suggests cities could significantly reduce childhood poverty by creating their own child tax credit programs. (Photo by Jemal Countess/Getty Images for Community Change)

Child tax credits are becoming more popular across the country, with more than a dozen states offering them as financial relief toward the cost of raising kids.

But new research suggests cities could significantly reduce child poverty by offering child tax credit programs of their own.

An analysis by the Center on Poverty and Social Policy at Columbia University and the left-leaning Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy found that municipal programs could move the needle with relatively small amounts of money: offering $1,000 or less per year to low- and middle-income families could cut child poverty rates by 25% in several cities.  

Researchers say this sort of new assistance would not only boost household finances, but also likely create more demand for local businesses, stabilize housing markets and increase local tax revenue.

The study focused on 14 cities: Baltimore; Charlotte, North Carolina; Chicago; Denver; Houston; Jacksonville, Florida; Los Angeles; Minneapolis; New York; Oakland, California; Philadelphia; Phoenix; Seattle; and the District of Columbia. The analysis found that most of those cities could make significant gains by spending less than 15% of municipal revenues on new child credit programs. 

In Minneapolis, for example, researchers said a new program that cost less than $30 million per year would cut the city’s poverty levels by half when accounting for existing state and federal credits. (The mayor there has recommended spending about $2.03 billion in the 2026 fiscal year budget.) 

The prospect of creating new tax credit programs would likely pose financial and logistical challenges. Cities already are juggling many other priorities including public safety and housing affordability, while at the same time facing what some experts have characterized as a “fiscal crisis” from growing climate change costs, federal funding cuts and declining downtown activity.

Some cities, including Baltimore, New York and Philadelphia, have city income taxes that could incorporate a child tax credit. But, the research noted, cities without that tax managed to distribute pandemic recovery funds through basic income programs. That experience shows cities could create their own standalone applications, leverage IRS data-sharing agreements or  work with third-party administrators.

“So you could use a similar sort of outreach approach, which wouldn’t necessarily be as comprehensive or systematic as a city that already has its own income tax system in place, but it’s a potential option,” said Ryan Vinh, an author of the study and a research analyst at the Center on Poverty and Social Policy. 

State interest in creating or expanding child tax credits boomed after the pandemic-era expansion of the federal child tax credit delivered cash directly to millions. That move quickly lifted millions of children out of poverty, researchers found. But the expanded tax credit expired in 2021 — leading to a doubling in the nation’s childhood poverty rate in 2022.

Advocates favor refundable tax credits that provide money directly to families. While parents must still file tax returns to receive the benefit, refundable credits give parents funds even if they earn too little to owe income tax, providing financial relief for groceries, medical care or rent. 

This year, several conservative-led states explored new child tax credit programs, though proposals offering the biggest benefits to families fizzled in Indiana and Ohio. So far, no city has implemented its own credit. 

While many cities and states are facing tight budget constraints, Vinh said a reduction in federal support will likely put more pressure on local governments to tackle challenges like poverty. The federal government has slashed funding for safety net programs including Medicaid and the nation’s largest food assistance program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. 

“A lot of these things will either lead to the erosion of benefits over time, a loss of benefits, or kind of a decline in what families are able to receive,” Vinh said. “We don’t fully know the number yet, but we do know that child poverty will most likely increase as these program restrictions increase.” 

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org

South Central Federation of Labor President Kevin Gundlach addresses a rally in support of Group Health workers seeking union representation on Monday, Oct. 13. (Photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner)

On Oct. 13, Group Health Cooperative held what appeared to be its largest membership meeting in at least a decade. Scores of GHC patients filed into the Alliant Energy Center’s Exhibition Hall, packing the meeting room until there were no seats left. They voted unanimously to direct their cooperative to change course and voluntarily recognize GHC workers’ chosen union. 

This win was a long time coming for GHC workers like me. We are unionizing for many reasons. Personally, I started working as a family medicine physician at GHC 22 years ago, and was excited about working for a primary care-based, member-owned cooperative that valued clinical staff voices. But GHC has changed. Through my union involvement I’ve come to see that many of my coworkers also face struggles with high turnover and understaffing, unfair pay and discipline and racial inequities. These struggles collectively hurt our ability to provide excellent patient care.

By supporting each other and working together through a union, we can better advocate for ourselves and improve our ability to provide the best patient care. Our input as employees is not only useful, but critical, to making GHC the best it can be.

But since we announced our intention to unionize in December, GHC has waged a relentless union-busting campaign. Following the legal counsel of antiunion law firm Husch Blackwell, administrators have engaged in surveillance and other intimidation tactics, and even used union activity as a factor in discipline. Their actions are under investigation by the National Labor Relations Board. GHC has also consistently parroted legal arguments straight from the Trump administration’s attacks on workers’ rights. 

GHC’s most fundamental attack, however, has been on our ability to choose for ourselves what our union looks like. We are creating a union of providers and nursing staff in primary and urgent care and closely related units – basically, the generalists you first see when you get care – since we all share issues in common and would benefit from bargaining together.

But GHC administrators are seeking to forcibly add on workers in specialty care units like optometry and radiology who haven’t even sought collective bargaining. Why? They hope to dilute our Yes votes and make it impossible for us to win a union election. They like to claim that the National Labor Relations Board sides with them, and that these specialty care workers must join with us – but don’t believe it. While the NLRB has said that the employer’s version of our union was feasible, they also said they weren’t offering an opinion on the appropriateness of a primary and urgent care union. GHC is still free to recognize the union we chose. 

GHC has also been confused, or is misleading, about what it is we’re asking for. Speaking with Wisconsin Examiner’s Erik Gunn, GHC representative Marty Anderson said “voluntary recognition” wasn’t likely, because they’d want “an NLRB sanctioned and overseen vote.” But voluntary recognition is an NLRB-sanctioned process: all GHC needs to do is tell the NLRB that they recognize our chosen union, either with or without an NLRB-sanctioned card check or secret-ballot demonstration of majority support. That’s voluntary recognition. It would save everyone further time and expense, not to mention cultivate a positive relationship between both parties going forward. We look forward to a collaborative relationship with GHC as we move forward as a union. 

Attending the meeting on Oct. 13 and seeing the support from our patients and community was truly heartwarming. It reinforced my decision to become active in our union movement – both for ourselves and for the care that we provide to our dedicated patients. Excellent patient care is at the heart of our union movement.

And GHC patients have made it clear, with a unanimous vote, that they stand shoulder to shoulder with their caregivers. As a cooperative where members stand “at the top of the leadership chart,” GHC’s Board should respect membership’s vote by voluntarily recognizing our union, effective immediately. To do anything else is unthinkable in any cooperative that claims to be democratically run.

