Mayor Satya Rhodes-Conway alongside other Wisconsinites at a city celebration for Transgender Day of Visibility. Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner.

Wisconsin Democrats and city of Madison leaders recognized transgender visibility day in Wisconsin Monday, introducing legislation that would provide protections for people and raising the transgender pride flag. 

This year’s International Transgender Day of Visibility comes amid a political environment in which trans people have been targeted by new proposed federal and state restrictions. Wisconsin Republican lawmakers spent significant time in March on a slate of bills focused on transgender kids and would have limited their ability to play sports, access gender affirming medical care and change their names and pronouns in school. The bills are among more than 800 anti-trans bills that have been introduced nationwide this year.

Participants in the Madison celebrations said the point of the day was not to focus on the negative and harmful actions being taken, however, but to focus instead on the positive experiences of being transgender. 

Sen. Melissa Ratcliff (D-Cottage Grove), co-chair of the Transgender Parent and Nonbinary Advocacy Caucus, said during a press conference that the purpose of the day is to “elevate the voices of our trans and non-binary communities, emphasize the joy of living life as your authentic self and to visualize the world in which all our trans and non-binary children, co-workers, neighbors, parents and elected officials throughout Wisconsin and the world are loved, accepted and safe.”

Democrats holding the press conference proposed a handful of bills. One would extend Wisconsin’s nondiscrimination laws to include transgender and nonbinary people by prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender identity or gender expression.

Another bill would create an exception to current law for those seeking a name change for gender identity reasons. Under the current state statute people seeking a name change petition must publish notice of their petition in a local newspaper, including in the area where the petition will be heard, once per week for three consecutive weeks before they may petition the court.

A third bill would declare March 31, 2025 as Transgender Day of Visibility in Wisconsin and recognizes the achievements of several transgender people and organizations who have made contributions to Wisconsin.

In addition to the bills, Gov. Tony Evers, who has committed to vetoing any anti-trans legislation that makes it to his desk, signed a proclamation declaring Monday Transgender Day of Visibility.

Rep. Christian Phelps (D-Eau Claire) said the bills are important because lawmakers need to send a positive message to young Wisconsinites who may be paying attention. He said that when he was young he remembers feeling discouraged as a gay teen when the state passed a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. 

“Thirteen-year-olds across Wisconsin are listening to political actions and messages that are being sent out of the Capitol,” Phelps said, adding that children should know there are elected officials and allies and leaders who are fighting for transgender, non-binary and gender-expansive people of all ages across Wisconsin.

“That’s the message that we want people to take out of the Capitol and into their communities and to see [protections] passed in the state law as well,” Phelps said. 

When asked about plans to discuss the legislation with Republicans and the potential for garnering support across the aisle to pass any of the bills, the lawmakers sounded doubtful. Republicans hold majorities in the Assembly and Senate and support from them would be necessary for any of the Democratic legislation to be taken up.

“I don’t think they will sign on to this legislation. I certainly wish that they would take a look at it and hear our voices here today and see the love and support of so many community members,” Sen. Melissa Ratcliff (D-Cottage Grove) said. 

Clancy called it a “valid question” that Democrats get every time they hold a press conference. 

“Will Republicans sign on to this? And every time the answer is somewhat the same…,” Clancy said. “Republicans, two weeks ago, sat on the floor of the Assembly just feet from here for hours. They said that trans people should not exist, should not have basic rights. They have had the opportunity to weigh in on this, and I would welcome any of them moving across the aisle, breaking ranks from their, frankly, hateful leadership and joining in on these things.” 

The city of Madison also recognized Transgender Visibility Day by raising the transgender pride flag outside of the city municipal building.

Mayor Satya Rhodes Conway said the city was raising the flag to celebrate trans people, because the city respects individual rights and “rejects hate.” 

“The safety and the livelihoods of trans people are being threatened, and the issue of the fact of trans people is being used to divide our country in a hateful and really disappointing way, but here in Madison, we refuse to go backwards, and we refuse to let hate divide.” 

Asked about communicating the message of acceptance to those who disagree, Rhodes-Conway said that she thinks it’s important people recognize that diversity makes the Madison community stronger and invited people to “learn about the things that maybe make them nervous or scared and to be a part of the incredible diversity.” 

Rhodes-Conway also urged people to educate themselves.

“Folks can educate themselves and each other and a lot of the fear and resistance comes from lack of knowing, and so I just encourage people — there’s a lot of resources,” Rhodes-Conway said. “Please don’t ask the trans people in your lives to educate you. There’s a lot of resources out there and our libraries, our fantastic resources, and people can educate themselves about the history.”

Dina Nina Martinez-Rutherford, the first out transgender member of the Madison Common Council, said that transgender people are all “part of an unbroken legacy of resilience” and “authenticity.” 

Martinez-Rutherford said that she never expected to feel “so much love and community” when first elected in 2023 and never expected when she first started transitioning in 2007 to be in a position to advocate for people. 

“We raise the transgender flag today for it to be a symbol that Madison is welcoming and that you belong here,” Martinez-Rutherford said. “Let it be a beacon of hope, a reminder that we will not be erased.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Democratic members of Congress on Monday gathered on the National Mall in honor of Transgender Day of Visibility. (Stock photo by Vladimir Vladimirov/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Nearly two dozen Democratic lawmakers Monday gathered on the National Mall in honor of Transgender Day of Visibility, pushing back against the Trump administration’s policies that harm the trans community.

It came as the Trump administration has moved to block gender-affirming health care for transgender children, bar transgender members from serving in the U.S. military, deny gender markers for passports and ban transgender athletes from women’s sports.

Transgender Day of Visibility is dedicated to recognizing the transgender community for their accomplishments and raising awareness of the discrimination that trans people face. 

Lawmakers like Rep. Maxwell Alejandro Frost of Florida slammed President Donald Trump and his administration. He said that Trump is using transgender people as scapegoats.

“In (an) even more despicable move, he’s chosen to scapegoat kids, trans kids,” he said. “The reason you can’t pay your rent, you can’t afford health care, the reason that you have to fear gun violence, the reason that you can’t afford your grocery has nothing to do with trans people and everything to do with the billionaires and corrupt corporations that have been giving us crumbs for generations.”

Interfaith groups, trans advocacy groups

Interfaith groups and transgender advocacy groups also joined lawmakers for the event organized by the Christopher Street Project, a nonprofit that aims to elect pro-trans Democratic members of Congress.

“My religion has taught me that every human being is the divine image,” Rabbi Abby Stein said. “When the people in (Congress) or the White House try to take away our rights, try to legislate us out of existence, what you are doing… is an affront not just to humanity but to divinity and to any version of spirituality or creed.”

Democratic members in attendance included Whip Katherine Clark of Massachusetts and Reps. Jerry Nadler of New York, Robin Kelly of Illinois, Paul Tonko of New York, Pramila Jayapal of Washington state, Sara Jacobs of California, Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico, Frost of Florida, Val Hoyle of Oregon, Summer Lee of Pennsylvania, Jill Tokuda of Hawaii, Julie Johnson of Texas, Yassamin Ansari of Arizona, Judy Chu of California and Suhas Subramanyam of Virginia.

Democratic Sens. Brian Schatz of Hawaii and Ed Markey of Massachusetts also attended.

Trans family members

A handful of lawmakers with transgender family members spoke at Monday’s rally.

Lee said that she is the proud aunt of a transgender nibbling, a gender-neutral term for a child of a sibling, instead of niece or nephew.

“What’s happening right now, especially to our trans siblings, is cruel,” she said of the Trump administration’s policies. “They are purposely targeting some of the most marginalized people in our society.”

Chu said that she fears for her nephew, who is transgender.

“I fear for what the future will hold for him as this punitive administration takes it out on trans people, but I tell you, we will fight back,” she said. 

White House Senior Advisor to the President, Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk arrives for a meeting with Senate Republicans at the U.S. Capitol on March 05, 2025 in Washington, DC. Musk is scheduled to meet with Republican lawmakers to coordinate his ongoing federal government cost cutting plan. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

While the role and actions of the Elon Musk-headed Department of Government Efficiency remain somewhat murky, data privacy experts have been tracking the group’s moves and documenting potential violations of federal privacy protections.

Before President Donald Trump took office in January, he characterized DOGE as an advisory body, saying it would “provide advice and guidance from outside of government” in partnership with the White House and Office of Management and Budget in order to eliminate fraud and waste from government spending.

But on Inauguration day, Trump’s executive order establishing the group said Musk would have “full and prompt access to all unclassified agency records, software systems and IT systems.”

In the nine weeks since its formation, DOGE has been able to access sensitive information from the Treasury Department payment system, information about the headcount and budget of an intelligence agency and Americans’ Social Security numbers, health information and other demographic data. Musk and department staffers are also using artificial intelligence in their analysis of department cuts.

Though the Trump administration has not provided transparency around what the collected data is being used for, several federal agencies have laid off tens of thousands of workers, under the direction of DOGE, in the past two months. Thousands have been cut from the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Education, Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Treasury this month.

Frank Torres, senior AI and privacy adviser for The Leadership Conference’s Center for Civil Rights and Technology, which researches the intersection of civil rights and technology, said his organization partnered with the Center for Democracy and Technology, which researches and works with legislators on tech topics, to sort out what DOGE was doing. The organizations published a resource sheet documenting DOGE’s actions, the data privacy violations they are concerned about and the lawsuits that several federal agencies have filed over DOGE’s actions. 

“It doesn’t have to be this way,” Torres said. “I mean, there are processes and procedures and protections in place that are put in place for a reason, and it doesn’t appear that DOGE is following any of that, which is alarming.”

The organizations outlined potential violations of federal privacy protections, like the Privacy Act of 1974, which prohibits the disclosure of information without written consent, and substantive due process under the Fifth Amendment, which protects privacy from government interference.

White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Harrison Fields would not say if DOGE planned to provide more insight into its plans for the data it is accessing.

“Waste, fraud and abuse have been deeply entrenched in our broken system for far too long,” Fields told States Newsroom in an emailed statement. “It takes direct access to the system to identify and fix it. DOGE will continue to shine a light on the fraud they uncover as the American people deserve to know what their government has been spending their hard earned tax dollars on.”

The lack of transparency concerns U.S. Reps. Gerald E. Connolly, (D-Virginia) and  Jamie Raskin, (D-Maryland), who filed a Freedom of Information Act request this month requesting DOGE provide clear answers about its operations.

The request asks for details on who is in charge at DOGE, the scope of its authority to close federal agencies and lay off federal employees, the extent of its access to sensitive government sensitive databases and for Musk to outline how collected data may benefit his own companies and his foreign customers. They also questioned the feeding of sensitive information into AI systems, which DOGE touted last month.

“DOGE employees, including teenage and twenty-something computer programmers from Mr. Musk’s own companies, have been unleashed on the government’s most sensitive databases — from those containing national security and classified information to those containing the personal financial information of all Americans to those containing the trade secrets and sensitive commercial data of Mr. Musk’s competitors,” the representatives wrote in the request.

Most Americans have indeed submitted data to the federal government which can now be accessed by DOGE, said Elizabeth Laird, the director of equity in civic technology for the Center for Democracy and Technology — whether it be via a tax filing, student loan or Social Security. Laird said the two organizations see huge security concerns with how DOGE is collecting data and what it may be doing with the information. In the first few weeks of its existence, a coder discovered that anyone could access the database that posted updates to the DOGE.gov website.

“We’re talking about Social Security numbers, we’re talking about income, we’re talking about, you know, major life events, like whether you had a baby or got married,” Laird said. “We’re talking about if you’ve ever filed bankruptcy — like very sensitive stuff, and we’re talking about it for tens of millions of people.”

With that level of sensitive information, the business need should justify the level of risk, Laird said.

DOGE’s use of AI to comb through and categorize Americans’ data is concerning to Laird and Torres, as AI algorithms can produce inaccurate responses, pose security risks themselves and can have biases that lead to discrimination against marginalized groups.

While Torres, Laird and their teams plan to continue tracking DOGE’s actions and their potential privacy violations, they published the first resource sheet to start bringing awareness to the information that is already at risk. The data collection they’ve seen so far in an effort to cut federal spending is concerning, but both said they fear Americans’ data could end up being used in ways we don’t yet know about.

“The government has a wealth of data on all of us, and I would say data that’s probably very valuable on the open market,” Torres said. “It’s almost like a dossier on us from birth to death.”

Musk fired back at critics in an interview with Fox News published Thursday.

“They’ll say what we’re doing is somehow unconstitutional or illegal or whatever,” he said. “We’re like, ‘Well, which line of the cost savings do you disagree with?’ And they can’t point to any.”

The Wauwatosa Police Department (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

Since 2022, the Wauwatosa Police Department (WPD) has operated under new, very specific guidelines on how intelligence is collected and shared. Developing a policy involved reflection, clarification and modernization for the police department. Prior to its creation, a spokesperson wrote in an emailed statement to Wisconsin Examiner, no formal intelligence gathering policy existed at Tosa PD. 

By establishing clear standards, WPD aims to “bring about an equitable balance between the civil rights and liberties of citizens and the needs of law enforcement to collect and disseminate Criminal Intelligence on the conduct of persons and groups who may be planning, engaged in, or about to be engaged in criminal activity,” the policy states. Versions of the policy, as well as emails detailing its creation, were obtained by Wisconsin Examiner through open records requests.

The eight-page policy defines the difference between “information” and “criminal intelligence,” outlines appropriate channels for sharing that information, and establishes clear boundaries protecting individuals and groups. “Information” is defined as “raw unprocessed data that is unverified and unevaluated,” and only becomes “intelligence” once it’s been “systematically planned, collected, analyzed, and disseminated in an effort to anticipate, prevent, or monitor potential criminal activity for public safety purposes,” according to the policy. 

It stresses that such efforts must meet the threshold of “reasonable suspicion,” where a sworn law enforcement officer or investigator believes there is a “reasonable possibility” that a person or group is involved in “a definable criminal activity or enterprise.” Individuals or groups which become the focus of WPD’s intel-gathering activities must be those suspected of being involved in the planning, financing or organization of criminal acts, those suspected of being involved in criminal acts with “known or suspected crime figures,” or be the victims of those acts. 

The policy highlights that intelligence may not be gathered on individuals or groups based solely on:

• An individual or group’s support of “unpopular causes”
• Any membership of a protected class including race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, gender, pregnancy status, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, physical or mental disabilities, veteran status, genetic information or citizenship
• Political affiliations
• “Non-criminal personal habits” 

Any information gathered from confidential sources or electronic surveillance devices “shall be performed in a legally acceptable manner and in accordance with procedures,” the policy states. The policy also requires periodic review of intelligence by appropriate WPD staff to ensure the information is accurate, current, and remains relevant to the department’s goals. If it’s not, the policy states, the information should be purged. 

Lessons learned, and a new day

The intelligence policy was created with input from several key personnel within WPD including Lt. Joseph Roy, crime analyst Dominick Ratkowski, and Capt. Shane Wrucke. WPD Chief James MacGillis — who was formerly a Milwaukee PD drug intelligence and High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) officer — also had input in crafting the policy.

A WPD spokesperson wrote in an email statement that the city’s Police and Fire Commission, which oversees appointments, promotions and discipline of police and fire personnel, was not involved in establishing the policy. In April 2024, Ratkowski shared a final draft of the policy with Robert Bechtold, from the Madison Police Department. “Thanks for the SOP [Standard Operating Procedure],” emailed Bechtold, who was apparently looking for guidance on how to create such a policy. “I’m not looking forward to us building one,” he added. The Madison Police Department didn’t respond to a request for comment. 

Roy, Ratkowski, and Wrucke all have ties to WPD’s investigative division. Roy supervised the division’s dayshift and also serves as commander of the Milwaukee Area Investigative Team (MAIT), which focuses on officer-involved shootings and deaths. Ratkowski has worked at WPD since 2018, and was hired as the department’s first ever civilian crime analyst. Wrucke, like Roy, has past ties to both MAIT and WPD’s Special Operations Group (SOG), which focuses on covert surveillance, accessing phones, and drug investigations.

A WPD spokesperson explained in an email statement that the intel policy was created “to incorporate lessons learned, enhance transparency, and provide clear guidelines for intelligence gathering.” Those lessons likely stemmed from the protests of 2020, and the decisions made by investigators when WPD was still headed by former Chief Barry Weber. 

Following the killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police officers, marches against police abuse began in Milwaukee and Wauwatosa, where a former police officer had killed three people over a five-year period. Wauwatosa experienced months of daily non-violent protests which occasionally ended in standoffs with officers. In October 2020, Wauwatosa declared a curfew after the district attorney’s office announced that officer Joseph Mensah wouldn’t be charged in his third fatal shooting. Protesters were confronted by riot police, the National Guard and militarized federal law enforcement during the curfew. 

Journalists, protesters and lawyers later learned that WPD had created a list of nearly 200 people during the summer of protest. Ratkowski had called it a “target list” in an email to assisting agencies. WPD publicly stated that the list — which included dozens of protesters, members of the Cole family, their attorneys, elected officials, and the author of this story — included  witnesses, victims and  suspects in possible crimes that occurred at the protests. 

 

5.3.4 Criminal Intelligence Collection Analysis Distribution Policy – 24-18 (2)

 

Civil lawsuits revealed more about use of the list under Weber, who retired in 2021. Ratkowski in depositions explained that he began creating the list around June 2020, after Capt. Luke Vetter asked him to begin identifying active participants in the protests. Ratkowski gathered information from confidential law enforcement databases with access to drivers license information, home addresses, arrest records, and more. He combed social media accounts on Facebook and Tinder, sometimes using fake Facebook accounts registered as “confidential informants.”

Simply being tagged in a protest-related social media post could get someone on the list, Ratkowski said in a deposition. He agreed with attorneys when asked whether “mere affiliation with a protest” was enough, and confirmed that threatening violence or committing a crime was not required. Ratkowski said that if a superior asked him to make a list of every member of the Socialist Party he would, “because I would assume that he [Capt. Vetter] would have asked me to do something that wasn’t useless.” The attorney questioning Ratkowski responded, “I’m not asking whether it’s useful or useless, I’m asking whether it’s constitutional or not,” to which Ratkowski replied, “I can’t make that determination.” 

The federal lawsuit eventually went to trial, where a jury ruled that WPD had not violated specific privacy laws related to obtaining and sharing drivers license information. 

In an emailed statement, WPD said that “a key objective” of the new intelligence policy “was to clearly define the distinction between information and intelligence, ensuring officers understand when data becomes actionable. It applies to all WPD staff involved in intelligence creation and upholds protections against intelligence gathering based on legally protected characteristics.” The department added that, “though journalists are not explicitly mentioned, the department remains committed to safeguarding First Amendment rights for all individuals. Above all, the Wauwatosa Police Department prioritizes transparency and strengthening trust within the community.” 

U.S. President Donald Trump stands with Secretary of Education Linda McMahon after signing an executive order to reduce the size and scope of the Education Department during a ceremony in the East Room of the White House on March 20, 2025 in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — In a sweeping executive order signed Thursday, President Donald Trump called on Education Secretary Linda McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure” of the U.S. Education Department.

Trump signed the order at a major White House ceremony, flanked by children seated at desks. It directs McMahon to “return authority over education to the States and local communities while ensuring the effective and uninterrupted delivery of services, programs, and benefits on which Americans rely.”

Trump spoke to an audience packed with top GOP state officials, and he cited Republican Govs. Greg Abbott of Texas, Mike Braun of Indiana, Ron DeSantis of Florida, Bill Lee of Tennessee, Kim Reynolds of Iowa, Jeff Landry of Louisiana, Brad Little of Idaho, Jim Pillen of Nebraska and Mike DeWine of Ohio.

Deena Bishop, commissioner of Alaska’s Department of Education and Early Development, was slated to attend, though she was not cited by Trump.

“After 45 years, the United States spends more money in education by far than any other country and spends, likewise, by far, more money per pupil than any country, and it’s not even close, but yet we rank near the bottom of the list in terms of success,” Trump said at the brief ceremony. 

GOP Reps. Tim Walberg of Michigan and Virginia Foxx of North Carolina, the respective current and former chairs of the House Committee on Education and Workforce, were also in attendance. 

The children each signed their own individual executive orders, proudly displaying them alongside Trump. 

The order, which is sure to draw legal challenges, “also directs that programs or activities receiving any remaining Department of Education funds will not advance DEI or gender ideology,” referring to diversity, equity and inclusion.

Widespread reports ahead of the signing drew intense blowback from leading education groups, labor unions and congressional Democrats.

Rep. Bobby Scott, ranking member of the House Committee on Education and Workforce, noted that the department “was founded in part to guarantee the enforcement of students’ civil rights” in a statement Thursday.

“Legality aside, dismantling (the department) will exacerbate existing disparities, reduce accountability, and put low-income students, students of color, students with disabilities, rural students, and English as a Second Language (ESL) students at risk,” the Virginia Democrat added. 

Title I, IDEA funds 

The department’s many responsibilities include administering federal student aid, carrying out civil rights investigations, providing Title I funding for low-income school districts and guaranteeing a free public education for children with disabilities via the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA.

Following the signing, McMahon clarified in a statement that “closing the Department does not mean cutting off funds from those who depend on them — we will continue to support K-12 students, students with special needs, college student borrowers, and others who rely on essential programs.”

“We’re going to follow the law and eliminate the bureaucracy responsibly by working through Congress to ensure a lawful and orderly transition,” McMahon said. 

 

Trump’s long-held campaign promise to move education “back to the states” comes despite much of the funding and oversight of schools already occurring at the state and local levels. The department also legally cannot dictate the curriculum of schools across the country.

Congress has the sole authority to shut down the department, and any bill to completely close the agency would face extreme difficulties getting through the narrowly GOP-controlled Senate, with at least 60 senators needed to advance past the filibuster.

However, it could be possible for the administration to take significant actions short of closure, such as moving some Education Department functions to other agencies.

The agency has an annual budget of $79 billion in discretionary spending, or funds appropriated yearly by Congress. 

Layoffs, buyouts

The department has already witnessed mass layoffs, contract cuts, staff buyouts and major policy changes in the weeks since Trump took office.

Earlier in March, the department announced that more than 1,300 employees would be cut through a “reduction in force” process — sparking concerns across the country over how the mass layoffs would impact the agency’s abilities to carry out its core functions.

 

The department had 4,133 employees when Trump took office, but the cuts brought the total number of workers remaining down to roughly 2,183.

A group of 21 Democratic attorneys general quickly sued over that effort and asked a federal court in Massachusetts to block the department from implementing the “reduction in force” action and Trump’s “directive to dismantle the Department of Education.”

Lawsuit incoming

Opponents of the closure said it’s one more example of how Trump and billionaire Elon Musk, head of the temporary U.S. DOGE Service, are seeking to destroy the federal government as they reduce the workforce and spending.

“Donald Trump and Elon Musk have aimed their wrecking ball at public schools and the futures of the 50 million students in rural, suburban, and urban communities across America, by dismantling public education to pay for tax handouts for billionaires,” said Becky Pringle, president of the National Education Association, in a Wednesday night statement.

“Now, Trump is at it again with his latest effort to gut the Department of Education programs that support every student across the nation,” added Pringle, who leads the largest labor union in the country.

“If successful, Trump’s continued actions will hurt all students by sending class sizes soaring, cutting job training programs, making higher education more expensive and out of reach for middle class families, taking away special education services for students with disabilities, and gutting student civil rights protections,” she said.

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, one of the largest teachers unions in the country, kept her response to reports of the forthcoming order succinct.

“See you in court,” she said. 

An aerial view of the Pentagon on Oct. 28, 2018. (Photo by Marine Corps Lance Cpl. Quinn Hurt/Department of Defense)

WASHINGTON — A federal judge late Tuesday blocked President Donald Trump’s ban on transgender troops in the U.S. military, adding to the list of legal setbacks to the administration’s agenda.

U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia Ana Reyes ordered Trump’s Department of Defense to revert to military policy in place before he issued an executive order prohibiting openly transgender individuals from joining or continuing their service in the armed forces.

Trump’s executive order, signed in the late hours of Jan. 27, alleges the “adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual’s sex conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life.” Further, the order asserts that being transgender is “not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member.”

The order reversed a 2021 policy that allowed transgender individuals to openly serve in the military.

In a 79-page opinion, Reyes criticized the administration for lack of data proving the claims in Trump’s order.

“Transgender persons have served openly since 2021, but Defendants have not analyzed their service. That is unfortunate. Plaintiffs’ service records alone are Exhibit A for the proposition that transgender persons can have the warrior ethos, physical and mental health, selflessness, honor, integrity, and discipline to ensure military excellence,” Reyes wrote.

Reyes’ order goes into effect Friday at 10 a.m. Eastern.

Reyes’ ruling is among other recent court orders jamming the Trump administration’s legally questionable actions, including mass firings of federal workers and flying immigrants to El Salvador and Honduras under a wartime authority and in defiance of a judge’s court order.

Then-President Joe Biden nominated Reyes in 2023, and the Senate confirmed her in a 51-47 vote.

Trump aid blasts ruling

A representative for the Department of Justice said the ruling “is the latest example of an activist judge attempting to seize power at the expense of the American people” who elected Trump.

The DOJ has “vigorously defended” Trump and “will continue to do so,” according to the statement provided to States Newsroom attributed to an unnamed spokesperson.

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller slammed the decision on social media Wednesday, saying federal judges have “assumed the mantle of Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Secretary of Homeland Security and Commander-in-Chief.”

“Each day, they change the foreign policy, economic, staffing and national security policies of the Administration,” Miller wrote on the social media platform X. “Each day the nation arises to see what the craziest unelected local federal judge has decided the policies of the government of the United States shall be. It is madness.”

Trump’s social media attack on a federal judge Tuesday prompted a rare rebuke from U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.

Eight transgender active-duty service members and transgender individuals who are actively pursuing enlistment in the armed forces brought the case against the administration.

The plaintiffs have a combined 130 years of military service in wide ranging roles and numerous deployments around the world. One is currently deployed in an active combat zone, according to Reyes’ opinion.

The plaintiffs reside or are stationed in California, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, the District of Columbia and Wisconsin.

Attorney Steve Hurley with documents of the type Wisconsin prisons are shredding. | Photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner

The Office of the Wisconsin State Public Defender and other attorneys are expressing concerns over attorney-client confidentiality and the timely and accurate delivery of legal mail for clients incarcerated in state prisons. 

On Sept. 10, the Wisconsin Department of Corrections (DOC) adopted a new policy for external paperwork sent to prisons. The protocol calls for incarcerated residents to watch the copying of their legal mail and allows them to review the copies; then the original mail is shredded. 

Mail covered under the policy includes letters from an attorney, law office, clerk or judge of any state or federal court, court staff or tribal court. It also covers correspondence with federal and state elected or appointed officials including the governor, Wisconsin legislators, the secretary of the DOC and others. 

The process of opening and photocopying the mail, providing the copy to the incarcerated person and shredding the original mail is documented with the facility’s camera system, the DOC policy states. 

The policy’s general guidelines allow staff to inspect legal documents “to the extent necessary to determine if the documents contain contraband or if the purpose is misrepresented.” If staff have reason to believe a letter is not a legal document “and the safety and security of the institution is implicated,” the policy allows them to read legal documents. 

The DOC’s protocol has garnered criticism from the Wisconsin public defender’s office. Public defenders’ primary concerns are timely delivery of information to clients, the accuracy of the copying and protecting attorney-client confidentiality.

“Unfortunately, with DOC’s new mail policy we have experienced significant delays with mail delivery, compromised confidentiality, and in some cases legal documents have been lost,” said Deputy State Public Defender Katie York. “This has impacted our ability to develop trusting attorney/client relationships and has caused unnecessary delays for our clients and others impacted by the legal system. However, in our continuous efforts to provide the highest quality defense for our clients, we will keep doing everything we can to maintain communication with our clients.”

The Wisconsin American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has also raised concerns about how the DOC’s handling of legal mail is affecting incarcerated people and the legal process.

“Alarmingly, the DOC continues to introduce new restrictions that have made it increasingly difficult for people in DOC custody to receive legal mail and books,” Emma Shakeshaft, senior attorney for the ACLU of Wisconsin said in an October statement, “and we are very concerned about how these policy changes are negatively impacting those in custody. Legal mail is essential to incarcerated individuals’ ability to access the courts and to communicate confidentially with their legal counsel.”

Beth Hardtke, director of communications for the DOC, said the department was not aware of any recent concerns from the Office of the State Public Defender about the DOC’s legal mail policy, and that the DOC would follow up with them to learn more. 

Hardtke said the public defenders’ office had input into the development of the policy, and that the policy was revised based on the office’s feedback before it went into effect in September 2024. The DOC is not aware of any significant delays regarding legal mail, she said. 

She said the postal service delivers legal mail directly to facilities, “where it is promptly processed in front of the individual to whom the mail is addressed.” 

“The policy also details a number of steps that are taken to protect the confidentiality of the process including having the process take place in front of cameras placed so that writing is illegible, special copiers just for this purpose and ensuring that the person in our care is part of the process,” Hardtke said. 

Drug concerns 

DOC’s goal with the legal mail policy was to prevent intoxicating substances from entering facilities through legal mail, Hardtke said. 

In November2021, the DOC announced that it would start partnering with a company to photocopy the personal mail of all incarcerated adults in an attempt to keep drug-laden mail out of prisons. The department began giving residents photocopies of their mail instead of original letters. 

In a 2021 press release about the new policy, the DOC said that despite its previous efforts, in September 2021 alone there were 182 drug incidents within Wisconsin prisons, with 16 people needing emergency medical treatment. 

The department said it had seen an increase of drug incidents among incarcerated people. This included the use of synthetic cannabinoids, which can cause violent behavior or a need for emergency medical treatment, the department said. The DOC said paper and envelopes could be sprayed with or soaked in the drugs and sent into prisons through the mail.

In August 2022, the agency said it had seen a decrease in the total number of drug incidents at adult facilities between November 2021 and February 2022. The agency attributed the decrease to its new policy of photocopying mail. The DOC also said it saw a decrease in overdoses requiring transport to a medical facility. 

After receiving inquiries about the department’s controversial ban on used books, the department sent data to reporters in late September. DOC staff reviewed contraband incident reports that facility staff had flagged as drug-related between 2019 and Sept. 18, 2024. 

The department said some drug-related incidents recorded through a medical record or conduct report may not be reflected in their numbers. The DOC also said not all incident reports flagged as drug related turn out to actually be drug-related.

The DOC said legal mail tested positive in five incidents in 2021, and in 2022, there were 10 instances of material “purporting to be legal mail” that tested positive for drugs. 

Six incidents in 2023 involved legal mail, the department said. The DOC said legal mail tested positive for drugs in at least seven incidents in 2024, as of Sept. 18. 

When it comes to mail or donations that tested positive for drugs, the department said it is “often unable to say” whether they are from a legitimate entity, or from someone impersonating another person or organization. 

In an email to the nonprofit Wisconsin Books to Prisoners in August, then-Administrator of the Division of Adult Institutions Sarah Cooper spoke about impersonation. She said “bad actors” impersonated agencies to send drugs into prisons. 

“To provide some examples, there have been many instances of drugs coming in via mail (and publications/books) which appear to be sent from the Child Support Agency, the IRS, the State Public Defender’s Office, the Department of Justice and individual attorneys,” Cooper said.

In the August email, Cooper said the DOC had had to “implement a whole new process” for handling mail from the entities she mentioned. 

The number of drug incidents involving legal mail has fallen to zero, according to a review of contraband incident reports that facility staff flagged as drug-related, Hardtke said. She said between Sept. 19 and Feb. 28, there were no incidents documented in those reports of legal mail testing positive for intoxicants.

She said these records may not include all incidents, since some incidents may be documented in conduct reports, other types of incident reports or medical records. 

“The most important thing to know about the legal mail policy is that it works,” Hardtke said. 

But York said she also knows there have been instances of false positive tests. 

“I know it has happened because I’ve talked to both staff and private bar attorneys where the institution has sent back materials because they tested positive,” York said. Transcripts that were not drug-laced have been returned after positive tests, she said. She could not provide a number of such incidents and said she also believed some documents that were confiscated after positive tests were not sent back.

Hardtke said the DOC uses the IONSCAN 600 testing technology to test books, packages and other materials coming into DOC facilities. She said the technology was chosen in consultation with the Wisconsin Department of Justice and the Wisconsin State Crime Laboratories “in part because its results have held up to court scrutiny.” 

Some family members of incarcerated people in Canada expressed concern that ion scanners yielded false positive test results, and some experts have raised questions about ion scanners’ ability to distinguish between banned drugs and everyday chemicals. 

Steve Hurley, a defense attorney at Hurley Burish, S.C. in Madison, told the Examiner about a case a few years ago in which his firm represented a lawyer who was accused of sending drugs to a client. 

He said their investigation used the test used by the DOC and got a false positive, and that the department relied on a presumptive test that was not intended to give a conclusive result.

This test was not the IONSCAN 600. The DOC did not say whether it currently uses other tests as well as the IONSCAN 600. 

“They didn’t charge him criminally because I think they knew that they had misused the [drug] test,” Hurley said. “So when I called them on it, eventually, they just dropped the whole thing and reinstated his ability to communicate with his client.” 

Attorneys suggest creating a verification method for legal mail 

Shakeshaft said attorneys attempting to communicate with their clients are not the source of drugs in prison. She thinks there should be an alternative method of getting legal mail to clients without having all the documents copied and the originals shredded.  

“To the extent that third parties are attempting to disguise contraband as legal mail, there’s a lot of less restrictive ways to address that, to ensure that legal mail is coming from licensed attorneys… [Methods that] are not nearly as much of a threat to attorney-client confidential communications,” she said. 

York said her office asked about creating a process that would certify the mail was from the assigned attorney and not from an impersonator. 

“We asked if there was some sort of system, if it was like, some sort of changing numbering system, or something that we could put on the envelopes that would ensure that they knew that it was coming from our office,” she said.

York said her office also made an offer to reach out to a facility beforehand when they’re sending a client their file. The public defender’s office would let them know how many boxes they would be sending with a client file, so the facility would know in advance that the documents were coming from their office. She said the offer was not accepted. 

York said her office used to receive calls seeking to verify that her office had sent mail to a resident. She didn’t think this was consistent across all facilities. 

“They would call our office and ask, ‘Did you send mail to this person?’ when they got letters,” said York. “I used to get those calls when I was the appellate division director. So that was another way that they used to try to kind of validate the fact that it came from an attorney.”

Confidentiality concerns 

Hurley said that as a defense lawyer, it’s his job to not trust the government when it comes to his clients. He believes his clients should receive their legal mail unopened.

“The minute you open a lawyer’s mail, somebody is going to look at it,” Hurley said. “I don’t care what they say about their policies, somebody’s going to look at it. And you can’t do that.”

If others know what someone is convicted of, it could lead to a more difficult time in prison, Hurley said. He also said information in an incarcerated person’s legal mail isn’t necessarily about their criminal record.

“If you were getting divorced, do you want your neighbor to know what you’re arguing with your spouse over about what the extent of your property is?” Hurley said. “No, and you don’t want a guard to know that either.” 

Nicole Masnica, an attorney with Gimbel, Reilly, Guerin & Brown LLP in Milwaukee, said prison staff reviewing privileged communications and legal mail from counsel creates a concern about the safety and security of incarcerated people in the DOC.

Legal correspondence and materials “may very well contain” information detailing a person’s cooperation with authorities against other incarcerated people “and even sometimes staff employed by the Department of Corrections,” she said in a statement emailed to the Examiner.

“I have represented individuals who have expressed concerns about confidential information from legal correspondence getting into the wrong hands at the prisons, and policies like those currently in place with the DOC that permit the reviewing of confidential information by DOC staff only amplifies those risks to individuals assisting law enforcement investigations,” Masnica said. 

Shakeshaft said there are opportunities during the copying and shredding of legal mail for someone to view the documents. She also raised the question of how the process would be filmed without the camera viewing information in the legal mail. 

“There’s a number of different parts of the policy where confidentiality is threatened overall,” she said. 

Attorney Lonnie Story sent the Examiner a conduct report from when an incarcerated man, Justin Welch, was written up by a DOC staff member in February 2024. The report indicates a staff member read a letter from Welch that was “addressed to Story Law Firm Attorney Lonnie Story.”

According to the report, in the letter, Welch referenced a recent assault he was involved in with another person. Welch said that he was going to be placed by this person and “will have no choice but to fight him again. This is what the WCI does this time I will hurt him.” The staff member wrote the conduct report, saying Welch was making direct physical threats to the other person. 

Story said he contacted Department of Justice attorneys, who called the warden. Story sent the Examiner a letter from the warden on which Welch was copied, dated March 25, 2024. The letter said the warden had initiated a review of the incident, and the hearing officer’s decision and the punishment of 30 days in restrictive housing were reversed. 

Welch sent the Examiner a complaint he made to the DOC about a prison denying three of his emails, preventing them from reaching the intended recipients. (Electronic correspondence is not treated as legal mail under DOC policy.) 

Two emails were intended for a reporter, while the third was sent to Story. According to Welch’s complaint, a staff member told him that emails were not for legal communication and an attorney call should be set up instead. Welch’s complaint was successful, leading to a ruling that his emails should not have been denied. 

Devin Skrzypchak, a resident of Oshkosh Correctional Facility, said he has concerns that the prison staff have had access to his legal mail for up to three days while the prison was setting up a time for the copying and shredding when he could be present. He has concerns that his legal mail could have been read during that wait time.

Not all legal mail involves physical documents, according to Masnica. If there are large files, it’s cheaper to send a hard drive or USB. In one case, Masnica said she sent documents related to potential jurors and received an email from the prison. 

The person from the prison who contacted Masnica didn’t necessarily think the documents were related to litigation, she said. To her, it was clear that the prison had reviewed the mail in detail. 

“They had made remarks that it was not just the jurors in the case, but all jurors potentially that were going to be called that week, or that month,” Masnica said. 

Masnica said she complained and was sent a policy. DOC policy says that when a facility receives new digitally formatted legal material, it shall assign staff to review the content with the incarcerated person present to make sure it is “legal in nature.”

The policy states that “if any file is found to contain contraband, the data storage device may be subject to disposal” in accordance with the DOC’s contraband policy after consultation with the Office of Legal Counsel. 

Timeliness concerns 

“We’ve heard of attorneys having to push back court deadlines and delays because they can’t continue that communication [with clients],” said Shakeshaft. “They can’t get the legal documents to clients in time, or clients aren’t getting the correct legal documents.”

The Examiner asked York about specific situations that make it critical for the incarcerated person to have the legal mail for the case to proceed in court.

“There is not a super clean answer to this, but there are some situations, for example, we need clients to sign documents,” said York. “One example of that is notice of intent to appeal in a termination of parental rights case; we have to have a wet signature from the client on the notice before we file it, and it’s a pretty tight turnaround. It’s 30 days.”

York said there’s also a problem when clients don’t accept their mail due to the policy of copying and shredding. This leaves the attorney with the option of meeting in person to get a signature on a form, which can be time consuming. 

Lost in the mail

Masnica recalled her firm having to send mail multiple times because a client didn’t receive it. 

“If we’re sending something to a client on the street who is living in their home, we never really have issues,” Masnica said. 

Story said he’s had an issue with not receiving mail that a client said they sent to him. 

“Most disturbing is when my clients have part of their case record from their legal materials disappear,” Story said. “Their file doesn’t follow them to the next institution, or part of it is mailed to me and not the whole of it.”

Dorin Ferguson, who is incarcerated at the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility in Boscobel, said he has sent mail to Story that didn’t arrive, including mail that was returned to Ferguson.

DOC policy allows the resident to check the copied legal documents and request two rescans. York said sending large files poses a risk of miscopying.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Attorneys Nate Cade (far left) and Kimberley Motley (center) stand with the mother of Alvin Cole, Tracy (far right), and other members of Cole's family. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

A civil trial in Milwaukee’s federal courthouse over the fatal shooting of 17-year-old Alvin Cole by former Wauwatosa police officer Joseph Mensah ended in a hung jury on Thursday. After four days of hearing testimony and evidence, the eight-member jury was unable to come to a unanimous decision about whether Mensah used excessive and unreasonable force when he shot Cole on Feb. 2, 2020. 

A new trial has been set for September of this year, with pretrial preparations expected in August. The day began with closing arguments from attorney Nate Cade, who told the mostly white jury of seven women and one man to “remember who’s involved.” Cade showed a picture of Cole to the jury, saying, “He’s a kid, just a kid.”

Cade recounted the four days of testimony, starting with Cole’s father, Albert, who said he will be haunted by the memory of dropping off his son, the last time he saw him, “for the rest of his life.” Cade pointed to conflicting testimony about the shooting among the police officers who were there, and emphasized the testimony of David Shamsi, a combat veteran and FBI agent, who said Cole did not move or point a gun at Mensah before he fired.  

Another officer, Jeffrey Johnson, also testified that he did not see a weapon pointed at Mensah at the time of the shooting, and that Cole was on his hands and knees. Cade said that if Mensah had “paused a moment, Alvin Cole would still be alive.”

Plaintiffs’ attorneys also reminded the jury that after the shooting, Evan Olson, Mensah’s friend on the force, went off with Mensah in a squad car where they had an unrecorded conversation, in violation of polices stating officers should be kept separate after a shooting to avoid statement contamination. 

Cade stressed to the jury that in order for Mensah to be right, “everybody else has to be wrong,” and that Mensah had never apologized on the stand for the shooting.

Attorney Joseph Wirth, representing Mensah, said that night consisted of split second decisions. “Alvin Cole made catastrophically bad decisions,” said Wirth, arguing that Cole brought a gun to the mall, got into a fight, fled from and fired upon police, and then tried to fire again before Mensah killed him. “You can’t bring 20-20 hindsight,” said Wirth, urging the jurors to put themselves in Mensah’s shoes that night. Wirth refuted plaintiffs’ attorneys who said Mensah was bored in his own sector, and wanted some action. Wirth stressed that when an officer perceives danger, he has a duty to act and “it is not necessary [to prove] if this danger actually existed.” 

Wirth argued that Shamsi, who said the gun didn’t move at all, was still prepared to shoot Cole, and that the teen never stopped running, or indicated he wanted to surrender. 

Wirth also said that Cole pointed a gun both at Mensah and Olson, suggesting that the two officers are not contradicting each other. Plaintiffs’ attorneys asked for $22 million in damages, which Wirth called outrageous. 

The jury went into deliberations shortly after noon, and returned around 4:30 p.m. saying they were  unable to come to a decision. They were told by the judge to go back into deliberations until 5 p.m. When they were called back, they had still been unable to reach a unanimous decision. Judge Lynn Adelman said one main issue was the quality of squad car videos. The jury was excused, and a new trial was set for Sept. 8, at 9 a.m.

The day ends with armed marshals, and words from the family 

At the end of the day as the jury returned, at least five U.S. marshals, several of them armed, entered the court room. The arrival of the armed marshals caused a stir  in the courtroom from the gallery to the plaintiffs’ bench and attracted the attention of  Judge Adelman himself. “I don’t want marshals here,” Adelman said. It’s unclear why the marshals were there, but attorney Cade told media and the judge that it was inappropriate, and could send the wrong message to a jury. “People get screened coming into this courthouse,” said Cade. “The family has not shown out…They have not done anything dangerous, they have not made any threats.” 

Tracy Cole, Alvin’s mother, said she was satisfied with the presentation of her family’s case. “I can’t complain,” she said, “they showed the evidence, everything on the table. We ain’t gave up, we’re not going to give up.” Undiscouraged by the hung jury she said, “it just make us fight more.” Cole did say that she was hurt when she wasn’t allowed to testify during the trial. “I thought that if I would’ve spoke on it, I thought it will let some of the relief off of me, but now it haven’t because I still have that pain inside,” said Cole. “It hurts, but I’m dealing with it.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Photo by Adam Gault/Getty Images

The latest manufactured outrage from the far right? “Transgender mice.”

It’s the perfect viral talking point — designed to sound absurd, evoke outrage and make people believe that the government is wasting their money on nonsense. But it’s a lie.

The real story? The National Institutes of Health allocated funding to study biological sex differences in the brain — research that helps us understand mental health conditions, neurological disorders, and yes, gender identity.

Of the $8 million in research funding they are mocking, only $1.4 million went specifically toward transgender research. The rest? It was spent on studies of Alzheimer’s, PTSD, and depression — research that could save lives. But that’s not what they want you to focus on.

This isn’t just about defunding a study. This is about erasing science that doesn’t fit a political agenda.

Why this research matters

If you’ve heard people say that being trans is just a trend, ask yourself: Why do so many trans people say they have always felt this way? Why does gender dysphoria show up in childhood, long before social influences?

Because gender identity isn’t a fad — it’s neurological.

Here’s what we do know:

Autistic people are between six- and seven times more likely to be transgender or nonbinary. Nearly 25% of gender-diverse youth are autistic. Neurological and genetic factors play a role in gender identity — this isn’t just psychology, it’s biology.

Why does this matter? Because if we can understand how gender identity develops in the brain, we can better support trans youth, improve mental health care, and help autistic individuals who experience gender dysphoria.

This funding wasn’t about “making mice trans.” It was about understanding how the brain processes gender. And that knowledge could help millions of people.

If you’re worried about government waste, look at the real problem

If conservatives were really concerned about wasteful spending, they’d look at something far more harmful: the White House’s own anti-trans propaganda.

Donald Trump’s administration isn’t just cutting funding for trans research — it’s publishing misleading, politically motivated attacks on transgender people using taxpayer dollars.

A recent article posted on WhiteHouse.gov dangerously misrepresented science, promoting debunked claims about gender identity and paving the way for rolling back health care protections for trans people, banning gender-affirming care nationwide and erasing legal rights for trans students.

This isn’t about science. It’s about a larger, dangerous narrative that transgender people aren’t real, that research on gender identity should be defunded and that trans people don’t deserve health care or legal protections.

If you want to talk about wasteful spending, then look at this administration’s efforts to push misinformation while ignoring the real issues affecting Americans.

Defend the science. Defend the truth.

The next time someone brings up “transgender mice,” ask them:

Do you believe in funding neuroscience research on gender identity?Do you support medical studies that could help autistic and trans youth? Why are you mad about this funding, but not billions wasted on government propaganda?

If you believe in truth, science and protecting vulnerable communities, you should care about this. It isn’t about mice. It’s about erasing science that doesn’t fit a political agenda.

Don’t fall for it. Science matters. People matter. The truth matters.

Arizona Mirror is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arizona Mirror maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jim Small for questions: info@azmirror.com.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

In the 1920s, some Americans’ concern for a U.S. in decline led to a rise in various discriminatory policies and movements that hurt vulnerable minorities. (iStock/Getty Images Plus)

Wisconsin Republicans introduced new bills targeting transgender youth last week after President Donald Trump signed several related executive orders. People gather in New Orleans for Transgender Day of Visibility on March 31, 2023. (Photo by Greg LaRose/Louisiana Illuminator)

Wisconsin Republicans are again turning their focus towards LGBTQ+ youth, especially those who are transgender, introducing bills that would prohibit gender-affirming care for youth, ban students from playing on certain sports teams and mandate that school districts get permission from parents when using different names and pronouns for students. 

The four bills come as President Donald Trump has signed a slate of executive orders targeting transgender people. The bills have received pushback from the Wisconsin Legislative LGBTQ+ Caucus, the Transgender Parent and Non-Binary Advocacy Caucus and LGBTQ+ advocacy organizations. 

Sen. Mark Spreitzer (D-Beloit), chair of the LGBTQ+ caucus, told the Wisconsin Examiner that the bills are “part of broader national Republican effort” to attack trans people. 

“Republicans are now trying to essentially legislate trans people out of existence by denying medically necessary life-saving care, by preventing people from playing team sports, by trying to make it harder for people to be called by the name and pronouns that they go by when they’re in school,” Spreitzer said. 

Targeting transgender athletes

The first two bills would ban transgender girls in Wisconsin K-12 schools and transgender women attending UW System schools and Wisconsin technical colleges from participating on teams that reflect their gender identity. 

The bills’ introduction followed the Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association decision in early February to change its policy, which previously permitted transgender athletes to compete on teams consistent with their gender identity. In response to an executive order signed by Trump, the new policy prohibits an athlete from competing on a team that does not match the biological sex that they were assigned when they were born.

“Working in consultation with legal counsel, our Board updated this policy to ensure clarity is provided to our membership as they work to comply with new federal guidance from the White House,” Stephanie Hauser, executive director of the WIAA, said in a statement. 

The WIAA’s decision was celebrated by Reps. Barbara Dittrich (R-Oconomowoc) and Dan Knodl (R-Germantown), who have led unsuccessful efforts in the Legislature to restrict what teams transgender athletes play on for many years. The lawmakers said in a column that they would reintroduce a bill “to secure women’s and girls’ rights in Wisconsin.”

FAIR Wisconsin Executive Director Abigail Swetz said in a statement that sports should be an inclusive space for youth. 

“When an athlete gets to play sports on a team where they belong, that can make such a huge difference, and that is especially true for our trans athletes when the trans community is under attack from a hostile federal government. Now is the time to show our trans kids love and support, not exclusion,” Swetz said. “Our trans kids and young adults, and all trans Wisconsinites, need to know that there are so many people in this state who love you exactly as you are. The fact that a few members of the Wisconsin legislature want to play political games with your joy is inappropriate.” 

Swetz said in an email to the Wisconsin Examiner that the decisions by lawmakers and by the WIAA are examples of the power that the Trump administration is trying to exert on policies at all levels, “using their platform in a calculated, chaotic, and hateful way.”

“There is so much a federal administration cannot do, but let’s be real here, this administration is trying to govern by executive overreach, and although I do not think they will succeed in changing many federal laws, there is power in their federal agencies and also in their significant use of the very loud microphone at their disposal,” Swetz said.

The anti-trans orders “will undoubtedly create a chilling effect of pre-compliance,” Swetz added. “We cannot allow obedience in advance, although we’re already seeing it; the WIAA ruling is a disappointing example of pre-compliance, and it’s frankly antithetical to the values WIAA espouses.”

Gender-affirming care for minors

Another bill — coauthored by Sen. Cory Tomczyk (R-Mosinee), Rep. Scott Allen (R-Waukesha), Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) — would ban gender- affirming care for people under the age of 18. It would prohibit health care providers from engaging in or making referrals for medical intervention “if done for the purpose of changing the minor’s body to correspond to a sex that is discordant with the minor’s biological sex,” including prescribing puberty-blocking drugs or gender-affirming surgery for minors.

“Our children are not experiments and parents should not be scared or pressured into having their children receive non-medically necessary drugs or irreversible procedures before their brains are fully developed,” the authors wrote in a memo. 

Health care providers under the bill could be investigated and have their licenses revoked by the Board of Nursing, the Medical Examining Board and the Physician Assistant Affiliated Credentialing Board if there are allegations that they have provided this type of care to a minor.

Following an executive order by Trump to withhold funds from medical institutions that provide gender affirming care and to require federal health programs to exclude coverage of gender-affirming surgeries and hormone treatments for young people by 2026, Children’s Wisconsin hospital paused gender-affirming care for teens. The hospital reinstated the practice.

Spreitzer called the bill the “cruelest” of the proposals. 

“Republicans are touting this idea that kids shouldn’t make permanent medical decisions until they’re 18,” Spreitzer said. “There are plenty of permanent medical decisions that need to be made before the age of 18 because of different conditions, and that’s why doctors exist.”

He added that such decisions “should be made between doctors, parents and the affected young people, based on medical necessity, based on rigorous medical evaluation, and politicians should not be inserting themselves into that.”

Spreitzer said that medications to delay puberty are intended to give young people the chance to grow up and potentially be able to make additional medical decisions once they turn 18. He said that banning them could create significant psychological harm and leave permanent physical effects that may require additional medical interventions in the future that wouldn’t have been necessary if they’ve been able to take puberty blockers. 

The process for gender affirming care is lengthy and is a decision that includes the child, their families and health providers, including mental health providers, and gender affirming care before 18 mostly focuses on pubertal suppression or hormone therapy.

Studies have found that de-transitioning is quite rare, according to the Human Rights Campaign, and one study found that transgender youth who start hormones with their parents’ assistance before age 18 years are less likely to detransition compared with those that start as adults.

Spreitzer noted that those under 18 who have been receiving care would also have to stop receiving it. The bill would include a six-month period before it goes into effect which would be meant for health care providers to discontinue care for minor patients 

“People are going to essentially be told in six months you’re going to have to stop taking medications you’re currently on, and you’re going to have to go through puberty as a sex that you don’t identify with. That is going to create incredible trauma for those young people,” Spreitzer said.

Names and pronouns

The fourth bill introduced last week would require school districts to implement policies stating that parents determine the names and pronouns used by school staff. The proposed policies must require a parent’s written authorization for school employees to use something different. 

The bill includes an exception if a nickname is a shortened version of a student’s legal first or middle name.

Bill authors Dittrich and Sen. Andre Jacque (R-New Franken) said the legislation is in response to parents feeling like schools are excluding them. The bill was modeled after a policy implemented by Arrowhead High School in 2022, even as there was some pushback from students and families.

“Its intent is not to punish children or eliminate their ‘safe spaces,’” the bill authors wrote in a memo. “Instead, the goal is to ensure transparency and prevent school district employees from withholding or, in some cases, encouraging life-changing decisions regarding a child’s sexuality or gender identity without parental involvement.” 

Spreitzer said the bill was poorly drafted. Besides “making it just harder for trans students to be called by the name and pronouns that they use in everyday life, it would really put school districts in a ridiculous position,” he said. 

“People go by all sorts of nicknames in everyday life — maybe it’s a version of their last name, maybe it’s a totally different name. It’s not as simple as just a shortened version of your first or middle name for everybody,” Spretizer said. “This is the Legislature trying to micromanage decisions that are made in everyday life without great controversy, and inserting itself into every school district, and I think it just would have absolutely absurd effects that the authors have not even thought of.” 

Spreitzer said bills targeting transgender youth are not particularly new in Wisconsin. He noted that in 2011 a bill that would have restricted bathroom use for transgender people was introduced, but it never got to then-Gov. Scott Walker’s desk. 

“It’s obviously become more front and center, just seeing how early in the legislative session these are being put out, and how much of coordinated effort there seems to be with bills coming out three different days this week, all attacking trans people,” Spreitzer said. 

Spreitzer said that even in the current national political environment, advocates opposed to such legislation are in a stronger position than in the past. Gov. Tony Evers has vetoed similar legislation in the past and has pledged to continue vetoing such legislation, he noted. The Legislature’s LGBTQ+ caucus has a record number of members this year — 12 lawmakers from across the state including Eau Claire, Appleton, Ashland and Green Bay.

“While we are deeply concerned about what’s coming down from Washington DC, we are in a very strong position to not only stop attacks on the LGBTQ+ community here in Wisconsin, but hopefully in two years, to be in a majority and be able to pass proactive legislation and protect equality,” Spreitzer said.

Swetz told the Wisconsin Examiner that FAIR Wisconsin will continue working with local, state and federal elected officials to strengthen protections for LGTBQ+ people. 

“I think fear is understandable. There is a lot that’s uncertain. I’m scared, too. I also think we have to remember that the LGBTQ+ community has always faced hostility, often from the government, and we are still here,” Swetz wrote. “This is a moment to organize and mobilize and most importantly, to take care of ourselves and our community.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Charlotte Cravins, left, attends an event with her husband, Calvin Bell, and their children, infant son Landry Bell and daughter Lyric Bell. Landry was born with Down syndrome and is blind in one eye. Charlotte is worried that a lawsuit challenging part of a 50-year-old federal disability rights law could remove protections for children with disabilities, like Landry. (Courtesy of Charlotte Cravins)

A push by Republican attorneys general in 17 states to strike down part of a federal law that protects disabled people from discrimination has prompted an outcry from advocates, parents and some local officials.

The GOP-led lawsuit targets certain protections for transgender people. But some experts warn it has the potential to weaken federal protections for all people with disabilities.

Texas GOP Attorney General Ken Paxton sued the federal government in September over the Biden administration’s addition of a gender identity-related disorder to the disabilities protected under a section of a 1973 federal law.

Republican attorneys general from 16 other states joined the lawsuit: Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah and West Virginia.

But the AGs face a growing public backlash that stems from conflicting messages about what the lawsuit would actually do.

“The disability community is outraged and scared,” said Charlotte Cravins, a Baton Rouge, Louisiana, attorney whose 1-year-old son has Down syndrome and is blind in one eye.

Cravins and other parents and advocates point to parts of the lawsuit in which the plaintiffs ask the court to find an entire section of the law unconstitutional. If the court agrees, they think it would allow schools, workplaces, hospitals and other entities to refuse to provide accommodations they’ve been required to provide for the past 50 years.

“It would affect so many people that every person in our state — really, in our country — should be concerned,” Cravins said. “If they can erase protections for disabled children, then who’s next?”

The provision in question, Section 504 of the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973, prohibits entities that receive federal funding from discriminating based on disability. For example, the law prohibits hospitals from denying organ transplants to people because they have a disability. It requires schools to allow deaf students to use speech-to-text technology. The law covers a wide range of disabilities, including vision and hearing impairments, autism, diabetes, Down syndrome, dyslexia and ADHD.

Last May, the Biden administration issued a rule that added to the covered disabilities “gender dysphoria,” the psychological distress that people may experience when their gender identity doesn’t match their sex assigned at birth. Gender dysphoria is defined in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

In recent days, national disability rights groups — including the American Council of the Blind, the National Down Syndrome Society, the National Association of the Deaf and the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund — have encouraged the public to speak out, sparking a surge of activity on social media and calls to state lawmakers.

AGs respond

Despite the public backlash, some state AGs are digging in their heels.

Georgia Republican Attorney General Chris Carr insists the lawsuit wouldn’t affect existing disability protections. Instead, he said, it merely aims to reverse the Biden administration’s addition of gender dysphoria to the law’s protected disabilities.

“The constitutionality of 504 was never in question,” Carr said in a statement to Stateline. “We are fighting one woke policy added by Biden for virtue signaling.”

He said most Georgians don’t believe gender dysphoria should be treated as an eligible disability “as if it’s the same as Down syndrome or dyslexia or autism.”

Arkansas Republican Attorney General Tim Griffin issued a statement last week claiming that if the states win the lawsuit, “regulations would go back to what they were” before gender dysphoria was added to the law. He said that a ruling declaring Section 504 unconstitutional would only mean the federal government couldn’t revoke funding over a failure to comply with the part of the law protecting gender dysphoria.

But Erwin Chemerinsky, a constitutional law expert and the dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, wrote in an email that the lawsuit clearly asks the court to declare the entirety of Section 504 unconstitutional. He called the request “truly stunning.”

The lawsuit is currently on hold. Shortly after President Donald Trump took office on Jan. 20, the parties in the case agreed to pause litigation while the new administration reevaluates the federal government’s position. Status reports are due to a judge later this month. Some of the AGs involved in the lawsuit, including Georgia’s Carr and West Virginia Republican Attorney General J.B. McCuskey, have said they expect the Trump administration to reverse the Biden rule. That could cause the AGs’ lawsuit to be dropped.

Meanwhile, as public pressure escalates, some AGs are distancing themselves from the suit.

South Carolina Republican Attorney General Alan Wilson said in a statement last week that Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order stating that “it is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female” resolved his concerns. “Our mission is complete,” Wilson said. Some advocates understood his statement to mean he might withdraw South Carolina from the lawsuit.

However, a spokesperson for his office told Stateline that South Carolina would not be withdrawing from the lawsuit, but would be filing a notice with the court this week to clarify that the state is not asking for Section 504 to be declared unconstitutional.

Utah Republican Attorney General Derek Brown said in a statement that Utah joined the lawsuit before he took office and that he doesn’t think Section 504 will be invalidated because “the Trump administration will soon withdraw the regulation” that added gender dysphoria to the list of disabilities.

The AGs argue that established federal law does not consider gender identity disorders to be disabilities. They say allowing the Biden rule to remain in place would let the government withhold federal funding from schools unless they allow transgender students to compete in sports or use locker rooms that match their gender identity.

Grassroots efforts

Cravins, the Louisiana attorney and mother, sent a letter this week to Louisiana Republican Attorney General Liz Murrill, asking her to drop Louisiana from the lawsuit.

Murrill issued a statement Wednesday expressing support for people with disabilities and saying her office is “actively seeking a resolution with the Trump administration” to withdraw the Biden rule while keeping the law’s previous protections intact.

Cravins said her son depends on Section 504 protections to access specialized therapies, and will rely on those protections even more as he approaches school age. Section 504 will help ensure he receives access to vision-related support, therapy and other accommodations in school.

Cravins believes the AGs that signed onto the lawsuit aren’t being honest about its potential impact to protections for all people with disabilities.

“For them to say one thing and the lawsuit to say another, I can’t imagine it’s anything other than them being disingenuous with their constituents,” she said.

Ryan Renaud, a school board representative for one of the largest public school districts in Alabama, said a concerned parent who also is an attorney contacted him last week, after reading a story about Alabama Republican Attorney General Steve Marshall joining the lawsuit. More calls soon followed.

“We’ve been hearing from dozens of parents in the last couple of days,” Renaud told Stateline. Without Section 504 protections, he said, students could lose access to a wide range of accommodations, from classroom aides to extra time to take tests.

The impacts could extend beyond what most people think of when they think of special education, he said.

“This includes students with ADHD, heart disease, depression, visual impairment, diabetes,” Renaud said. “Accommodations that come with those health concerns also fall under 504 plan protection.

“When a student doesn’t have those accommodations, they become less secure in class and teachers are less able to manage their classrooms.”

He’s also worried that the funding from the U.S. Department of Education that helps pay for those accommodations could vanish if federal law no longer requires them. Trump has vowed to dismantle the agency.

“We spend on average $30 million a year or more on special education, and more than a quarter of that is provided by the federal government,” he said. “If [accommodations] aren’t federally protected and the Department of Education doesn’t have the authority to disburse the funds, we have to assume we’d have to pick up that slack through local or state funding.

“And it’s hard to believe Alabama would cough up tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to supplement these costs.”

Last year, the U.S. Department of Education reported that 1.6 million students with disabilities were served under Section 504 nationwide during the 2020-2021 school year.

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE