Gov. Tony Evers signed the budget, now 2025 Wisconsin Act 15, at 1:32 a.m. in his office Thursday, less than an hour after the Assembly passed it. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

The budget that Governor Tony Evers recently signed was a missed opportunity for Wisconsin. It’s also a cautionary tale about the consequences of a Democratic leadership style that cedes power and demobilizes the public in the face of an increasingly authoritarian opponent.

During the budget process, Wisconsin Democrats had more leverage than they have had since the 2000s, holding the governorship and, due to fairer maps and GOP divisions, the deciding votes in the state Senate. Combined with an unusual state budget surplus made possible by Biden-era policies, and the striking unpopularity of the GOP’s budget stands on the big issues, this was a golden opportunity to start to undo the damage wrought by Republicans during the administration of former Gov. Scott Walker. This budget could have begun to reverse Wisconsin’s long term disinvestment in public education and local government services, expand BadgerCare, start to address the affordability crisis in child care, housing, home energy, and health care, and build a buffer against a coming tsunami of slashing cuts from President Donald Trump’s Big Ugly Bill.

But rather than marshalling all the power at his disposal to achieve progress on at least some of these objectives, the Governor gave away his leverage by not bringing Senate Democrats into negotiations until the very end, and then signing off on a concessionary bargain without a public fight, even whipping Democratic votes to support the disappointing deal. 

Despite improved leverage, Evers followed the script of his first three budgets. In 2019, facing a gerrymandered supermajority, Evers appeared to have a fighting spirit. I was there with dozens of Citizen Action members when he seemed to throw down the gauntlet, memorably declaring days after Republicans removed BadgerCare Expansion from the budget: “I’m going to fight like hell.” Democratic legislators and advocacy groups were blindsided when he suddenly backed down.

The governor and his team are spinning the latest deal as the kind of bipartisan compromise necessary under divided rule in a purple state, hoping that voters will not read the fine print. Republicans were right to brag during the floor debate that the one-sided deal was much closer to their priorities than the ultra moderate blueprint Evers proposed. 

The budget lowlights include the first $0 increase in general school aid in decades. (after inflation, that amounts to a real dollar cut in state support for public schools contrasted with yet another large increase for unaccountable voucher schools); a cut in support for child care in the midst of an affordability and access crisis; a $0 increase for mass transit at a time the state’s largest transit system is facing service cuts; and $1.5 billion on regressive tax giveaway which, according to a Kids Forward analysis of the original legislation, funnels nearly 60% of the benefit to the wealthiest households, and a miniscule proportion to Black and Latino families. It contains a huge giveaway to the hospital industry, the Capitol’s most powerful lobby, with no requirements to reduce cost and increase access for patients, or keep facilities open in underserved areas, while missing yet another opportunity to expand BadgerCare in the last year Wisconsin can secure the full financial benefit of 95% federal funding.

After Evers’ second budget surrender in 2021, I wrote a column for the Wisconsin Examiner arguing that hand-wringing over the leadership of establishment Democrats like Evers is counterproductive because it deflects responsibilities away from grassroots progressives for not building enough power to force their hand. As Shakespeare put it in Julius Caesar, “The fault is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings.” 

This year, the reaction from the organized grassroots was dramatically different. For the first time organizing groups and education unions, representing tens of thousands of Wisconsinites, publicly campaigned for the governor to fight by wielding his potent veto power and appealing over the heads of the Legislature to the public. As Ruth Conniff reported for the Wisconsin Examiner, at a joint lobby day in late May a raucous crowd filled the hallway at the State Capitol leading to the governor’s office to deliver a letter demanding that he veto any budget that did not meet minimum standards on education, health care, child care and criminal justice. In the weeks leading up to the deal, grassroots leaders kept the pressure on. 

The governor’s concessionary bargain also divided his own party. Dozens of rank and file Democrats at the party convention wore stickers urging Evers to veto a bad budget. A striking number of progressive state legislators spoke out against the budget deal, and despite the administration using the power and resources of the governor’s office to whip votes, 80% of Democratic legislators rejected a budget Evers touts as a victory.

The reaction against Evers’ refusal to fight is parallel to the growing frustration with the failure of national Democratic leaders to adjust their leadership to the authoritarian situation. The critique of establishment Democrats focuses on two dimensions: their willingness to cede power to authoritarians, and their lack of appreciation of the increasingly important role of mass public organization and mobilization as traditional inside levers of power lose their effectiveness. 

The Republicans began shredding the 20th century governing norms well before the rise of Trump. The national GOP has steadily devolved from the conservatism of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan to the Newt Gingrich insurgency, the Tea Party, Mitch McConnell’s power grabs during the administration of President Barack  Obama, and finally MAGA, into an authoritarian populist movement seeking to totalize its grip on power by erasing what remains of the checks and balances of the liberal constitutional order.