To show your support, please send an email to the GHC Board telling them to respect the will of the membership and recognize our union: https://act.seiu.org/a/ghc-board-1.

Nisha Rajagopalan, MD is a family medicine physician at GHC’s Hatchery Hill Clinic.

Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development's secretary designee, Amy Pechacek, right, with Gov. Tony Evers at a 2023 DWD event held at the Plumbers Local 75 training center in Madison. Pechacek held a news conference online Thursday where she spoke about the impact of the federal government shutdown on DWD and the state. (Photo courtesy of DWD)

As the federal shutdown drags on, Wisconsin is likely to feel the impact — in employment, in agriculture and in the safety net for workers, according to the state’s labor secretary.

“Right now, we have the ability to continue to operate and our goal is to not disrupt our current workforce programs or state workforce,” said Amy Pechacek, secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, during an online news conference Thursday.

Governments in some other states have started to reduce their workforces, Pechacek said. Wisconsin is holding off on filling vacancies and taking other steps “to try and preserve all of the funding we can so that we don’t have programmatic or employment disruptions,” Pechacek said.

Nevertheless, 75% of the DWD’s $500 million annual budget — three out of every four dollars — comes from the federal government, she said.

The remaining 25% that comes from the state isn’t “just one big pot,” Pechacek added, but funds specific programs. For example, the state workers compensation program, which covers treatment costs and lost income for people injured on the job, is entirely state funded. That includes the cost of administering the program.

But job support services — local job centers, career counseling, unemployment insurance administration, state apprenticeship programs, and the division of vocational rehabilitation for people with disabilities — are “all tied to federally funded programs,” Pechacek said.

“We need the federal government to come together, come up with a funding mechanism and continue to support their obligations to all the states and to all the people to ensure that we can move forward with the economic health and prosperity that we have enjoyed without this chaotic massive interruption,” she said. “The longer this goes, the continued adverse and exponentially worse impacts to our workforce will compound.”

Pechacek’s virtual news conference Thursday took the place of DWD’s monthly report on Wisconsin employment data. The usual reports draw on the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics surveys that poll employers on the number of jobs they have and poll households to calculate the unemployment rate.

The data BLS compiles and analyzes is one of the casualties of the shutdown, Pechacek said, hampering employers, job seekers, nonprofits, economic development agencies and governments.

All of them rely on BLS data “to guide fiscal decision making, determine whether to open or expand their businesses, determine if they’re going to hire or lay off, figure out how to allocate resources, and understand really how best to train their current workforce,” Pechacek said. Without that information, “employers are putting off important decisions, essentially fumbling around in the dark until Congress can get around to turning back the lights on.”

Unemployment claims can serve as one indicator, and Scott Hodek, section chief in the DWD Office of Economic Advisors, said the department is looking at other data sources to fill in some of the missing information. Those sources include various private sector organizations as well as the regional federal reserve banks.

“But really it’s pretty difficult to get an accurate picture of what’s happening,” Hodek said. “It will get more difficult as time goes on.”

Another federal report on inflation is expected to be released soon, even with the shutdown, because the findings are used to calculate annual cost-of-living increases for Social Security recipients, Hodek said.

That report will also figure into the deliberations of the Federal Reserve’s Open Market Committee when it meets at the end of October to decide whether to cut interest rates. The Fed’s dual mission includes keeping inflation as close to 2% as possible while encouraging maximum employment.

“That becomes very difficult to do if you don’t have any of that data to make those decisions,” Hodek said.

Looking at the coming months, Pechacek said, the process of applying for H-2A agriculture visas is on hold. The visas enable about 3,000 migrant workers to come in annually to work in specific seasonal agricultural operations, including planting, harvesting and food processing, she said.

DWD is required to verify that there is a worker shortage in the occupations to be covered, and the U.S. Department of Labor must certify the state’s verification report before the federal government issues the visas, she said, but the federal certification of the state’s report is on hold because of the shutdown.

December and January are the months when the most requests come in for H-2A visas, Pechacek said, so if the shutdown continues for too long, the agricultural employers depending on those workers would be unable to get the needed certification.

Pechacek said the department is also watching to see how many federal employees file for unemployment insurance.

There are about 18,000 federal employees in Wisconsin, and DWD has estimated that 8,000 might be affected by the shutdown. By comparison, she said, one of the largest layoffs in Wisconsin took place in 2018 when a larger retailer shut down, laying off 2,200 employees.

So far, however, there have been just 30 initial claims from federal workers, Pechacek said.

If federal workers who file unemployment claims get back pay when they return to work, however, they’ll have to repay the unemployment insurance fund.

Pechacek noted that President Donald Trump has threatened to permanently fire federal workers in the shutdown as well as to withhold back pay for furloughed federal workers who return to work. Between uncertainty about those threats and court rulings that have blocked some mass federal layoffs, however, “it is really an ongoing situation,” she added.

Pechacek several times criticized Trump and the Republican leaders in Congress for the shutdown.

“The president and congressional Republicans have shut down our nation’s government trying to force massive health care cuts and cost increases to the nation’s working and middle class families and we are in a stalemate,” she said.

“We really need our federal government to return to work so they can restore some predictability and reliability to our economy and continue to be the partner that we need to ensure the economic health and prosperity of Wisconsin workers.”

South Central Federation of Labor President Kevin Gundlach addresses a rally in support of Group Health workers seeking union representation on Monday, Oct. 13. (Photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner)

A stalemate between Group Health Cooperative of South Central Wisconsin and employees who have been seeking union representation for the last 10 months shows little sign of breaking soon.

At a mass meeting Monday at the Alliant Center in Madison, members of Group Health, sometimes called GHC for short, passed a motion directing the co-op to voluntarily recognize the union as the employees originally petitioned in December — covering three departments and a series of health care professionals.

The motion set a deadline of Friday, Oct. 17. Marty Anderson, Group Health’s chief strategy and business development officer, said Thursday that action on all the motions would likely be deferred, probably until November.

“We communicated clearly ahead of the meeting that all motions are advisory in nature,” Anderson said. “Any deadlines that would be in any of the motions would also be advisory in nature.”

Monday’s mass meeting was the first of its kind for Group Health members to ask questions of the co-op administration and express their opinions about the union drive. About 172 people attended, according to a Group Health spokesperson. Group Health has more than 50,000 Class A and Founding members — the two groups that were considered eligible to attend, according to the co-op.

In the spring, a volunteer committee met with the board to argue in favor of recognizing the union. 

People attending the Monday meeting described the crowd as strongly supportive of the union, and the voice votes in favor of recognizing the union and other motions favored by union supporters were unanimous, according to Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Wisconsin. 

Growing dissatisfaction 

At a rally outside the Alliant Center before the meeting, South Central Labor Federation President Kevin Gundlach, a Group Health member, charged that the co-op “has lost its way” in its response to the union organizing drive.

“We want GHC to listen to the workers,” Gundlach said. “And these workers know, and it says on my shirt here” — he pointed to his chest — “it’s better in a union.”

Group Health has rejected charges that it’s trying to thwart the union drive, contending that it simply wants health care employees in all departments to take part in the union representation vote — not just those from departments and job classifications that were included in the original union petition.

Union supporters say that claim is disingenuous and a ploy to “dilute the vote,” in the words of several workers interviewed — racking up votes against the union from employees in departments that don’t have the same concerns.

Anderson denied the charge. “We don’t know” what the votes will be, he said.

According to workers involved in the union drive, the Group Health union campaign grew out of increasing dissatisfaction in specific co-op departments with working conditions and what they contend was a lack of input into the co-op’s practices.

“I feel like we can improve the patient care that we provide through unionization and through increased involvement in decision-making,” Dr. Nisha Rajagopalan, a family physician who has worked at Group Health for 22 years, said Thursday.

Pay practices, employee turnover and a voice at the table are all reasons employees have cited for supporting the union.

“GHC leadership stopped collaborating with us and despite our many patient care concerns and our many meeting requests,” said Julie Vander Werff, a physician assistant, the lead speaker at the Monday rally.

Who should be in the union?

Complicating the organizing campaign is the conflict over exactly who among Group Health’s workers should be included in the union.

Union supporters involved in the organizing drive originally proposed that the union represent a bargaining unit of about 220 people. They were doctors, physician assistants, nurse practitioners and nursing staff in three departments: primary care, urgent care and dermatology. Their petition also included physical therapists, occupational therapists and health educators.

The petition was filed Dec. 12, 2024. Group Health filed a brief asserting that the unit the employees sought “was an inappropriate unit,” said Anderson, the Group Health executive.

To resolve the differences, a National Labor Relations Board staffer held a meeting on Dec. 30 in Madison, where he moved between separate rooms, one housing Group Health executives and the co-op’s lawyer, the other housing SEIU Wisconsin staff and Group Health employees leading the union drive.

The NLRB staffer suggested to the union group that they narrow their petition to a single clinic, Group Health employees wrote in a letter to the Group Health board of directors Feb. 10, 2025. Hoping to get an agreement, they took the suggestion.

Group Health opposed the single-clinic unit, however. In subsequent hearings the co-op management’s lawyer argued the vote should include all direct care employees, including in departments that weren’t part of the union’s original petition.

After reviewing briefs from both sides, the NLRB regional director in Minneapolis who heard the case ruled that the single clinic unit that the union had proposed would not be an appropriate bargaining unit. The decision issued by Regional Director Jennifer Hadsall stated that the unit proposed by the employer, Group Health, was appropriate and set an election among all the co-op’s health care employees.

SEIU Wisconsin, however, moved to block the election. A raft of pending unfair labor practice charges against the employer could scare employees from voting for the union, SEIU charged. Hadsall agreed to block the vote until the charges are resolved.  

As a result, the vote is on hold. The NLRB investigation of the charges is on hold as well, because of the federal government shutdown.

Shared concerns, conflicting concerns

In her order, Hadsall also included a footnote that states she did not address the unit that the employees had originally asked for because it had not been formally litigated.

“We had always argued that we are a clinically integrated organization,” Anderson said. “Our staff floats between various parts of the organization and different clinics. And the bargaining unit was established [consisting of] all of our clinical sites and all of our direct care employees.”

But pro-union employees say there are concrete differences between employees who are in the groups that they had originally included in the union petition and the rest of the Group Health staff — including direct care providers.

“Initially our bargaining unit included employees who were in primary care and urgent care,” said Rajagopalan, the family doctor. “We practice similarly and we share the same concerns. There are other departments within GHC that don’t share the same concerns [and] practice very differently than we do. That’s why our initial bargaining unit is an appropriate unit.”

Pat Raes, president of SEIU Wisconsin and a nurse at UnityPoint-Meriter hospital in Madison, said that throughout her health care career she’s seen many workplaces where only some groups of workers are unionized.

“At the bedside or at the side of the patient, it doesn’t make a difference because the priority is patient care,” Raes said. “It’s not whether you’re unionized or not.”

Addressing the rally before Monday night’s meeting, Steve Rankin said it was “entirely normal” for workers in a single workplace to be represented by different unions or no union depending on their department or position.

“There is no reason that everyone at Group Health has to be in the same union,” said Rankin, who joined Group Health when it was founded in 1976 and has been active in marshalling Group Health patients to support the union effort. “We call on GHC to recognize the bargaining unit chosen by the workers themselves and to commit to bargaining in good faith toward the contract.”

While the board has yet to consider the motion that was passed at Monday night’s meeting, Anderson said Thursday that voluntary recognition was unlikely. 

“We want an NLRB sanctioned and overseen vote,” he said. “That’s always going to be our criteria.”

Gov. Tony Evers speaks to reporters in March 2025. Evers has written the Department of Energy urging officials not to cancel $1.5 billion in funds for Wisconsin projects. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

With more than $1.5 billion in federal energy investments in Wisconsin at risk, Gov. Tony Evers is urging the Trump administration not to roll back previously awarded funds in the face of rising energy costs.

Evers’ response, in a letter to U.S. Department of Energy Secretary Chris Wright, followed multiple news reports in the last week about energy projects on target lists for cancellation.

The governor’s office has compiled a list of 22 projects for which federal Energy Department funding totaling $1.56 billion has been marked for cancellation.

“Federal support plays a critical role in advancing the Wisconsin Idea and American innovation, lowering energy bills for families across America, supporting clean energy development to improve energy independence and resilience, creating good-paying jobs in innovative industries and sectors, and maintaining our nation’s leadership in science and technology,” Evers wrote Tuesday in his letter to Wright.  

“Given these clear benefits and the importance of these investments to Wisconsin’s and our nation’s economy, I was deeply concerned to see reporting last week containing a list of over 600 DOE funding awards that are potentially going to be targeted for termination with no clear reasoning or justification.”

Evers’ letter mentions several Wisconsin projects and companies on the target list, including several that the Wisconsin Examiner reported on this week.

The letter also notes forecasts of rising costs for electric power that the energy policy think tank Energy Innovation attributes to the tax and spending cut megabill that President Donald Trump signed July 4.

“Terminating these funding awards at a time of record-high energy demand and rising costs would be counterintuitive, reckless and ill-advised,” Evers concludes in his letter to Wright. “I urge you to reaffirm DOE’s commitment to honoring these funding awards and to continue supporting these investments that drive Wisconsin’s and the nation’s energy landscape forward.”

The roof of the Hotel Verdant in Downtown Racine is topped with a green roof planted with sedum and covered with solar panels. (Wisconsin Examiner photo)

The news that $130 million in already-committed clean-energy funding for Wisconsin is on the chopping block is not abstract politics. It pulls real tools out of Wisconsin homes, schools, farms, and shop floors — right as our state is building momentum. The result is simple: higher bills, fewer choices, and lost jobs.

In a purple state like ours, climate action has succeeded because it’s kitchen-table common sense. It lowers costs, creates good local jobs, and protects the air and water families depend on. Our playbook is pragmatic — align smart policy with market innovation, center justice, and let businesses, workers, tribes and frontline communities lead together. Clawing back funds mid-stream breaks that compact and injects uncertainty just when we need reliability and speed.

What’s at stake here and now

Across Wisconsin, 82 clean-energy projects are moving forward: EV-charging corridors that support tourism and commerce from Superior to Kenosha; solar on schools and farms that cuts operating costs and keeps dollars local; grid upgrades that reduce outages for households and manufacturers. Clean energy already supports more than 71,000 Wisconsin jobs, with manufacturers, contractors and building trades poised to add tens of thousands more if the rules stay steady.

This is not coastal hype — it’s Menomonee Valley and the Fox Valley. Companies like Ingeteam in Milwaukee build components that power wind and EV projects nationwide. Give our manufacturers clear, predictable rules and Wisconsin will keep making core parts of the transition -— batteries, solar panels, wind components, EV chargers, and smart-grid equipment -— right here at home.

Schools and local governments are also using direct-pay to put solar on rooftops, electrify buses, and cut fuel and maintenance. Green Homeowners United and similar groups are helping thousands of households -— including many lower-income homeowners of color — tap rebates that reduce bills and carbon at the same time. These are the practical tools that stretch tight budgets and improve health outcomes in neighborhoods that have carried the burden the longest.

The real cost of policy whiplash

Rolling back incentives is a hidden tax on working families — up to $400 more a year on energy without the savings tools people are using now. With AI and data centers accelerating demand, the cheapest, fastest reliability gains come from efficiency, storage, and renewables. Cut those tools and we invite more price volatility and more outage risk — exactly what Wisconsin manufacturers, hospitals and farms can’t afford.

The “Big, Broken Bill” passed in Washington goes further, weakening EPA pollution standards and letting big polluters sidestep responsibility. That doesn’t eliminate costs; it shifts them to families in the form of asthma, missed school days and medical bills. It’s not fiscal conservatism to socialize pollution costs while privatizing short-term profits.

And for farmers, whose energy and conservation projects were finally penciling out with IRA tools, canceling support mid-contract leaves family farms holding the bag after planning in good faith. That’s not how you build durable rural economies.

Momentum that continues even if funds are cut

Here’s the other half of the story: Wisconsin’s transition won’t stop because some programs are attacked. Market forces, including  the declining cost of renewables and storage, efficiency that pays for itself and corporate and municipal sustainability commitments, continue to drive projects. Public-private partnerships, rural co-ops, tribal governments, school districts and village halls are working together to reduce risk, share data, and scale what works. That coalition will keep moving.

But let’s be clear: Clawbacks and moving goalposts slow us down and raise costs. They strand planning, freeze hiring and deter investment — especially in manufacturing corridors that depend on multi-year production schedules. If Congress wants to improve programs, fine. Just don’t pull the rug out mid-project.

Purple-state practicality: Results over rhetoric

Wisconsin’s approach is neither red nor blue; it’s results-based:

• Lower bills and stronger reliability through weatherization, heat pumps, rooftop and community solar and batteries that keep homes and Main Street businesses running during heat waves and deep freezes.
• Good local jobs in design, construction, electrical, HVAC, machining and advanced manufacturing.
• Cleaner air from electrified school buses and efficient buildings, health benefits that show up in fewer sick days and lower costs.
• Fairness by ensuring benefits land first where burdens have been heaviest.

We’ve also learned to say no when it matters and yes to better options. When a $2 billion methane gas plant was proposed, business and civic leaders asked basic questions: Is this the least-cost, least-risk path for ratepayers? Would it lock us into volatile fuel prices just as renewables, storage, demand response and efficiency are scaling? Pushing for a cleaner, more affordable portfolio wasn’t ideology. It was risk management.

A constructive path forward

• Keep the tools that help Wisconsin build here, hire here, and save here. Don’t rip away commitments families, schools, farms and manufacturers are already using.
• Provide certainty so manufacturers can invest in people and equipment. Certainty is economic development.
• Target affordability and reliability: Expand programs that lower bills, reduce outages, and prioritize investments in communities that have waited the longest for cleaner air and safer housing.
• Let locals lead: Support direct-pay and streamlined approvals for schools, municipalities, tribes and rural co-ops to deploy projects faster and cheaper.

Wisconsin has the talent, the supply chains — more than 350 in-state clean-energy companies — and the tradition of stewardship to lead the clean-energy economy. If we stay focused on trust, collaboration and measurable results, Wisconsin’s green momentum will outpace politics.

Don’t make Wisconsinites pay more to get less. Let’s build it here, power it here and prosper here.

John Imes is co-founder and executive director of the Wisconsin Environmental Initiative and village president of Shorewood Hills. He will speak Oct. 22 on the American Sustainable Business Network national panel “Purple State, Green Momentum” — how Wisconsin’s pragmatic climate playbook lowers bills, creates good local jobs, and protects our air and water.

Electric power lines. Clean energy projects, including several that involve improving the efficiency of electric power grids, are at risk of losing federal funding that was promised during the Biden administration. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

The projects are on a list that covers three groups of cuts proposed in May, on Oct. 2 and this past week. The online news outlet Semafor reported the third set of proposed cuts, which alone totals $12 billion, on Tuesday, Oct. 7, and published a link to a list that covers all three groups.

“However, it’s not clear whether, or when, the full list of cancellations will be enacted, or if President Donald Trump is instead looking to use them as leverage in negotiations over the [federal government] shutdown,” Semafor reported.

The Wisconsin grants on the list are a mix of projects that help boost energy efficiency, including supporting the expansion of energy storage battery systems. One potential casualty is more than $1 million to prepare young people to enter apprenticeships in the skilled trades.

Clean energy holds the promise of addressing air pollution and climate change as well as revitalizing the state’s industrial base, said John Imes, director of the Wisconsin Environmental Initiative (WEI), a nonprofit that advocates policies benefiting the environment and the economy.

“These are all win-win that all of us want regardless of our political affiliation,” Imes told the Wisconsin Examiner. “This is all bottom-line stuff.”

Rolling back projects that enhance cleaner and more efficient use of energy will likely increase the cost of energy, Imes said.

“It means higher electric bills, higher energy bills, fewer choices and lost jobs,” he said. “We’re going to lose momentum.”

Battery power and rural grid upgrade

The two largest Wisconsin projects on the Department of Energy list of targets involve one company, Alliant Energy. They account for more than half of the Wisconsin funds targeted for cancellation.

The projects are being undertaken by Alliant’s Wisconsin Power & Light unit. They include a $50 million grant for upgrading the rural electrical grid and $30 million for a power storage system using a technology based on carbon dioxide this is to be built near Portage, Wisconsin.

“We understand the Administration and Department of Energy (DOE) are working through their budgets and have notified some businesses of changes to grant announcements,” said Cindy Tomlinson, Alliant senior manager for communications, in an email message last week.

“At this time, we have not been made aware of any changes to the announced DOE grants for our Alliant Energy projects,” Tomlinson said. “We are optimistic the value and viability of these projects is clear and that they will remain fully funded. These projects deliver economic and customer benefits.”

The electrical grid upgrade project received a conditional commitment from the energy department in December, but a final award agreement hasn’t been executed, Tomlinson said, and no federal funds have been received or spent.

The federal grants accounted for about one-third of the total planned investment for each project. If the grid upgrade grant is canceled, the project is still expected to go forward, Tomlinson said, “however at a slower, more gradual pace than the fast, concentrated fashion outlined in our grant application.”

Other potentially affected grants include $28.7 million for Johnson Controls, based in the Milwaukee suburb of Glendale, to support the company in its expansion of heat pump manufacturing.

The grant’s total value was $33 million at the time it was awarded to the company. According to USAspending.gov, a federal site that tracks the status of federal outlays, the business has received $4.4 million of the total.

Johnson Controls announced the grant in November 2023, part of an investment to scale up heat pump manufacturing at plants in Texas, Kansas and Pennsylvania and increase production by 200%, the company said at the time.

The company did not respond to inquiries Thursday and Friday by email and by telephone about the status of the grant or its planned heat pump manufacturing expansion.

Energy efficiency and innovation

Another Wisconsin recipient with grants on the list that are slated for elimination is Slipstream, a Madison-based nonprofit that provides consulting services on energy efficiency and innovation.

“We’re trying to make our energy systems more efficient and better so everybody’s paying less for energy,” said Scott Hackel, Slipstream’s vice president for research.

Hackel said Slipstream is working with other organizations on the list of targeted projects, and some of those organizations have been notified of grant terminations.

Slipstream also has two direct grants on the list, but has not received any notification that those grants are being terminated, Hackel said.

Slipstream had been awarded $5.2 million for work on equipping buildings with technology that enables them to automatically manage their power demand — reducing the building’s electrical load when demand on the grid is high and amping up the load when broader demand eases.

The organization is in the middle of a project implementing demand management technology in a group of buildings. The information gained from that test could be used to develop incentive programs for building owners to adopt that kind of technology, Hackel said.

If that gets cut off before it’s finished, other buildings in Wisconsin “would not have this example to look to,” he said.

A second grant awarded to the organization, $4 million, is to be used to train inspectors, building designers and others in how to effectively comply with and make the best use of building codes, particularly energy codes.

“Everything we’re doing is trying to make buildings and homes more affordable to live in with lower utility bills,” Hackel said. “If we’re not able to do that, that’s also a cost to people in Wisconsin.”

Two Universities of Wisconsin grants, one for $10 million and the other for $2.9 million, are on the list. Both involve projects to test technology innovations, according to the federal grant information documents.  

‘Electric city’ upgrades and a job-training program

A grant for the city of Kaukauna, Wisconsin, to install battery storage and make related electrical grid upgrades is also on the list. The original grant totaled $3 million, and so far $59,362 has been paid out, according to USAspending.gov, leaving $2.95 million that could be canceled.

The storage system is to bolster Kaukauna’s hydroelectric power generation operation, which dates to 1913 and led to the community’s adoption of “Electric City” as its nickname.

“Collateral damage from the Trump administration’s remarkably poor governance record continues to collect, this time in Kaukauna,” said Outagamie County Executive Tom Nelson. “I can’t think of something more insulting than making the electric grid of a place known as ‘Electric City’ less safe or efficient.”

Also on the list is the Wisconsin Regional Training Partnership, a Milwaukee nonprofit that provides training and certification to prepare people to enter apprenticeships in the skilled trades. WRTP was awarded a $1.5 million grant for training in skills related to transportation electrification. So far $112,470 has been paid out. 

Dan Bukiewicz, head of the Milwaukee Building Trades Council and co-chair of the WRTP board of directors, said that the board hasn’t been notified that its grant might be at risk of being taken away by the Trump administration.

“I won’t say we’re surprised,” however, Bukiewicz said. “They’re just trying to roll back a lot of the green energy and infrastructure [investments]. … It’s trying to make time stand still, and it just won’t if the United States is going to compete globally.”

WRTP students typically come from underserved communities and are the most in need, Bukiewicz said. The program’s training emphasizes job safety, introduces students to the construction industry, equips them with basic skills that an apprenticeship will build on, and acquaints them with how the industry and the technology are changing and where they might find a place that suits them.

If the federal grant is pulled, “these dollars are irreplaceable,” Bukiewicz said. “It’s not just taking money away and eliminating classes. It’s eliminating opportunities and a chance for generational change for people who really need it.”

Antitrust experts say the new administration’s hands-off approach to tech regulation could gain the president the loyalty of tech executives in the short term, but could hurt the competitiveness of the American tech sector in the long run. (Photo by hapabapa/Getty Images)

Leaders in the tech industry have enjoyed more freedom to make business moves and an overall deregulatory attitude under the Trump administration, but antitrust experts say the administration’s hands-off approach could end up hurting American companies’ ability to innovate and compete on a global scale.

Antitrust laws protect fair competition, ensuring that no one company controls an entire market, price gouges for their products or controls the cost of labor. In the short term, a lax approach to these laws could mean the American people may see more big tech companies merge or acquire smaller competitors. 

In the long-term, it means the already small group of people running the country’s most powerful tech firms would gain even more control of the market, Illinois-based legislative attorney Maaria Mozaffar said.

“Traditionally, innovation in tech is inspired by how we can solve problems. And if there’s fewer people that are not invested in solving problems, but more invested in making profit, the innovation’s intent is going to be different,” Mozaffar said. “We’re going to get a repetition of the same models and the same products that are not actually solving problems, but just a faster way to make money.”

Trump’s approach to the FTC

Though Democrats and Republicans may have had different “philosophies” for antitrust rules in the past, it’s unusual to see wide swings in attitudes from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), said New Jersey-based antitrust attorney Nadine Jones. 

The independent regulatory agency, which protects consumer interests and anti-competitive business practices like price-fixing, illegal mergers and monopolization, has historically run with little influence from the president, Jones said, though it technically is housed under the executive branch.  

But recent moves by the Trump administration suggest he wants a much more hands-on approach, Jones said. Before taking office, Trump chose Andrew Ferguson as the FTC chairman, replacing Lina Khan, who fought Big Tech overreach during her tenure. Together with antitrust specialist Mark Meador, the pair have focused on issues of “censorship” by big tech, arguing that tech platforms have unfairly restricted conservative views.

Earlier this year, Trump fired two Democratic commissioners from the FTC, a decision that was recently supported by the Supreme Court, and set a precedent that gives more executive branch control over the independent agency.

And in August, Trump revoked a Biden-era executive order that called for enforcement of antitrust laws to promote more competition within industries and keep companies from monopolizing. 

All of it points to a central theme of deregulation for the tech industry, with a goal of growing the industry with as little government involvement as possible. Trump’s alignments with big tech leaders during the 2024 election were probably the first clue that he’d handle the FTC differently, Jones said. 

“I think if I were to try to read the tea leaves in past administrations, currying favor with the president was of less importance,” Jones said. “The DOJ, antitrust division, the assistant attorney general of the division was who you wanted to curry favor with, or the chair of the FTC. Whether or not you’re smiling nicely with the president was, I think, of less significance, because they typically left these technical areas of law to the experts.”

For California-based tech founder and author Mark Weinstein, The FTC holds a critical role in upholding democracy and free market capitalism. Trump’s attempts to fill the commission with Republicans is a threat to both concepts, he said. 

“It’s concerning, even when he appoints people who are inclined to be strong antitrust enforcers, because they’re still appointed by the president,” Weinstein said. “There’s a quid-pro-quo that’s clearly inferred there.”

Weinstein thinks that before his second term, Trump realized the immense power that information giants like Meta and Apple had in controlling content and shaping public opinion. Deregulatory policies could curry favor with the leaders of Big Tech, and help him control information, Weinstein said.

“If Meta bans him from their platform, then they have all the power,” he said. “And he wants to have all the power.” 

With influence over large tech platforms, Mozaffar said, Trump is more capable of spreading his ideas around diversity, equity and inclusion and past “censorship” of conservatives.

“When you see the tech giants behind Donald Trump, people think it’s just about making them richer,” Mozaffar said. “It’s really [Trump’s] ability to have control over how those tech platforms do their business, as far as content control.”

What does this mean for American tech companies? 

So far, the FTC has been continuing antitrust lawsuits from previous administrations against some tech giants, like Google, which is currently awaiting a decision on a trial alleging it monopolized its search engine, after being found liable in a separate advertising-related trial in 2024.

The commission is also awaiting an outcome on a six-week trial in a case it brought against Meta, parent of Facebook, alleging in 2020 — under direction from the first Trump administration — that the company created a monopoly by acquiring Instagram and WhatsApp. 

Trump-appointed FTC commissioner Meador said at NYU’s Law Forum last month he believes most Americans support the scrutiny into big tech companies. 

“I don’t think this moment is a flash in the pan,” Meador said during the event. “I think that it is growing out of deeper sentiments and concerns about economic fairness and economic regulation and policy at a very broad level. And this is just one manifestation of it. I think that’s a generational thing. I think it’s only going to amplify. So, I don’t think it’s going away.”

But the current Trump administration has only brought one antitrust case against a tech merger, when it sued to block Hewlett Packard Enterprise from buying Juniper Networks for $14 billion earlier this year.

Trump is likely feeling out his options, Mozaffar said — he could fall in line with more traditional Republican action, aiming to enforce antitrust laws to promote competition. But he could also be using a framework FTC Chair Ferguson outlined, which criticises tech platform’s content moderation rules, as a way to rein in platforms that the GOP has long accused of censoring conservative viewpoints.

Mozaffar said she’s watching how the administration handles both horizontal and vertical mergers. Horizontal mergers, when two similar companies merge to create one company, are likely more familiar to the average American. But vertical mergers, which involve partnerships of companies across several layers of a supply chain, have the potential to have truly expansive power. 

One possible example is a recent $100 billion deal between AI giant OpenAI and computing powerhouse Nvidia. Nvidia’s investment into OpenAI includes the ability to build out its data center capacity and computing chip needs, tying the companies’ growth and success together. The deal immediately raised antitrust concerns. 

“How much control do you have over every piece of the process? To the point where there’s no innovation in product and competition leading up to that final product?” Mozaffar said.  “And then how much are you controlling as far as protecting labor rights and best practices, because you can always cut corners to be able to make sure that the final product serves the profit that it’s supposed to serve.” 

Amid conflicting federal antitrust cases, Jones advised corporate lawyers to pay attention to their state’s antitrust laws, as state attorneys general are some of the biggest enforcers of antitrust law in the country. 

She said although letting tech businesses operate unfettered may meet some of Trump’s short-term goals, a lack of enforcement will ultimately make the United States a less competitive, less innovative place. 

“Antitrust philosophy believes the only way to get genuine benefits for consumers, to get people to race to get to the finish line of your dollars — and you choosing them with your dollars — is to compete with each other,” Jones said.  “And then we, the consumers, enjoy the fruits of those competitions.”

A man closes the entrance to Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine on Oct. 3 in Baltimore because of the federal government shutdown. States are currently covering costs of some federal programs, but it’s unclear whether they will be repaid once the government reopens. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

States are doing what they generally do during a federal government shutdown: continuing to operate programs serving some of the neediest people.

That means schools are still serving federally subsidized meals and states are distributing funding for the federal food stamp program. For now.

If the shutdown drags on and federal dollars run out, states can only keep programs going for so long. States may choose to pay for some services themselves so residents keep their benefits.

But this time, state leaders have new worries about getting reimbursed for federal costs once the federal spending impasse is resolved. That’s traditionally been the practice following a shutdown, but the Trump administration’s record of pulling funding and targeting Democratic-led states has some officials worried about what comes after the shutdown.

Many states already struggled to balance their own budgets this year. And some fear going without federal reimbursement for shutdown costs could force states to make painful cuts to their own budget priorities.

Nevada State Treasurer Zach Conine, a Democrat, said the administration has not made good on its word to states in recent months — freezing some congressionally approved funding and cutting already awarded grants. So it’s likewise unclear whether the federal government will follow previous practice and reimburse states for covering shutdown costs of crucial federal programs such as food assistance.

“I think everything is a risk with this administration. … We in the states are kind of left holding the bag yet again as the federal government tries to sort out what it wants to be when it grows up,” he told Stateline.

Nevada entered the shutdown with more than $1.2 billion in reserves. Last week, Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo’s office said in a statement that state funds would be adequate to cover “a short period of time with minimal disruption to services.”

But the governor’s office said a shutdown of more than 30 days would cause more significant challenges for the state.

Lombardo’s office did not respond to Stateline’s questions. But last week, it released a three-page document on the shutdown, saying it expected the federal government to reimburse states once the budget stalemate is resolved.

“As D.C. works through its issues, our administration will continue to support Nevadans in any way we can throughout this unnecessary federal government shutdown,” Lombardo said in the statement.

While mandatory programs such as Medicaid and Social Security continue to send funds to beneficiaries during the shutdown, funding for other safety net programs such as food assistance are more uncertain. The federal government told states there were enough funds for the food stamp program to cover October benefits, though the special food program for women, infants and children may run out of money sooner.

By furloughing workers and halting federal spending, the shutdown could cost the national economy $15 billion per week, President Donald Trump’s economic advisers estimated.

The White House says a prolonged shutdown will affect the economies of every state by reducing employment, federal benefits and consumer spending. White House estimates say this could cost Michigan $361 million per week in lost economic output, for example, while Florida could lose $911 million each week.

‘Fend for themselves’

Some federal services are shuttered during a shutdown: The Environmental Protection Agency has ceased many research, permitting and enforcement efforts, and official jobs data is no longer being released. Federal funds for other programs, including food assistance, are expected to last through the end of the month. But states can elect to spend their own funds on these programs, which were previously authorized by Congress and state legislatures.

Before the shutdown, states were stockpiling reserve funding. The National Association of State Budget Officers reported most state budgets this year maintained or increased rainy day funds. At the same time, state and local governments are borrowing record amounts: As much as $600 billion in municipal bonds is projected to be issued by the end of 2025.

“So states and localities are kind of getting the message they really need to fend for themselves much more than they ever had,” said William Glasgall, public finance adviser at the Volcker Alliance, a nonprofit that works to support public sector workers.

Since January, the Trump administration has stripped states and cities of billions of dollars that Congress approved for education, infrastructure and energy projects. Glasgall said that record leaves states with legitimate concerns about getting repaid for their shutdown-related expenses — a prospect that would likely spark even more lawsuits from Democratic-led states.

“They’ve already, before the shutdown, started rolling back federal funding, and I don’t see any reason why they would stop now,” he said. “The recissions that have been announced are pretty harsh, and it’s money we’re expecting and not getting.”

The last shutdown, which lasted five weeks during Trump’s first term, delayed billions in federal spending and reduced gross domestic product — the value of all goods and services produced — by $11 billion, the Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2019. Experts say states were repaid for costs they incurred providing federal services during that shutdown.

In Minnesota, State Budget Director Ahna Minge said staff have been studying previous shutdowns. But at a news conference with Democratic Gov. Tim Walz last week, she characterized this shutdown as “unpredictable.”

“The current federal administration may not follow the historic playbook,” she said.

Walz said farmers would be among the first hit as the federal Farm Service Agency has ceased operations in the middle of the state’s harvest season. Among other duties, that agency works on disaster assistance and processes loans during harvest to protect farmers against commodity price fluctuations.

Minge said Minnesota officials think programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for Women, Infants and Children have enough existing federal funds to operate through October. But she said the state budget cannot backfill all the commitments made by federal programs.

“What we know is that the longer a shutdown lasts, the greater the impact to state programs and services,” she said.

Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont, a Democrat, has pledged to use state dollars to keep WIC afloat if needed, The Associated Press reported. And Colorado lawmakers set aside $7.5 million just before the shutdown to keep WIC running.

Already under strain

In Maryland, the shutdown is compounding the economic instability from Trump’s ongoing efforts to shrink the number of federal employees, agencies and spending.

With more than 160,000 federal employees, Maryland’s economy relies heavily on the federal workforce. The Trump administration has said it may deny back pay to hundreds of thousands of furloughed federal workers, despite a law he signed in 2019 guaranteeing such back pay.

Chief Deputy Comptroller Andrew Schaufele told lawmakers last week that a shutdown could cost the state $700,000 per day in lost tax revenue.

Democratic Gov. Wes Moore pledged to continue funding some federal programs, but said the state would not tap into its rainy day funds to do so.

“We’re going to continually evaluate how long we can go,” he said at a news conference.

As for getting repaid, Moore spokesperson David Turner told Stateline that the state had received no indication that the federal government would deviate from past practice, “but we are monitoring closely.”

This fiscal uncertainty hits states as they are already struggling to respond to the strain of federal agency layoffs and cuts in the major tax and spending law Trump signed this summer. The law slashed billions in social service funding and created costly new bureaucratic burdens for states, which administer Medicaid and food assistance programs.

“There’s no way, really at this point, to sort of assess with any level of confidence what’s going to happen when you also have these massive layoffs that were going on pre-shutdown,” said Lisa Parshall, a professor of political science at Daemen University in New York. “There’s just a real sense from states and localities — and I think rightly so — that that kind of reliability of the federal government is now in question.”

It may not be a question of whether states are reimbursed for their shutdown expenses, but which states are reimbursed, Parshall said. The Trump administration has publicly targeted funding of liberal-led states and cities over policy disagreements, raising the possibility it could do something similar with the shutdown.

“Whether it’s a good thing or a bad thing, you know, you could argue,” she said. “But it’s definitely a thing that seems to be adding to this level of uncertainty — this shutdown feels different.”

In California, officials just closed a nearly $12 billion shortfall when negotiating the budget that was approved in June. The budget deficit is expected to grow to more than $17 billion next year, said H.D. Palmer, spokesperson for the State of California Department of Finance, which advises the governor and state agencies on budget issues.

“There isn’t a long-term, open-ended line of credit available if this drags out,” he said of the federal government shutdown.

The depth of reserve funds available varies by federally funded program, he said. CalFresh, California’s name for its Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, has enough funds to cover food stamp benefits for this month, but anything beyond that is uncertain.

“If the duration of this is in the matter of days, it will be an inconvenience, but should not pose a massive problem,” he said. “However, if it does drag out for an extended period of time, then clearly it’s going to be a problem.”

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org.

Sen. Dianne Hesselbein (D-Middleton) speaks at a press conference Wednesday morning about the Senate Democrats' "Affordable Wisconsin Agenda." (Photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner)

If there’s one word at the top of Democratic Party political discourse this year, it’s “affordability.”

Whether focused on a particular issue — child care, health care and housing are the most frequent examples — or on the cost of just about everything, making goods and services and life “affordable” figures high in the opening pitches of candidates across the state.

“I think the No. 1  issue that we need to focus on is affordability,” said Mitchell Berman, a Racine County nurse, when he announced in August he would seek the  Democratic nomination to challenge Republican U.S. Rep. Bryan Steil in Wisconsin’s 1st Congressional District.

Trevor Jung in Racine launched his state Senate campaign in September with a focus on “affordability” and “good-paying jobs.” Corrine Hendrickson, a former child care proprietor in New Glarus, said “affordability” is the top issue for her state Senate bid — and she wasn’t just talking about child care.

Democrats campaigning to be the party’s nominee for governor as diverse as David Crowley, Missy Hughes, and Francesca Hong have all uttered the word in introducing themselves to the public.

On Wednesday, the State Senate Democratic Committee had a press conference outside the Capitol to announce the Democrats’ focus on affordability, both for their upcoming legislative agenda and with an eye on the 2026 elections.

“Right now in Wisconsin, 65% of families are saying they are just getting by or they are struggling,” said Sen. Dianne Hesselbein (D-Middleton), the Senate minority leader. A spokesperson said the July Marquette University Law School poll was the source for the survey finding.

State Senate Democrats plan to spend the next few weeks traveling Wisconsin and hearing from state residents. Hesselbein said those conversations will become fodder for “tangible policy solutions that will help working families keep more of their hard-earned money, and we’re calling it the Affordable Wisconsin Agenda.”

Nathan Kalmoe, a University of Wisconsin political scientist, said via email that emphasizing poor economic conditions could be risky for Wisconsin Democrats running in state elections. While Republican lawmakers “may take some blame, the governor is a Democrat,” and voters tend to hold the chief executive responsible for economic conditions, he said. 

Kalmoe added that focusing on the economy exclusively at the expense of concerns for the most marginalized or concerns about Trump administration actions that threaten democracy would be “disturbing, and dangerous.”

Nevertheless, polling trends in the last several months suggest why Democrats nationwide have been focusing on inflation and the economy, said John D. Johnson, a research fellow and political analyst at Marquette University.

In Marquette polls shortly after President Donald Trump was elected to a second term in November, and again before he took office in January, 41% of adults nationally said they believed his policies would reduce inflation.

In Marquette’s most recent national poll, conducted in mid-September and released Oct. 2, “that had fallen to 25%,” Johnson said in an email to the Wisconsin Examiner. “Meanwhile, the share believing Trump’s policies would increase inflation grew from 45% to 60%.”

In the September poll, 40% of adults named “inflation and the cost of living” as the top issue in the U.S. “Another 19% chose ‘the economy’ more generally,” Johnson said.

“Overall, 29% of adults approved of Trump’s handling of ‘inflation and the cost of living’ while 71% disapproved,” Johnson said. (On “border security,” meanwhile, 55% of those polled approved Trump while 45% disapproved.)

In May, 68% of Republicans and 23% of independent voters told the Marquette pollsters they approved of how Trump was handling “inflation and the cost of living.” By September, Republican support had slipped to 57%, but among independents, support had plummeted to 14%.

“In other words, this is (1) an issue where there is a lot of daylight between how Republicans and Independents rate Trump, and (2) an issue where Trump is falling with both Democrats and Independents,” Johnson said.

At the Senate Democrats’ news conference Wednesday, a succession of senators — along with one state representative who is a Senate hopeful — spoke of how the issue of affordability cuts across a wide range of topics. And each laid blame for inaction on their Republican rivals.

“Senate Democrats have already been leading the fight to lower the cost of housing, whether trying to expand the homestead tax credit or preventing hedge funds from buying up available housing stocks, but undoubtedly more needs to be done,” said Sen. Jeff Smith (D-Brunswick).

Rep. Jenna Jacobson (D-Oregon), who has the endorsement of the Senate Democrats as she seeks the party’s nomination in the 17th Senate District next year, pointed to “reckless federal policies” hitting farmers and hiking grocery bills.

Democratic state lawmakers have proposed a free school meal bill along with grants for farmers who provide food to food pantries, replacing a federal program cut by the Trump administration, she said; both are “examples of some of the kinds of policies that we can advance to lower everyday costs.”

Sen. Kristin Dassler-Alfheim (D-Appleton) warned of coming spikes both in health insurance costs and in the rates of people without health insurance because of the expiring Affordable Care Act premium subsidies at the center of the federal shutdown fight in Congress. “We need Congress to get to work and renew these ACA subsidies,” she said.

Meanwhile, bills in the state Legislature to lower prescription drug costs and cap the price of asthma medication “haven’t even gotten a public hearing,” Dassler-Alfheim said. “We could be doing more here in Wisconsin to make life a little bit more affordable for everyone.”

Sen. Sarah Keyeski (D-Lodi) said Wisconsin continues to face “a child care crisis,” with too few options for working families. Care is increasingly costly, “not because child care providers are making huge profits,” she said. “It’s because we can no longer underpay those doing the child care work, mostly women.”

Democrats have been pushing for expanding child care support, “yet Republicans in Madison stand in the way every single time,” Keyeski said.

Hesselbein said that the Senate Democrats hope that they can follow up on their conversations with voters across the state by “bringing those ideas back to the state Legislature, working on them and hopefully being able to pass them in a bipartisan manner.”

At the same time, however, she blamed inaction on Republican lawmakers who “are mired in internal conflict, unwilling to cross the aisle and get stuff done for Wisconsinites.” The  2026 election will enable voters to “turn the page,” she said, “and vote for a vision that puts Wisconsinites first, that puts you and your families first.”