A border patrol agent stands in front of protestors as people gather near the scene of 26th Street West and Nicollet Avenue, where federal agents shot and killed a 37-year-old man Saturday, Jan. 24, 2026, the third shooting in as many weeks. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer)

A Border Patrol agent warned Nicole Cleland last month that she’d be arrested if she were again discovered following and observing federal officers. 

Three days later, the 56-year-old Richfield resident received an email saying her expedited airport security screening privileges had been revoked.

Cleland is a frequent traveler and had held Global Entry and TSA PreCheck status without incident since 2014. So the timing of the notice seemed curious, she said in a sworn declaration filed in support of the American Civil Liberties Union’s lawsuit challenging federal law enforcement tactics in Minnesota. The Border Patrol and Transportation Security Administration are both subdivisions of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, as is U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

“Given that only three days had passed from the time that I was stopped, I am concerned that the revocation was the result of me following and observing the agents. This is intimidation and retaliation,” Cleland said in the declaration.  

A year into the second Trump administration’s immigration crackdown, Cleland is one of countless U.S. residents and visitors touched by the federal government’s rapidly changing data collection and surveillance apparatus. Some, like an AI-powered social media analyzer and an error-prone facial recognition tool, evoke dystopian sci-fi. Others, like automatic license plate readers, have been around for decades. 

Elected officials, privacy advocates, and ordinary community members working as constitutional observers are increasingly alarmed that the Trump administration could use these tools to chill constitutionally protected expression, while at the same time pressuring tech companies — many of which have cozied up to Trump in his second term — to make it harder for Americans to keep tabs on their government. 

Senior administration officials haven’t done much to dispel those concerns. Tom Homan, the “border czar” who’s now the face of Operation Metro Surge in Minnesota, said on Jan. 15 that he’s pushing to create a “database” of people who “interfere or impede or assault an ICE officer.” 

Such a database wouldn’t outwardly differ much from the numerous information repositories the federal government already maintains. But its purpose — and, in some cases, the tools used to collect and analyze the data — may prove to be a new frontier in the emerging surveillance state.  

Facial recognition software

The Border Patrol agent who warned Cleland told her his unit had “facial recognition,” according to her deposition.

Reporting by 404 Media and other media outlets indicates that ICE and other federal immigration enforcement agencies use multiple AI-powered facial recognition tools, including Mobile Fortify and Clearview AI. Local law enforcement agencies deputized to work with ICE use a different facial recognition app, Mobile Identify, according to NPR.

DHS has used facial recognition software at airports and land border crossings for years, but its use in the field is a more recent development that civil liberties experts say represents a major expansion of government surveillance. 

Using proprietary algorithms, the tools try to match images captured in the field with data already in DHS databases, including names, birthdates, citizenship status and photos taken at U.S. entry points. DHS says it retains “biographic exit data” on U.S. citizens and permanent residents for 15 years, though it’s unclear whether this applies to images collected in the field as well.

Even before Operation Metro Surge began in earnest, lawmakers sounded alarms about the implications.

“This type of on-demand surveillance is harrowing and it should put all of us on guard,” U.S. Sen. Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, told NPR in November.

Human analytics apps

ICE also uses AI-powered apps to analyze social media activity and other digital data points to create “life profiles” for people of interest.

The agency has spent at least $5 million on Tangles, a sophisticated tool developed by a company with ties to Israel’s cyber-intelligence community, Forbes reported in September. Tangles mines social media posts, event sign-ups, mobile contacts, location data and more to create nuanced individual portraits and tease out patterns of activity — including organizing and protest — in specific places.

“Our powerful web intelligence solution monitors online activity, collecting and analyzing data of endless digital channels – from the open, deep and dark web, to mobile and social,” Tangles’ Microsoft Marketplace listing says.

The Verge reported in October that ICE has spent a similar amount on another digital monitoring tool called Zignal Labs, which uses AI text and video analysis to process billions of social media posts daily into what it calls “curated detection feeds.” The product includes near real-time alerts. “Sample workflows” featured in a Zignal Labs marketing pamphlet shared with The Lever include “an ongoing operation in Gaza” and a 2023 social media post purporting to show U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh at the Mall of America.

Cellular snooping

Since September 2024, ICE has paid more than $1.6 million to a Maryland company that integrates a type of cell-site simulator popularly known as a “stingray” into government vehicles. 

TechCrunch first reported the purchases, which are a matter of public record. It’s unclear how often ICE uses vehicles equipped with stingrays in its operations, but a Utah judge reportedly authorized the agency to use one to track down a specific individual last summer. 

Stingrays trick nearby cell phones into connecting with them instead of legitimate transmitters, collecting reams of random users’ data in the process. That, plus past instances of warrantless snooping, makes them controversial even among law enforcement agencies. Ars Technica reported in 2015 that the FBI required local law enforcement agencies to drop cases rather than reveal evidence in court that “would potentially or actually compromise the equipment/technology.”

ICE is also interested in using — and may already be using — another cell-snooping tool that requires no external hardware. 

Last summer, the independent national security journalist Jack Poulson reported that the agency had reactivated a $2 million contract with the Israeli spyware developer Paragon Solutions. Once delivered via text message — no link required — Paragon’s spyware gains broad access to a phone’s contents, including encrypted messages.

“It’s an extremely dangerous surveillance tech that really goes against our Fourth Amendment protections,” Jeramie Scott, senior counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, told NPR in November.

President Donald Trump addresses the Detroit Economic Club at the MotorCity Casino on Jan. 13, 2025. (Photo by Ben Solis/Michigan Advance)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump outlined his health care proposals to Congress on Thursday, asking lawmakers to approve several broad policy changes “without delay” — but left out any mention of enhanced tax credits whose expiration has left some Americans with skyrocketing costs. 

Health care costs, especially the rising price of health insurance, have become a frequent talking point for politicians from both political parties following last year’s government shutdown, when Democrats repeatedly called on Republicans to extend the now-expired enhanced tax credits for Affordable Care Act marketplace plans. 

Trump reiterated in a five-minute video that he wants Congress to give Americans money directly so they can use it to offset the cost of health insurance or health care, a proposal that has so far been unable to get the traction needed to advance on Capitol Hill. 

Trump didn’t detail any income caps on the direct payments, which would likely be sent to Health Savings Accounts as opposed to a simple check. He also didn’t say how much per month or annually he wants lawmakers to provide Americans, leaving it for members of Congress to hash out. 

“The government is going to pay the money directly to you. It goes to you, and then you take the money and buy your own health care,” Trump said. “Nobody has ever heard of that before, and that’s the way it is. The big insurance companies lose and the people of our country win.”

The enhanced ACA marketplace tax credits, first implemented by Democrats during the coronavirus pandemic, expired at the end of 2025. The subsidies helped to keep premiums lower than they would have otherwise been for about 22 million Americans on those health insurance plans. 

The House voted earlier this month to keep the enhanced tax credits going for another three years, but the bill has stalled in the Senate as a bipartisan group of lawmakers tries to reach consensus on two more years of the subsidies with significant changes. 

Lower drug prices

Trump said in the video that Congress should approve legislation that requires prescription drug companies to ensure Americans pay the lowest price in the world for pharmaceuticals, a policy known as “most favored nation” that he has pursued during his second term. 

“So instead of Americans paying the highest drug prices in the world, which we have for decades, we will now be paying the lowest cost paid by any other nation,” he said. “So any other nation that’s paying the lowest cost, that’s what we’re going to pay. And the American people will get the savings.”

Trump said the legislative request, which he dubbed “The Great Health Care Plan,” would require health insurance companies and health care providers to publicly share easy-to-understand information about what they charge and how much they make in profit.  

“As the saying goes, sunlight is the best disinfectant. That is why my plan orders all insurance companies to publish rate and coverage comparisons in very plain English,” Trump said. “It requires insurers to publish detailed information about how much of your money they’re going to be paying out in claims versus how much they’re taking in in profits.” 

Health insurance companies, he said, would be required to detail how many claims they deny and whether those refusals to pay for health care were overturned on appeal. 

“And most importantly, it will require any hospital or insurer who accepts Medicare or Medicaid to prominently post all prices at their place of business so that you are never surprised and you can easily shop for a better deal or better care,” Trump said, though a 2019 rule created a similar requirement. “We will have maximum price transparency and costs will come down incredibly.”

Path through Congress

A one-page outline of the proposal posted to the White House website doesn’t detail whether Trump wants Congress to approve the policy requests through the complex budget reconciliation process that Republicans used to approve the “big, beautiful” law this summer or to negotiate a bipartisan bill with Democrats. 

A White House official, speaking on background on a call with reporters to detail the plan and the next steps, said the administration believes the “proposals all have broad support from the American people.”

“We expect both Republicans and Democrats to be able to embrace them, so reconciliation would not be necessary,” the official said.

The framework is intended to provide “broad direction” to lawmakers, leaving negotiators the ability to take any bill they may write in different directions, the official said, adding the administration is “open to working” with Congress on the details. 

“We want to make progress,” the official said. “We’re not laying out a specific path.”

The official said the president leaving out any mention of the expired enhanced tax credits for people who purchase their health insurance from the Affordable Care Act marketplace was not intended to cut off ongoing bipartisan talks in the Senate. 

“This does not specifically address those bipartisan congressional negotiations that are going on,” the official said. “It does say that we have a preference that money goes to people, as opposed to insurance companies.”

Engaging drugmakers

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz said on the same call with reporters that the framework focused on “four pillars” the administration believes must be codified into law — solidifying most favored nation drug pricing, lowering health insurance costs, transparency from health insurance companies and more pricing information from health care providers. 

“Although we’re taking major action at CMS, including fines and the like, having Congress say, ‘This is how it’s going to be, this is a law of the land’ is important,” Oz said, adding that he really does believe there can be bipartisan support for at least some of the proposals. 

Oz said the administration’s approach to bring down the cost of prescription drugs to the lowest level offered anywhere in the world is not intended to impede innovation and reiterated that lawmaking is crucial for longer-term stability. 

“We believe by codifying it, we’ll make sure that the drug companies stay engaged for future administrations,” Oz said. “We also believe that by doing it correctly, we’ll not overreach and create challenges to life-saving drugs being continually evolved and developed in the United States.”

The Trump administration, he said, wants Congress to give the Food and Drug Administration more leeway to convert prescription medications to over-the-counter availability, possibly increasing competition and decreasing prices. 

Oz said the price transparency portion of the request would help Americans to have more information about how long it takes to get routine appointments and whether health insurance companies are able to keep their rates down by frequently denying claims.

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

A Wisconsin Senate Committee held a public hearing Tuesday on a bill that would allow private companies to construct small solar projects on underutilized farmland and commercial rooftops across the state. 

The bill, which would encroach on the monopoly the state’s existing utility companies are allowed to maintain under state law, is being considered while people across the country worry about rising energy costs amid a boom in the construction of data centers and the increased use of electric vehicles and appliances. 

Environmental groups in the state have also regularly complained that the utility companies aren’t constructing enough renewable energy projects or sunsetting existing coal and natural gas power plants quickly enough. 

The bill, authored by Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point) and Rep. Scott Krug (R-Nekoosa), would allow people in Wisconsin to subscribe to get some of their power from a local “community solar” installation. The subscribers would receive credits they can put toward their utility bill. Because the power developed at the local solar installation will still need to travel through the utility company’s infrastructure, the bill includes a provision that all subscribers to the program would have to pay at least $20 per month on their electric bill. 

In the hearing of the Senate Committee on Transportation and Local Government, the bill’s authors said allowing community solar projects would increase people’s energy choices while allowing the expansion of solar power in the state that avoids the objections from local residents that often come with large, utility-scale solar projects. 

“This change will open a new market sector in a high energy industry, attract economic investments in Wisconsin, create local jobs, drive innovation and competition, and ultimately save consumers and small businesses money on their energy bills,” Testin said. 

But the authors also acknowledged there is still a lot of disagreement over the details and the bill is not yet in its final form. 

“We’re not exactly there yet. We’re not all agreeing on this being the best way forward just yet, but this public hearing is a really important step to vet that out a little bit more to get us closer to that answer,” Krug said. “So yes, there are still some kinks to work out between the utilities and individuals who want a more market-based approach to solar. I hope we can work through those issues here.”

Over the hearing’s three and a half hours, the testimony split among two groups — the utility companies who are opposed to the bill and a coalition of solar companies, economists, farmers and employers who are in favor. 

The utility companies accused the bill of creating a “shell game” that would lower the costs for the subscribers of a given project while raising electric bills for everyone else. Zack Hill, testifying on behalf of Alliant Energy, said the utility estimated that community solar would result in an additional $8.75 billion in costs for ratepayers over the next 25 years. 

“How does [the bill] pay for subscribers 10 to 20% energy savings? The short answer: It will shift costs to your other constituents,” Hill said. “Some have said this sounds like community solar voodoo economics, but all you have to remember is this, when a company promises you a discount, someone else has to pay for it.”

People in favor of the bill argued that the generation of more energy could only help lower energy costs while disputing the utility companies’ claims. Will Flanders, the research director at the conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, also said the utilities’ estimates undervalue the benefits that community solar can add. 

“This is a model that expands energy choice without large subsidies, without mandates, without turning more power over to monopoly utilities,” Flanders said. “In fact, it introduces competition at a time when Wisconsin needs it the most.” 

“We argue that community solar can deliver net savings to the entire system,” he continued. “When we talk about a shell game, what we’re really saying is there’s no real additional resources being put into the system, but obviously there is additional resources being put in when we have these with these programs in place.” 

Karl Rabago, a Denver-based energy consultant who testified with Flanders, said that the Alliant $8.75 billion estimate amounted to a threat that if the utilities don’t get to sell the energy, they’ll charge consumers for that loss. 

“No one knows where this number comes from, but having seen how utilities make their case in other states, I am 99.9% confident they are basically saying, ‘If we don’t get to make the electricity and sell it, we could potentially lose $8.75 billion and and if we don’t make that money, we’re going to charge you for it anyway,’ and that’s how customer costs could go up,” Rabago said. “That’s the most likely explanation for a histrionic number. The utility position, to summarize, seems to sound a bit like ‘let us do it all and no one gets hurt.’ We’ve heard those kinds of exhortations. Monopolies do it particularly well.” 

Toward the end of the hearing, a number of Wisconsin property owners testified, touting the benefits they’ll receive if they’re able to allow solar projects to be constructed on their land. 

Duane Hinchley, a Cambridge dairy farmer, said community solar is an “innovative solution” that can give farmers a stable income to hedge against the risks in the agriculture business. Plus, he said, allowing farmers to participate will prevent land that has been farmed for generations from being developed into subdivisions. 

“With the right policies in place, our state’s proud agricultural heritage can be a cornerstone of Wisconsin’s clean energy future,” Hinchley said. 

But throughout the day, lawmakers from both parties appeared skeptical of the bill’s benefits. 

Sen. Van Wanggaard (R-Racine) said repeatedly he didn’t understand how the program would work for the utility companies. 

“It sounds like a shell game to me,” he said. “I just, I’m really having a challenge with trying to figure out how that would work, because it would seem to me that the energy company, the regulated company, is the one that’s going to be footing the bill for this.” 

Sen. Mark Spreitzer (D-Beloit) questioned how the program wouldn’t eventually raise energy costs for non-participants, but said one selling point for the bill was that it would encourage the increased development of renewable energy. 

“I heard you say this is going to force more solar to be built, whether or not you need it,” Spreitzer said to a utility company representative. “And I guess that, to me, is the one selling point of the bill. Is that I look at where we’ve been in the landscape lately, where we have, unfortunately, federal incentives for solar that are going away. We have increasing demand for power from data centers. We’re seeing new natural gas plants get built. We’re seeing coal plants not being retired, when we hoped they would. To me, there’s plenty of need for solar.” 

If the utility companies won’t support a community solar proposal, Spreitzer wondered, what do they need from the Legislature to encourage more solar development? 

“And so if we’re not going to go down this route, what are the incentives that you all need to make sure that we can continue to drive solar development without increasing rates for customers and without saying, ‘let’s go build a natural gas plant instead?” he asked. 

Anti-rights of nature bill 

Also on Tuesday, the committee heard testimony on a bill from Sen. Steve Nass (R-Whitewater) that would prohibit local governments in Wisconsin from enacting “rights of nature” ordinances, which grant natural elements legal rights that can be protected in court. 

Nass said in his testimony that the idea is anti-American and is contrary to the values of the U.S. Constitution.

“This is a radical departure from our current law. Rights are something that human beings have,” Nass said. “This concept of granting nature rights is something that has been done primarily in foreign countries … and many of these countries lean dramatically towards socialism and communism, and their attitude is not compatible with private property rights in our country.”

But proponents of rights of nature resolutions frequently point to the fact that corporations are granted rights under U.S. law. Communities including Green Bay and Milwaukee have passed or begun drafting rights of nature ordinances and some Democratic lawmakers have introduced a bill that would grant Devil’s Lake State Park some rights that can be protected in court. 

In a statement after the hearing, Rep. Vincent Miresse (D-Stevens Point), one of the co-authors of the Democratic proposal, wrote, “As we heard from advocates today, Rights of Nature is one of the strongest tools local governments have to protect clean air, clean water and healthy soil for future generations — so that our grandchildren, and their children after them, can drink our waters, eat food grown in our soils, and hunt in our forests.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Pharmaceutical companies spent over $10.1 billion on drug advertising in 2024 with the top 10 drugs accounting for a third of spending. Over $5 billion of the spending was on TV ads, with the other half spent on radio, print, streaming and online ads.  

The advertising for these pharmaceutical companies made up 24.4% of evening ad minutes on news programs through ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and NBC between Jan. 1 and May 31 of this year. 

Drug company AbbVie spent the most, totaling over $1 billion on ads for Skyrizi and Rinvoq, which are used to treat inflammatory conditions. AbbVie increased spending on advertisements for Skyrizi by 150%.

Between 2023 and 2024, consumer advertising of the weight management drug Wegovy increased 330%. During that period, usage among teens increased 50%.

The U.S. is one of only two countries that allow direct pharmaceutical advertising.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

• MediaRadar: Leading Prescription Brands by Media Spend
• Wisconsin Watch: Email from John Cassillo, head of analytics and trend reporting for Fabric Media
• Wall Street Journal: Senators Propose Ban on Drug Advertising to Consumers
• Fierce Pharma: The top 10 pharma drug ad spenders of 2024
• University of Michigan: Michigan Medicine: Young people are increasingly using Wegovy and Ozempic
• NBC News: Wegovy use among U.S. teens up 50% as obesity crisis worsens

Did drug companies spend $10 billion on consumer advertising in 2024, making up nearly 25% of evening ad minutes? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Offshore wind supply chain faces systemic pressure as 2030 clean energy targets loom – Shoreline Wind report  Governments should provide clearer policies and integrate new tender criteria, while developers can empower smaller firms through standardized contracts, improved payment terms, and collaboration with specialist service providers    Smaller firms are particularly vulnerable, struggling to compete and …

The post Offshore wind supply chain appeared first on Alternative Energy HQ.