Wisconsin’s GOP has followed a parallel path towards authoritarianism, including voter suppression laws targeting Democratic constituencies, the scuttling of settled law by a former Republican-backed majority on the Wisconsin  Supreme Court to legally sanitize Walker’s gross violations of campaign finance laws, a lame duck session stripping Evers of powers, and the unprecedented refusal to confirm the governor’s appointments to cabinet positions and state boards so they can be fired at will by the Legislature. Wisconsin did not meet the accepted political science definitions of democracy in its lawmaking branch of government from 2012-2024 because of a partisan gerrymander so severe that, as in Viktor Orbán’s Hungry, one party was guaranteed victory. 

In the face of the  onslaught in the second Trump administration, establishment Democrats at the national level are violating historian Timothy Snyder’s well-known first lesson in fighting authoritarianism: Do not freely cede power by obeying in advance. Emblematic was Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s decision to supply the votes needed to keep the government open. Schumer ratified many of Trump’s illegal cancellations of programs without the consent of Congress, arguing that in a shutdown he would have even more power to ransack federal agencies. In effect, Trump and his allies took the government hostage, reaping the rewards of their own lawlessness. 

Evers also rewards his opposition for the damage they are willing to inflict on the body politic, wrapping appeasement in the tinsel of a mythic bipartisanship which borders on delusional in the face of an increasingly authoritarian GOP. Evers has long argued that using his power to veto a bad budget, or force an impasse to mobilize public opposition, would empower Republicans to do worse damage by “going back to base.” The “base,” in Wisconsin budget-ese, is the last state budget, which would, factoring inflation, constitute a massive cut in all state programs. By Evers’ logic, a bad deal is better than no deal.

The second lesson in an authoritarian situation violated by the likes of Schumer and Evers is the necessity of empowering mass mobilization. There is an overwhelming consensus among democracy scholars that resistance to authoritarians requires the large-scale and sustained marshalling of the power of the public. An impressive body of political science research documents that large scale peaceful nonviolent resistance movements are the most effective vehicles for overturning authoritarian regimes.

This populist orientation is not entirely new. In the early 20th century Wisconsin’s progressive Gov. Fighting Bob La Follette and Progressive Era presidents mobilized the public to break the stranglehold of the Robber Barons of the Gilded Age, winning the power to enact major reform.

The lesson also applies to the liminal status of the U.S., somewhere between healthy democracy and autocracy, where traditional levers of power are losing their effectiveness, and large-scale popular resistance is an essential power to slow and ultimately reverse the authoritarian advance.

In this light, the problem with Evers’ approach to governing is that by making it entirely an inside game of bargaining with the Legislature, he freely gives away power, cutting out civil society groups that want to mobilize on behalf of his agenda and denying the public clear rallying points for exerting pressure on the process. This leadership style also erodes democracy by failing to deliver for average people, building an audience for authoritarian scapegoating of marginalized people and fake solutions.

If Evers had established a clear bottom line in the budget process on popular issues like public education and health care, and used both his veto power and the need for Democratic votes in the Senate to block a budget that did not include them, then he would have been in a position to work with grassroots groups and use his bully pulpit to rally public opinion against his opponents ahead of an election where control of the Legislature is in play, exerting tremendous pressure. Instead the public is left with no clear understanding of why they still can’t afford health care and child care, and why more schools are closing or cutting vital academic programs, as property taxes skyrocket to pay for less and less.

Despite these catastrophic failures in leadership, the future of multiracial democracy does not depend on Evers or other Democrats. It depends on  us. Political parties and social movements make leaders, not the other way around. Grassroots organizing groups and education unions made progress this budget cycle, but we need more people to join and commit, and greater investments in organizing, to win a more progressive Wisconsin. The national resistance to Trump, as measured by the number of people coming to rallies, is gaining steam, but that does not mean we are winning. The history of mass resistance shows that large scale mobilizations lose momentum over time unless enough people actively participate in permanent community-rooted organizing groups that demand bold and transformational leadership. The beating heart of democracy is direct personal engagement in cause-driven voluntary groups. In the end, it’s up to all of us.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla, a California Democrat, speaks on the Senate floor on June 17, 2025, about how he was forcibly removed from a press conference with the secretary of Homeland Security. (Screenshot from Senate webcast)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla, a California Democrat who was forcibly removed from a press conference with the secretary of Homeland Security, said Tuesday that his home state is the testing ground for President Donald Trump’s push to deploy the military within the United States.

Trump is using immigrants in the country without legal status as scapegoats to send in troops, said Padilla, who in a speech on the Senate floor choked up as he related how he was wrestled to the ground by law enforcement officials. “I refuse to let immigrants be political pawns on his path toward fascism,” Padilla said.

It’s the first floor speech the senior senator from California has given since the highly publicized incident in Los Angeles last week. The Secret Service handcuffed Padilla after he tried to question Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who was defending to reporters Trump’s decision to send 4,000 National Guard members and 700 Marines to LA.

Trump sent in the troops following multi-day protests over Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids and against California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s wishes. An appeals court Tuesday is hearing arguments on a suit by California contending that the president unlawfully took control of the state National Guard.

“He wants the spectacle,” Padilla said of the president. “To justify his undemocratic crackdown and his authoritarian power grab.”

The LA protests were sparked after ICE targeted Home Depots, places where undocumented day laborers typically search for work, for immigration raids.

Arrests, confrontations

The Padilla incident, widely captured on video, was a stark escalation of the tensions between Democratic lawmakers and the administration over Trump’s drive to enact mass deportations.

A Democratic House member from New Jersey is facing federal charges on allegations that she shoved immigration officials while protesting the opening of an immigrant detention center in Newark. And on Tuesday, in New York City, ICE officers arrested city comptroller and mayoral candidate Brad Lander while he was escorting an immigrant to their hearing in immigration court, according to The Associated Press.

In a statement to States Newsroom, DHS Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin said Lander “was arrested for assaulting law enforcement and impeding a federal officer.”

“No one is above the law, and if you lay a hand on a law enforcement officer, you will face consequences,” McLaughlin said.

The president late Sunday directed ICE to conduct immigration raids in New York, LA and Chicago, the nation’s three most populous cities, all led by elected Democrats in heavily Democratic states.

“We will follow the President’s direction and continue to work to get the worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens off of America’s streets,” McLaughlin said.

‘They opened the door for me’

Padilla in his Senate remarks gave an account of the events that led to him being handcuffed and detained last week.

On June 12, he had a meeting scheduled with General Gregory M. Guillot, commander of the U.S. Northern Command, to discuss the military presence in LA.

Padilla, the top Democrat on a Judiciary panel that oversees DHS and immigration policy, said his meeting with the general was delayed because of a press briefing across the hall with Noem. 

Padilla said he has tried to speak with DHS because for weeks LA has “seen a disturbing pattern of increasingly extreme and cruel immigration enforcement operations targeting non-violent people at places of worship, at schools, in courthouses.”

So Padilla said he asked to attend the press conference, and a National Guard member and an FBI agent escorted him inside.

“They opened the door for me,” he said.

As he listened, he said a comment from Noem compelled him to ask a question.

“We are not going away,” Noem, the former governor of South Dakota, told the press. “We are staying here to liberate the city from the socialists and the burdensome leadership that this governor and that this mayor have placed on this country and what they have tried to insert into the city.”

Padilla said her remarks struck him as “an un-American mission statement.”

“That cannot be the mission of federal law enforcement and the United States military,” he said. “Are we truly prepared to live in a country where the president can deploy the armed forces to decide which duly elected governors and mayors should be allowed to lead their constituents?”   

Padilla said before he could finish his question, he was physically removed and the National Guard member and FBI agent who escorted him in the room “stood by silently, knowing full well who I was.”

As he recounted being handcuffed, Padilla paused, getting emotional.

“I was forced to the ground, first on my knees, and then flat on my chest,” he said.

Padilla said a flurry of questions went through his head as he was marched down a hallway, and as he kept asking why he was being detained: Where are they taking me? What will a city, already on the edge from being militarized, think when they see their U.S. senator being handcuffed just for trying to ask a question? What will my wife think? What will our boys think?

“I also remember asking myself, if this aggressive escalation is the result of someone speaking up about the abuse and overreach of the Trump administration, was it really worth it?” Padilla asked. “If a United States senator becomes too afraid to speak up, how can we expect any other American to do the same?”

Padilla-Noem meeting

In a statement, DHS, said that the Secret Service did not know Padilla was a U.S. senator, although video of the incident shows that Padilla stated that he was a member of the Senate.

“I’m Sen. Alex Padilla and I have questions for the secretary,” he said as four federal law enforcement officers grabbed him and shoved him to the ground.

Noem met with Padilla after he was handcuffed, his office told States Newsroom.

“He raised concerns with the deployment of military forces and the needless escalation over the last week, among other issues,” according to his office. “And he voiced his frustration with the continued lack of response from this administration. It was a civil, brief meeting, but the Secretary did not provide any meaningful answers. The Senator was simply trying to do his job and seek answers for the people he represents in California.”

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson has suggested that the Senate take action against Padilla, such as a censure. Johnson criticized the senator’s actions and accused him of charging at Noem, which Padilla is not seen doing in the multiple videos of the incident.

“I’m not in that chamber, but I do think that it merits immediate attention by other colleagues over there,” the Louisiana Republican said. “I think that behavior, at a minimum, rises to the level of censure. I think there needs to be a message sent by the body as a whole.”

Senate Democrats have coalesced their support around Padilla. During a Tuesday press conference, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer praised Padilla for his speech on the Senate floor.

“It was basically a strong plea for America to regain the gyroscope of democracy, which has led us forward for so many years and now we’re losing it,” the New York Democrat said. “It’s a wake-up call to all Americans.”

Jennifer Shutt contributed to this report. 

Thousands of protesters gathered at the Wisconsin State Capitol to protest President Donald Trump on Saturday. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)

People across Wisconsin joined “No Kings” day protests held in cities across the U.S. Saturday, with thousands of protesters marching in the streets of Madison and Milwaukee. 

The protests took place on the same day as a military parade held in Washington D.C. on President Donald Trump’s birthday and the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army and in the wake of the Trump administration’s escalated response to protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) actions in Los Angeles. 

‘We will fight joyfully’: Thousands march through downtown Madison to protest Trump 

Thousands of people crowded into downtown Madison Saturday afternoon joining the nationwide “No Kings” protests against the administration of President Donald Trump. 

Protesters waved American flags right side up and upside down (a traditional signal of distress), as well as LGBTQ pride flags, Mexican flags and Ukrainian flags. Signs called for equality, criticized Immigration and Customs Enforcement and  compared Trump to dictators of the past. The crowd included trapeze artists, people in drag, Madison protest regulars the “Raging Grannies,” a 15-foot Statue of Liberty puppet and U.S. Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Georgia). 

The protest started on UW-Madison’s east Campus Mall, where the Women’s March hosted a “kick out the clowns” event. There, Madison resident Amanda G., who declined to give her last name, did hand stands on the grass next to a sign stating “hand stand against facism.” 

“When people engage in a struggle against facism, you need calm, focus and concentration,” she said, adding that those same qualities  are required for holding a hand stand as long as she could. 

A nearby group of protesters performed a skit featuring giant paper mache heads of Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin debating how to start a dictatorship before they were surrounded by about 15 dancers dressed like the Statue of Liberty. 

When  the protesters began marching from the campus toward the Capitol,  hundreds of people were still flowing in the opposite direction  down State Street.  The combined crowd came together and headed  up the street towards the Capitol as onlookers cheered from the sidewalks. 

Madison police observed the marchers as they gathered at the Capitol from a rooftop across the street.

Cindy Reilly, a Sun Prairie resident who had joined the crowd on the mall, watched and chanted from the patio of a State Street bar. Reilly said the budget bill currently being moved through Congress by Republicans was her biggest reason for protesting on Saturday, saying Republicans are defunding programs that help people who are struggling while funding rich people.

“It’s important for people to tell Trump and Republicans we don’t like what they’re doing,” she said. 

When the crowd reached the Capitol square, Nick Ramos, executive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, emceed a series of performances and speeches.

“We will fight joyfully, we will fight peacefully, in these streets for our democracy” Ramos said.

Georgia Sen. Raphael Warnock, who was in Wisconsin to deliver the keynote address at the Democratic Party of Wisconsin’s annual convention in the Wisconsin Dells this weekend, spoke from the protest stage and  highlighted the assassination of a Minnesota Democratic lawmaker Saturday morning, the deployment of U.S. troops against protesters in Los Angeles and the detainment of U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-California) at a Department of Homeland Security press conference this week. 

Warnock said that he often talks about the value of nonviolent protests, but it’s not protesters who are being violent. 

“I have said that to the activists,” Warnock said. “But somebody needs to say that to the Trump administration.” 

Throughout the first six months of the Trump administration, people have regularly called for more forceful opposition from elected Democrats. Warnock acknowledged those calls, while saying it will take work from people inside and outside the halls of power to fight Trump’s unpopular policies. 

“People like you are asking people in positions like mine to speak up,” Warnock said. “I’m going to do that, but we must work on the outside and the inside.” 

Protests wrap around multiple city blocks in Milwaukee 

More than  12,000 people  marched in the No Kings Day protest in Milwaukee, packing  Cathedral Square Saturday afternoon. Elderly people and military veterans, parents with young children and Milwaukee residents of all ages  turned out to denounce what some event speakers described as a fascist and authoritarian Trump administration. 

Most of the crowd gathered on  the grass at the center of the square in front of  a large stage while others stood off to the side in the shade. Law enforcement kept a low key profile during the protest, helping direct traffic and watching from rooftops. Several drones flew over the crowd throughout the protest, including some which legal observers believed were operated by law enforcement due to their size, complexity and because they seemed to land on the rooftops occupied by police.

For nearly an hour, the crowd listened to a procession of speakers including  local activists, community organizers and a retired U.S. attorney. Speakers expressed the grievances of the chanting, cheering crowd about the military parade being held in Washington, D.C.,  the deployment of active duty U.S.troops on American soil, immigration raids  and attacks on the judicial system including the arrest of Milwaukee Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan, as well as threatened cuts to reproductive and gender affirming health care, attacks on workers rights, and the ongoing mass slaughter of civilians in Gaza. The crowd observed a moment of silence for Minnesota Democratic legislative leader Melissa Hortman who was the victim of a targeted assassination Saturday in what appeared to be a politically motivated attack.  

The protest march proceeded  east towards Lake Michigan and  past Museum Center Park, winding back into the downtown area to pass the federal courthouse, and restaurant-lined streets before returning to Cathedral Square. 

The march stretched for several city blocks. There was no evidence of property destruction or clashes with police , and counter protesters were nowhere in sight. 

This article has been edited to correct the first name of Sen. Raphael Warnock.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., holds up an Elmo toy while the chamber debates a bill that would eliminate previously approved funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which provides grants to public radio and television stations, including the Public Broadcasting Service, or PBS, which airs "Sesame Street." (Screen shot taken from House Clerk website livestream.)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. House narrowly passed legislation Thursday that would revoke $9.4 billion in previously approved funding for public media, including National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service, as well as foreign aid, though the bill’s future in the Senate amid a strict timeline is uncertain.

The 214-212 mostly party-line vote marks just the third time in several decades the House has approved a bill to claw back funding that lawmakers formerly agreed to spend. President Donald Trump sent the rescissions request that led to the House bill to the Republican-controlled Congress earlier this month.

Republican Reps. Mark Amodei of Nevada, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Nicole Malliotakis of New York and Mike Turner of Ohio voted against approving the bill along with all of the chamber’s Democrats.

Nebraska Rep. Don Bacon and New York Rep. Nick LaLota, both Republicans, switched from opposing to supporting the bill after Speaker Mike Johnson spoke with them on the floor as the vote was held open.

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., contended during floor debate that pulling back the funding is the right place to start, but said the GOP will seek to do much more in the months and years ahead.

Scalise said PBS and NPR should have to compete against other media organizations without grant funding from the federal government.

“There is still going to be a plethora of options for the American people,” Scalise said. “But if they’re paying their hard-earned dollars to go get content, why should your tax dollars only go to one thing that the other side wants to promote? Let everybody go compete on a fair basis.”

Maine Democratic Rep. Chellie Pingree said every state in the country would feel the impact of eliminating funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

“I rise today in strong opposition to the reckless attack on public media contained within this rescissions bill and millions of Americans who rely on and treasure their local public television and radio stations,” Pingree said.

Efforts to defund CPB, she said, were the result of Trump’s “agenda against the free press and his authoritarian desire to control the media.”

Public media would lose $1.1 billion

The seven-page bill would rescind all funding that Congress approved for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for fiscal years 2026 and 2027, a total of $1.1 billion.

CPB, which provides grants to public radio and television stations throughout the country, is one of the few programs that receives an advanced appropriation. So the funding elimination envisioned in the House bill would take effect starting on Oct. 1.

The legislation revokes more than $8 billion from several foreign aid programs run by the U.S. State Department or the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Florida Republican Rep. Mario Díaz-Balart, chairman of the State-Foreign Operations Appropriations subcommittee, said during an interview Wednesday there were extensive talks between GOP lawmakers and the Office of Management and Budget before the Trump administration officially submitted this rescissions request.

But Díaz-Balart cautioned there would need to be substantial pre-negotiations ahead of any future rescissions requests for programs within his annual funding bill.

“This rescission package — which I’ve had communication with OMB on — if this passes, we can move forward,” he said. “Now, if you’re talking about a potential for future additional rescissions, that could potentially create a problem and tie the president’s hands when it comes to dealing with adversaries or helping allies.”

Díaz-Balart said that OMB officials hoping to make any additional rescissions requests on foreign aid would need to engage in “a level of coordination that is so detailed, so intense to make sure that nothing comes forward that could potentially hurt the president’s ability to really do the America First agenda internationally.”

Florida Democratic Rep. Lois Frankel, ranking member on the State-Foreign Operations spending panel, said during floor debate Thursday the bill was an attack on American values and posed a threat to national security.

“It’s not charity, it’s strategy,” Frankel said of foreign aid. “Don’t take my word for it, military leaders from both parties have warned us for years — if we fail to lead with soft power, we’ll end up paying in blood, bombs and more boots on the ground.”

“Cutting foreign assistance will deepen desperation, fuel extremism, push fragile societies toward collapse and when that happens we all pay the price,” she added. “Refugee crises surge, diseases spread, trade routes shut down, our troops and diplomats face greater danger and our homeland security is weakened.”

First of many requests

The House vote took place just one week after the Trump administration sent lawmakers the rescissions request, the first of many proposals the White House budget office plans to submit. 

The $9.4 billion cancellation proposal represents a small fraction of the roughly $6.8 trillion the federal government spends each year.

The recommendation said some of the foreign aid should be cancelled because it supported “programs that are antithetical to American interests and worsen the lives of women and children, like ‘family planning’ and ‘reproductive health,’ LGBTQI+ activities, and ‘equity’ programs.”

The rescissions request allows the Office of Management and Budget to legally freeze funding on the programs listed for 45 days while lawmakers decide whether to approve the recommendation as is, amend it, or ignore it.

The House and Senate must agree to approve the same rescissions bill before mid-July for the changes to take effect. Failure to reach a bicameral agreement before then would require the Trump administration to spend the funding and block the president from requesting the same cancellation for the rest of his term.

Rescissions requests are rare since Congress typically negotiates spending levels on thousands of federal programs in the dozen annual spending bills that are then signed by the president.

The first Trump administration proposed rescissions in 2018, but the bill never made it through the Senate.

The last time Congress actually approved rescinding funding was in 1992 during the George H.W. Bush administration, according to a report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

More action in the Senate

The Senate will need to take up the bill before mid-July if it wants to approve any of the spending cuts, though several GOP senators told States Newsroom during brief interviews Wednesday ahead of the House vote they may amend the package, which would require it to go back to the House for final approval before the 45-day clock runs out.

Rescissions bills come with a vote-a-rama in the Senate, giving Republicans and Democrats the chance to call up as many amendments as they want for a floor vote. The GOP holds a 53-member majority, so four or more Republicans opposing any element of the bill would likely lead to its removal.

Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, said she will give the rescissions bill “careful consideration.”

In a statement released earlier this month just after the White House sent the request to lawmakers, Collins wrote the committee would “carefully review the rescissions package and examine the potential consequences of these rescissions on global health, national security, emergency communications in rural communities, and public radio and television stations.”

South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, chairman of the State-Foreign Operations Appropriations subcommittee, said he’s mostly supportive of the rescissions request, though he didn’t rule out offering an amendment to restore full funding for the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, often called PEPFAR.

“I think I’ll be okay with most of it. I’m concerned about PEPFAR. I’ll have to look at that,” Graham said.

West Virginia Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, chairwoman of the spending panel that oversees the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, said she’s planning to evaluate the bill once it arrives.

“We’ve got all these other things I’m thinking about. I haven’t even focused on it,” Capito said, referring to ongoing negotiations over the party’s “big, beautiful bill.”

Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, said she’s going to “try to” ensure the Corporation for Public Broadcasting keeps its funding.

“I’m a supporter of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. It’s a lifeline for many of my small, rural communities,” Murkowski said

Kansas Republican Sen. Jerry Moran, a senior appropriator, said he’s “trying to figure out a strategy of how to deal with” both the foreign aid and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting provisions once the bill comes over from the House.

“I’m looking at both of them to see what the right outcome should be.”

‘The risk of living in a news desert’

Both PBS and NPR released statements following the House vote, pledging to do their best to keep their funding intact.

Katherine Maher, NPR president and CEO, wrote in a statement the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is essential to the organization.

“Americans who rely on local, independent stations serving communities across America, especially in rural and underserved regions, will suffer the immediate consequences of this vote,” Maher wrote. “If rescission passes and local stations go dark, millions of Americans will no longer have access to locally owned, independent, nonprofit media and will bear the risk of living in a news desert, missing their emergency alerts, and hearing silence where classical, jazz and local artists currently play.”

Paula Kerger, president and CEO at PBS, wrote in a separate statement the “fight to protect public media does not end with this vote, and we will continue to make the case for our essential service in the days and weeks to come.

“If these cuts are finalized by the Senate, it will have a devastating impact on PBS and local member stations, particularly smaller and rural stations that rely on federal funding for a larger portion of their budgets. Without PBS and local member stations, Americans will lose unique local programming and emergency services in times of crisis.”

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies before the House Appropriations Committee's Defense Subcommittee at the U.S. Capitol on June 10, 2025 in Washington, D.C. Tuesday was the first time Hegseth testified before Congress since his confirmation hearings in January.  (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

The Trump administration’s deployment of National Guard troops and U.S. Marines to protests over immigration raids in Los Angeles will cost the federal government about $134 million, a Pentagon budget official said Tuesday, as the response to the protests further divided officials in California and Washington, D.C.

The situation in the country’s second-largest city captured the attention of lawmakers in the nation’s capital, even as the Republican-led Congress charted a path forward for the Trump-backed tax and spending cut bill.

Democrats in Congress on Tuesday warned the administration’s actions bordered on authoritarianism, while President Donald Trump said his intervention saved the city from destruction.

“If we didn’t send in the National Guard quickly, right now, Los Angeles would be burning to the ground,” Trump said in the Oval Office Tuesday.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, meanwhile, sought a restraining order blocking the 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 U.S. Marines deployed to Los Angeles from assisting with domestic law enforcement. Trump ordered the troops to the city over Newsom’s and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass’ objections.

Budget question

Democrats on Capitol Hill criticized the administration over several aspects of the deployment, saying Trump was instigating violence, overstepping his authority and wasting taxpayer money.

At a previously scheduled Appropriations Defense Subcommittee hearing, Democratic Reps. Betty McCollum of Minnesota and Pete Aguillar of California asked Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth the financial cost of placing 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines in Los Angeles.

Hegseth, who is originally from Minnesota, declined to answer McCollum’s question directly, instead invoking the riots in Minneapolis following the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer in 2020 and saying Trump sought to avoid similar chaos in Los Angeles.

“President Trump recognizes a situation like that, improperly handled by a governor, like it was by Gov. (Tim) Walz, if it gets out of control, it’s a bad situation for the citizens of any location,” he said.

When Aguillar asked a similar question about cost, Hegseth deferred to acting Pentagon comptroller Bryn MacDonnell, who estimated the current cost at $134 million, mainly for housing, travel and food. That money came out of existing operations and maintenance accounts, she said.

Hegseth told the panel the deployment was authorized for 60 days.

Just 2 miles away at the White House, though, Trump implied the decision could be more open-ended, saying during the Oval Office event that troops would stay in Los Angeles “until there’s no danger.”

“When there’s no danger, they’ll leave,” he said.

Restraining order

California’s federal lawsuit challenging the deployment, which state leaders filed Monday, includes a request for the court to issue a restraining order by 1 p.m. Pacific time Tuesday. U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer did not issue such an order by that deadline.

The administration intended to use the military personnel “to accompany federal immigration enforcement officers on raids throughout Los Angeles,” the request for a restraining order said.

“These unlawful deployments have already proven to be a deeply inflammatory and unnecessary provocation, anathema to our laws limiting the use (of) federal forces for law enforcement, rather than a means of restoring calm,” the state said.

“Federal antagonization, through the presence of soldiers in the streets, has already caused real and irreparable damage to the City of Los Angeles, the people who live there, and the State of California. They must be stopped, immediately.”

Democrats in California’s congressional delegation and members of the congressional caucuses for Black, Hispanic and Asian and Pacific Islander Democrats also blasted the administration’s role in inflaming the standoff between protesters and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents who’d conducted recent raids on workplaces in the area.

“President Trump’s unlawful decision to deploy the National Guard onto the streets of Los Angeles is a reckless and inflammatory escalation, one designed not to restore calm, but to provoke chaos,” Congressional Black Caucus Chair Yvette D. Clarke said at a press conference.

“Let’s be clear about how this began: with peaceful protests sparked by the unlawful and inhumane targeting, detention and deportation of our immigrant neighbors.”

Clarke, a New York Democrat, said in response to a reporter’s question that she believed the sending in of troops constituted an impeachable act by Trump.

“I definitely believe it is, but we’ll cross that bridge when we get to it,” she said.

‘Met with force’

Other Democrats on Capitol Hill have said Monday and Tuesday that Trump engineered the conflict to distract from unpopular provisions of Republicans’ “big, beautiful bill” and other issues.

“Donald Trump, cornered by his own failures – from pushing a heartless bill that would rip health care away from 16 million Americans, to raising costs from his reckless tariffs, to waging war with Elon Musk – Trump is desperately seeking a distraction,” Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said on the floor Tuesday.

“His order to deploy the National Guard and Marines – our own troops – on Americans is not just outrageous and provocative, it’s a dangerous authoritarian overreach that threatens the very fabric of our democracy.”

Rep. Jimmy Gomez led a press conference of California’s U.S. House Democrats Tuesday where he warned that the militarization in Los Angeles could happen elsewhere.

“If it can happen in Los Angeles, it can happen in any state in the union,” he said.

Later, at the Oval Office, Trump said protesters at his military parade on Saturday would be “met with very strong force.”

‘Tarred and feathered’

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters Trump acted responsibly to protect Southern Californians and blamed Newsom for “failed leadership” that he said led to the clash this weekend.

Asked if, as Trump and White House border czar Tom Homan have suggested, Newsom should be arrested for interfering with immigration enforcement, Johnson initially demurred before suggesting an 18th-century punishment.

“I’m not going to give you legal analysis on whether Gavin Newsom should be arrested,” the Louisiana Republican said.

“But he ought to be tarred and feathered… He’s standing in the way of the administration and the carrying out of federal law. Right? He is applauding the bad guys and standing in the way of the good guys. He is trying to — he’s a participant, an accomplice — in our federal law enforcement agents being not just disrespected but assaulted.”

Johnson said House Republicans were fully behind Trump’s actions and deflected a question about if there was a point at which he would oppose the administration’s efforts.

“He is fully within his authority right now to do what he is doing,” Johnson said. “We have to maintain order.”

A child celebrates Independence Day | Getty Images Creative

Autocrats and authoritarians share certain traits.

They don’t recognize checks and balances nor the institutions tasked with imposing them. 

They do not recognize the rule of law. Laws that do not suit simply do not apply. 

So, a country’s governing documents such as a constitution are malleable. Truth is what they say it is, facts be damned.

Critics who challenge this – journalists and the organizations they work for, law firms, universities, disagreeable judges, artists, etc. – are in for punishment and derision. They are cast as unelected elites, liars and betrayers of the country’s ideals, the better to silence or mute their influence.

But perhaps most importantly, autocrats and authoritarians must identify enemies for the rest of us to hate. Anyone who’s not part of their tribe, ideologically, ethnically, racially, by gender or sexual orientation is a target. If they speak another language, all the better.

President Donald Trump has focused for years on targeting  immigrants.

Trump himself is a  descendant of white immigrants and is married to one, but that’s where he makes an exception. 

He has accepted white South Africans as refugees while dismantling protections for people from countries he once described as sh–holes. Which is to say, refugees who aren’t white. 

He claims white South African refugees are the victims of extreme violence. As descendants of apartheid adherents, they are members of a group that has retained its privilege in South Africa. They are certainly  not victims of genocide, as Trump claims. The data shows that they are less likely to be the victims of violence than Black South Africans.

Trump’s executive order to enshrine English as the country’s official language – America for English-speaking Americans only – is another example of whites-only tribalism. 

Long ago, the languages of European immigrants like Trump’s forebears  were thought to  delay assimilation and demonstrate traitorous loyalty to other countries. But these days, the fear is rooted around Spanish of the Latin American variety and the languages of immigrants from Asia and Africa.

Around the globe, people in  other countries think a populace fluent in many languages is an advantage, not a deficiency. 

But Trump’s American is one of proud provincialism.

In any case, immigrants already recognize English as the indispensable language of commerce and success in this country.

Ask any child of immigrants. My parents desired that I master written and spoken English, though the price was less literacy in their native language – Spanish.

My proficiency in English brought my parents the most pride.

Now, for many people, speaking perfect English is a matter of safety. Trump  is deporting immigrants of color under an assumption they are members of criminal gangs. But in many cases there is plenty of evidence that those charges are misplaced, and people are being deported  without due process. 

Trump is carelessly rounding people up and sending them to a hellhole prison in El Salvador and to other countries he would assuredly describe as sh—holes —  even to a dysfunctional non-country such as Libya, in the midst of a civil war, without giving them time to respond to the charges against them. 

He has long labeled immigrants as terrorists, although there is little discernible link between immigrants and terrorism.

Under his broad definition, importing drugs to satisfy Americans’ appetites for illicit substances is a terrorist threat,  not  a public health issue.

Even when the administration is forced to admit error in deporting people who have a legal right to be here, it is not returning them. See, Abrego Garcia, mistakenly deported to a notorious El Salvadoran prison.

Like many citizens of color, I’ve become hardened to Trump’s racist  animus. We’ve been cast as job stealers, criminals and a threat to American culture. This is the same animus that made the  civil rights movement necessary. 

Not so long ago, we thought  the pendulum had swung to a more equitable, inclusive country.

But then more than 77 million Americans voted for Trump for the purpose of making America great again.

A country led by an authoritarian leader who thumbs his nose at the rule of law is not the America I know. And it certainly isn’t great. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE