Reading Time: < 1 minute

Millions of nondisabled working-age adults have enrolled in Medicaid since the Affordable Care Act expanded eligibility in 2014.

Medicaid is health insurance for low-income people.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that in 2024, average monthly Medicaid enrollment included 34 million nonelderly, nondisabled adults – 15 million made eligible by Obamacare.

Two smaller estimates used U.S. Census survey data.

The White House Council of Economic Advisers said there were 27 million nondisabled working-age (age 19-64) Medicaid recipients in 2024.

That’s similar to the 26 million for 2023 estimated by the nonpartisan health policy organization KFF. That figure includes people who are disabled.

KFF said 44% worked full time and 20% part time, many for small companies, and aren’t eligible for health insurance.

Medicaid costs nearly $900 billion annually, two-thirds from the federal government, one-third from the states.

Forty states, excluding Wisconsin, adopted the Obamacare Medicaid expansion.
Congress is considering President Donald Trump’s proposal adding work requirements for Medicaid.

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

Sources

• KFF: The Affordable Care Act 101
• U.S. Health and Human Services Department: What’s the difference between Medicare and Medicaid?
• Congressional Budget Office: Medicaid June 2024
• White House Council of Economic Advisers: Medicaid Community Engagement Requirements and the Value of Work
• KFF: Understanding the Intersection of Medicaid and Work: An Update
• Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission: Medicaid Spending by State, Category, and Source of Funds, FY 2023 (millions)
• KFF: 5 Key Facts About Medicaid Expansion

Have millions of nondisabled, working-age adults been added to Medicaid? 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.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Spending cuts proposed in President Donald Trump’s “big beautiful bill” would not be the largest ever, according to nonpartisan analysts.

The largest-cut claim was made by Republican U.S. Rep. Scott Fitzgerald, who represents part of southeastern Wisconsin, ahead of the House vote. His office cited a $1.7 trillion claim made by the Trump administration.

The House-passed version of the bill nominally would have cut $1.6 trillion in spending over 10 years.

But the bill’s net decreases were $1.2 trillion, after taking spending increases into account, and $680 billion after additional interest payments on the debt.

The heaviest spending reductions don’t begin until around 2031, increasing the chances that they could be changed by future legislation.

A $1.7 trillion net cut would be second to a 2011 law that decreased spending by $2 trillion and would be the third-largest cut as a percentage of gross domestic product, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

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

Sources

• Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget: House Spending Cuts Would Not Be Largest in History
• Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget: House Reconciliation Bill Barely Slows Spending Growth
• Cato Institute: Senate Big Beautiful Bill: More Growth, More Subsidies, More Debt
• Economic Policy Innovation Center: The Fiscal Effects of the Senate Reconciliation Bill
• The White House: Mythbuster: The One Big Beautiful Bill Cuts Spending, Deficit — and That’s a Fact
• Axios: Deficit hawks hate the latest version of the "big, beautiful bill"

Would Donald Trump’s big bill provide the largest federal spending cut in US history? 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.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Recent presidents have repeatedly ordered military attacks on other countries despite questions over whether congressional approval was needed.

The latest was Republican Donald Trump’s June 21 bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities. His administration said he had authority to limit nuclear proliferation.

Trump in 2017 cited national security interests for a missile strike on a Syrian base that was used to launch chemical weapon attacks on Syrian civilians. 

In 2021, Democrat Joe Biden ordered an airstrike on Iran-backed militia groups in Syria, citing “self-defense.” 

In 2011, Democrat Barack Obama ordered “limited” airstrikes on Libya. He said he was trying to protect pro-democracy protesters targeted by Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi. 

The Constitution says only Congress has the power to declare war.

But that provision “has never been interpreted — by either Congress or the executive branch — to require congressional authorization for every military action that the president could initiate,” a Council on Foreign Relations legal expert wrote.

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

Sources

• Council on Foreign Relations: Does Trump Have the Authority to Strike Iran?
• New York Times: Is the U.S. at War With Iran?
• Associated Press: US inserts itself into Israel’s war with Iran, striking 3 Iranian nuclear sites
• NPR: Trump administration defends Iranian strikes as some lawmakers question its legality
• CBS News: How Trump was able to order U.S. strikes on Syria without congressional approval
• DOD News: Trump Orders Missile Attack in Retaliation for Syrian Chemical Strikes
• Politico: Democrats renew push for war powers overhaul after Biden’s Syria strike
• CNN: Biden sends letter to congressional leadership explaining justification for Syria strike
• Politico: Obama approves airstrikes against Libya, March 19, 2011
• U.S. Justice Department: Authority to Use Military Force in Libya
• National Constitution Center: Does the president need Congress to approve military actions in Iran?
• National Constitution Center: U.S. Constitution Section 1

Have recent presidents of both parties ordered military attacks without congressional approval like Donald Trump did in Iran? 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.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Unauthorized immigrants are not eligible for traditional, federally funded Medicaid, which helps cover medical costs for low-income people.

They have never been eligible. A 1996 welfare reform law signed by Democratic President Bill Clinton also requires most authorized immigrants to wait five years for eligiblity.

Fourteen states, excluding Wisconsin, use state Medicaid funds to cover unauthorized immigrants. 

President Donald Trump has proposed reducing federal Medicaid funds to those states. That would cause 1.4 million people to lose coverage, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated. 

Medicaid costs nearly $900 billion annually, two-thirds from the federal government and one-third from the states.

In Wisconsin, Medicaid serves 1.28 million people, more than a third of them children. Among adults, 45% work full time, 28% part time. The annual cost is $12.1 billion, $4.2 billion of it in state spending.

While unauthorized immigrants can’t get Medicaid in Wisconsin, they can apply to receive emergency care covered by state Medicaid.

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

Sources

• Georgetown University: The Truth About Medicaid Coverage for Immigrants – and the Looming Threats
• KFF: 5 Key Facts About Immigrants and Medicaid
• Medicaid.gov: Eligibility Policy
• U.S. Health and Human Services Department: What’s the difference between Medicare and Medicaid?
• Civic Media: Trump & Musk Implode While Republicans Gut Your Healthcare | Rep. Mark Pocan Explains the Truth
• Rolling Stone: Mike Johnson and Russ Vought Continue to Lie About Medicaid Cuts
• Truth Social: Donald Trump post
• KFF: Which States Would Be Affected by a House Proposal to Cut Federal Medicaid Funding for States That Cover Undocumented Immigrants?
• ABC News: What will Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' do to Medicaid and SNAP?
• Georgetown University: Factchecking The White House “Mythbuster” on Medicaid Cuts and Immigrants
• Congressional Budget Office: Letter
• Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission: Medicaid Spending by State, Category, and Source of Funds, FY 2023
• Congress.gov: H.R.3734 – Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996
• Wisconsin Department of Health Services: Medicaid: Health Care Coverage for Noncitizens
• Wisconsin Watch: Medicaid covers 1.2 million in Wisconsin. The election will determine its future
• KFF: Medicaid in Wisconsin
• Wisconsin Department of Health Services: Medicaid: Health Care Coverage for Noncitizens Frequently Asked Questions
• Congressional Research Service: Unauthorized Immigrants’ Eligibility for Federal and State Benefits: Overview and Resources
• Congress.gov: H.R.3734 – Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996
• Wisconsin Department of Health Services: ForwardHealth: BadgerCare Plus and Medicaid Emergency Services
• Wisconsin Department of Health Services: Frequently Asked Questions
• National Health Law Program Q and A: The Legal Immigrant Children’s Health Improvement Act
• National Health Law Program Medicaid Coverage of Emergency Medical Conditions: An Update

Are unauthorized immigrants eligible for federal Medicaid coverage? 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.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

In April, 2,004 residents of Menominee County in northeast Wisconsin received benefits from the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

That’s about 46% of the county’s 4,300 residents.

SNAP, formerly known as food stamps and called FoodShare in Wisconsin, provides food assistance for low-income people.

Other reports show similar rates.

As of March 2024, 51% of residents in the Menominee tribal nation received SNAP, according to the nonpartisan Wisconsin Policy Forum. 

The latest U.S. Census data, for 2022, showed the rate for Menominee County was 49%.

American Indians constitute nearly 80% of the county’s population.

Menominee County’s rate was cited June 14 by U.S. Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-Ga., at the Wisconsin Democratic Party convention. He commented on President Donald Trump’s tax cut bill pending in Congress. It would remove an estimated 3.2 million people from SNAP, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

SNAP cost $100 billion in 2024, 1.5% of the federal budget.

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

Sources

• Wisconsin Department of Health Services: State Food Stamp/Foodshare Benefits and Participation Data
• U.S. Department of Agriculture: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
• Wisconsin Department of Health Services: FoodShare: Your Income Could Make You Eligible
• Wisconsin Policy Forum: FoodShare Use Remains High Post Pandemic
• U.S. Census Bureau: Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates — Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
• U.S. Census Bureau: Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates — Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Menominee County
• Wisconsin Democratic Party: WisDems 2025 Convention – Day 1
• Congressional Budget Office: Letter
• U.S. Department of Agriculture: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation and Costs
• The Journalist's Resource: As Congress considers cuts to SNAP, we address 8 questions about this US federal nutrition program

Do half the residents in one rural Wisconsin county receive food stamps? 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.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

The median stay in public housing in the U.S. is four years, a 2024 study of U.S. Housing and Urban Development Department data found. 

Median means half the tenants in public housing projects stayed more than four years, half stayed less.

The study, by researchers from the universities of Illinois and Kansas, covered 2000 to 2022 and 1 million public housing units. 

The average stay was 14 years, pulled higher by elderly and disabled residents, who tend to stay longer.

Republican U.S. Rep. Glenn Grothman, who represents part of eastern Wisconsin, said in May the average is 12 years. 

HUD’s dataset on June 12 showed the average is 12 years. Median was not available.

President Donald Trump has proposed a two-year limit on federal rental assistance for “able-bodied adults.”

Democratic Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers proposed more than doubling to $100 million credits available annually for Wisconsin low-income housing developments. Republicans drafting the state budget June 12 excluded that provision.

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

Sources

• U.S. Housing and Urban Development Department: Participation, Transition, and Length of Stay in Federal Housing Assistance Programs
• Forbes Breaking News: Glenn Grothman Condemns Federal Welfare System 'Filled With Horrible Incentives And Disincentives'
• U.S. Housing and Urban Development Department: Picture of Subsidized Households
• U.S. Housing and Urban Development Department: Picture of Subsidized Households — public housing, average months since moved in
• NPR: The Trump administration is working on a plan for time limits on rental aid
• U.S. Office of Management and Budget: Letter to Sen. Susan Collins
• Bipartisan Policy Center: President Trump’s FY2026 Budget: Overview of Changes to Federal Housing Programs
• Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau: Summary of Governor's Budget Recommendations
• Wisconsin Economic Development Association: Gov. Tony Evers Unveils 2025-27 Budget Proposal
• Washington Examiner: It’s Time for Time Limits on Public Housing
• American Enterprise Institute researcher Howard Husock: Email
• Wisconsin Legislature Omnibus motion

Does the typical public housing tenant in the US stay in public housing 12 years? 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.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Nonpartisan analysts estimate that President Donald Trump’s megabill would add at least $2 trillion to the national debt over 10 years.

The Congressional Budget Office’s preliminary estimate says the tax-and-spending bill now in Congress will add $2.3 trillion.

Other estimates are higher: Tax Foundation: $2.56 trillion; University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Wharton Budget Model: $2.79 trillion; Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget: $3.1 trillion, including interest payments.

Some estimates under $2 trillion account for projected economic growth, while other estimates over $5 trillion note some provisions in the bill are temporary and will likely be extended.

The debt, which is the accumulation of annual spending that exceeds revenues, is $36 trillion.

U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Milwaukee, and U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., claimed the bill would add trillions.

Among other things, the bill would make 2017 individual income tax cuts permanent, add work requirements for Medicaid and food assistance, and add funding for defense and more deportations.

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

Sources

• The Hill: GOP beats down key budget office over tax plan projections
• Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget: CBO's First Score of House Reconciliation Bill
• Tax Foundation: “Big Beautiful Bill” House GOP Tax Plan: Preliminary Details and Analysis
• Penn Wharton Budget Model: The House-Passed Reconciliation Bill: Illustrative Budget, Economic, and Distributional Effects with Permanence
• Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget: Breaking Down the One Big Beautiful Bill
• Wisconsin Watch: Did the US debt increase by $7.8 trillion during Donald Trump’s presidency?
• U.S. Treasury Department: Debt to the Penny
• U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore: Congresswoman Moore Slams Republican Cuts to Health Care to Pay for Tax Giveaways for the Wealthy
• PBS Wisconsin: Ron Johnson says Trump can't bully him off his deficit-reducing demands for a federal budget bill
• Associated Press: Trump’s ‘beautiful’ bill spans more than 1,000 pages. Here’s what’s inside it

Is Donald Trump’s megabill projected to add more than $2 trillion to the national debt? 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.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Have inflation-adjusted wages increased in the past decades? 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.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Was ‘global warming’ changed to ‘climate change’ because Earth stopped warming? 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.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

In the latest assessment, Mississippi’s fourth grade public school students scored higher than Wisconsin’s in reading proficiency, though the ratings “were not significantly different.”

The National Assessment of Educational Progress ratings, issued every two years, are administered by the U.S. Education Department.

In 2022, 33% of Wisconsin fourth graders rated “at or above proficient” in reading, vs. 31% in Mississippi.

In 2024, Wisconsin dropped to 31%; Mississippi rose to 32%.

NAEP said the states’ scores were “not significantly different.”

U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, who represents most of northern Wisconsin, claimed May 17 at the Wisconsin Republican Party convention Wisconsin had “fallen behind” Mississippi in reading. His office cited 2024 fourth grade scores.

Mississippi’s fourth grade scores surged in the past decade.

Among eighth graders, Wisconsin outperformed Mississippi in 2024 (31%-23%) and 2022 (32%-22%).

The Wisconsin Supreme Court is weighing a dispute between Democratic Gov. Tony Evers and the Republican-controlled Legislature over releasing $50 million in literacy funding.

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

Sources

• National Assessment of Educational Progress: About NAEP
• National Assessment of Educational Progress: Grade 4 Reading 2022
• National Assessment of Educational Progress: Grade 4 Reading 2024
• WisconsinEye: 2025 Republican Party of Wisconsin State Convention
• Associated Press: ‘Mississippi miracle’: Kids’ reading scores have soared in Deep South states
• National Assessment of Educational Progress: Grade 8 Reading 2024
• National Assessment of Educational Progress: Grade 8 Reading 2022
• WTMJ-TV: Wisconsin Supreme Court hears fight over literacy funding

Does Mississippi rank higher than Wisconsin in fourth grade reading scores? 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.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Most Americans would not face a tax increase near 65% if President Donald Trump’s tax cut extension does not become law.

The bill would extend income tax cuts set to expire Dec. 31. It would offset some costs with Medicaid and food stamp cuts.

The Tax Foundation estimates that if the cuts expire, 62% of taxpayers would see a tax increase in 2026. The average taxpayer’s increase would be 19.4% ($2,955).

House Republicans estimated 22%, a figure cited by the White House.

GOP U.S. Rep. Derrick Van Orden, who represents western Wisconsin, claimed May 17 at the Wisconsin Republican Party convention that “the vast majority of Americans” would see a 65% increase.

His office did not respond to requests for information.

Tax Policy Center expert Howard Gleckman said “there is no income group that would get anything like a 65% tax hike.”

University of Wisconsin-Madison economist Andrew Reschovsky also said the 65% claim is far from accurate.

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

Sources

• Congress.gov: H.R.1 – One Big Beautiful Bill Act
• Tax Foundation: Garrett Watson email
• X: House Republicans post
• The White House: Here’s What Happens if Trump Tax Cuts Aren’t Extended
• WisconsinEye: 2025 Republican Party of Wisconsin State Convention
• Tax Policy Center: Howard Gleckman email
• Wall Street Journal: GOP Races to Overcome Final Hurdles in Passing Trump Tax Bill

Would ‘the vast majority’ of Americans get a 65% tax increase if GOP megabill doesn’t become law? 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.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

As of May 21, all Milwaukee County teens who are the responsibility of the county and held in Wisconsin’s youth prisons were Black or Hispanic.

There were 28 teens (96.4% Black) under “non-serious juvenile offender” court orders.

That includes teens age 17 and under sentenced to the state-run Lincoln Hills or Copper Lake schools – where costs approach $500,000 per year per youth – or the Mendota mental health facility.

Milwaukee County official Kelly Pethke said the county pays for non-serious juvenile offenders; the state pays for juveniles who are sentenced for more serious felonies. Pethke said in early May there were 35 Milwaukee County teens under serious orders, but she didn’t have a racial breakdown. 

The Wisconsin Department of Corrections said May 22 it tracks racial data by region. Nine of 66 youths (13.6%) in the southeast region were white.

Researcher Monique Liston cited the racial disparity in a social media post.

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

Sources

• Milwaukee County: Youth In Our Care Dashboard May 21, 2025
• Milwaukee County: Youth In Our Care Dashboard
• Wisconsin Watch: One child, $463,000 per year: Ballooning costs of troubled Lincoln Hills youth prison
• LinkedIn: Monique Liston post
• Wisconsin Department of Corrections: Email

In May 2025, were all Milwaukee County teens under county authority in youth prisons Black or Hispanic? 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.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Transgender people – those who have a gender identity that differs from the sex assigned to them at birth – are not considered by medical authorities to have mental illness simply because they are transgender.

In 2013, the American Psychiatric Association revised its mental disorders manual and no longer listed being transgender as a mental disorder. 

“Gender identity disorder” was eliminated and replaced with “gender dysphoria.”

Gender dysphoria is a diagnosis for the distress experienced by some whose gender identity conflicts with their sex assigned at birth.

Numerous medical groups, including the World Health Organization, have stated that being trans is not a mental disorder.

U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., suggested May 17 at the Wisconsin Republican Party convention that being trans is a mental illness. She said “women shouldn’t be forced to share” facilities such as bathrooms “with mentally ill men.” 

Her campaign spokesperson did not provide information to support Mace’s reference to mental illness.

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

Sources

• Mayo Clinic: Transgender facts
• NBC News: Being transgender no longer a 'mental disorder': APA
• American Psychiatric Association: Gender Dysphoria Diagnosis
• Wisconsin Watch: What gender-affirming care means to these Wisconsin families
• World Health Organization: Gender incongruence and transgender health in the ICD
• PolitiFact: Vivek Ramaswamy got it wrong; being trans isn’t a mental health disorder
• WisconsinEye: 2025 Republican Party of Wisconsin State Convention

Is being transgender classified as a mental illness? 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.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Studies have found some evidence of liberal leanings among journalists, but not radical viewpoints.

Harvard’s Nieman Journalism Lab said everyone has a different idea about what constitutes news.

Media Bias rates most media in a range of “strong left, skews left, middle, skews right or strong right.” 

Of the remainder, media rated “hyper-partisan right” or “most extreme right” outnumber those rated “hyper-partisan left” or “most extreme left.”

AllSides, which rates online U.S. political content, rates most media as “lean left,” “center” or “lean right.” 

A 2022 Syracuse University survey said 52% of 1,600 U.S. journalists identified themselves as independent, 36% Democrat, 3% Republican.

A 2020 study by researchers from three U.S. universities concluded that “a dominant majority of journalists identify as liberals/Democrats,” but exhibit “no bias against conservatives” in what they cover.

The office of U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., didn’t provide evidence to back his May 9 claim that “most” American news media are “radical leftists.”

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

Sources

• 13th & Park: Senator Ron Johnson on Taking On Washington, Border Battles & Saving America’s Future
• Nieman Lab: “News” in 2025 is in the eye of the beholder
• Ad Fontes Media: Media Bias Chart
• Harvard Library: News Media Across the Political Spectrum
• AllSides: AllSides Media Bias Chart
• Syracuse University: The American Journalist Under Attack
• Science: There is no liberal media bias in which news stories political journalists choose to cover

Are most American news media ‘radical leftists’? 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.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

The U.S. and New Zealand are the only two countries that allow direct advertising on prescription drugs, according to University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Pharmacy professor Dr. David Kreling, a pharmaceutical policy and marketing expert.

In the U.S., the Food and Drug Administration approves marketing of prescription drugs through the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. The act also prohibits using false or misleading information in advertisements.

The FDA requires advertisements to present the statement on a drug’s side effects in a “clear, conspicuous, and neutral manner.”

Most countries prohibit direct advertising of pharmaceuticals because some available drugs aren’t tested enough to guard against rare but potentially severe side effects.

While the U.S. has never had a federal law banning direct advertising of prescription drugs, companies did not publicize prescription information through direct advertisements until the 1980s. Previously only doctors and pharmacists received that information.

U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., made the claim April 21.

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

Sources

• University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Pharmacy: David Kreling
• U.S. Food and Drug Administration: USFDA
• The Conversation: David Menkes, Barbara Mintzes, Joel Lexchin

Is the US one of only two nations that allow direct advertising of prescription drugs?  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.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

The federal Medicare program spends more per beneficiary for a person on Medicare Advantage than if the person were on traditional Medicare.

The difference is projected at 20% higher, or $84 billion, in 2025, compared with 22% and $83 billion in 2024, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.

The independent congressional agency says a key reason is Medicare Advantage uses a fixed monthly payment per beneficiary, rather than fee-for-service. 

Medicare is federal health insurance mainly for people age 65 and over. Medicare Advantage is a private alternative paid for by Medicare. Advantage enrollees can get more benefits, but are restricted on providers they can see.

Advantage enrollment has been increasing, but some enrollees find it difficult to switch to traditional Medicare when they get older and sicker.

Democratic U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan, who represents the Madison area, claimed in April that Medicare Advantage was created to save money but costs more than Medicare. 

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

Sources

• Medicare Payment Advisory Commission: Medicare Payment Policy 2025
• Medicare Payment Advisory Commission: Medicare Payment Policy 2024
• Healthcare Brew: Medicare Advantage may cost the government $84b more than traditional in 2025
• Social Security Administration: Medicare
• Medicare.gov: Understanding Medicare Advantage Plans
• KFF: What is a Medicare Advantage plan? How does it differ from traditional Medicare?
• KFF Health News: Older Americans say they feel trapped in Medicare Advantage plans
• Rep. Mark Pocan: Rep. Pocan Green County Town Hall

Does Medicare Advantage cost more than traditional Medicare? 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.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2025 general recommendations are that children receive about 19 vaccinations and other immunizations.

Those include vaccines against polio, measles, mumps, rubella, hepatitis, tetanus and diphtheria. The range is from one to five doses from birth through age 18.

Total doses could exceed 70. That’s mainly from annual recommended doses of the COVID-19 and influenza vaccines.

Wisconsin requires seven immunizations (19 doses) for schoolchildren. COVID-19 and influenza vaccines are not included.

Before vaccines, many children died from diseases such as measles and pertussis (whooping cough), according to the Wisconsin Department of Health Services. 

The viruses and bacteria that cause these diseases still exist, and some are deadly, the department says.

Attorney Mary Holland, head of Children’s Health Defense, an organization founded by U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. that questions vaccines, said May 1 on Wisconsin radio the federal recommendation is for “at least 77 vaccines.”

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

Sources

• U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Preventiuon: Recommended Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule for ages 18 years or younger
• Wisconsin Department of Health Services: Summary of Changes to Wisconsin 2024-2025 School Immunization Requirements for Local Health Departments, Schools, and Health Care Providers
• Wisconsin Department of Health Services: Immunizations: Childhood and Adolescent Vaccine Information
• Children's Health Defense: Leadership Team
• Children's Health Defense: Why Are So Many Questioning Vaccines?
• Children's Health Defense: The Exploding Vaccine Schedule

Does the federal government recommend more than 70 vaccines for children? 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.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Wisconsin’s constitution gives the Legislature two methods for removing judges from office.

Impeachment starts with a majority Assembly vote based on “corrupt conduct in office” or commission of a crime. A two-thirds Senate vote following a Senate trial would result in removal.

“Removal by address” occurs through a two-thirds vote of each chamber, based on misconduct. The judge would have an opportunity to make a defense. 

Wisconsin judges run in nonpartisan elections. Both chambers of the Legislature have a simple Republican majority. 

Republicans called for the Legislature to remove Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan after the FBI arrested her April 24. She is charged with two crimes for allegedly obstructing Immigration and Customs Enforcement from arresting a criminal defendant in her courtroom.

Democrats criticized the arrest.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court temporarily suspended Dugan. The Supreme Court can also remove judges for misconduct, based on a state Judicial Commission investigation.

Judges can also be removed by recall election.

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

Sources

• State of Wisconsin: Wisconsin Constitution (Article VII)
• Wisconsin Legislative Council: Removal of Elected Officials: Recall, Impeachment, Expulsion, and Removal
• Wisconsin Legislature: Wisconsin State Senate
• Wisconsin Legislature: Wisconsin State Assembly
• X: Scott Walker post
• Wisconsin Watch: Arrest of Milwaukee judge echoes Massachusetts case — with one key difference
• WisPolitics: Dems condemn Milwaukee judge's arrest; Republicans call for her removal
• Wisconsin Supreme Court: In re the Milwaukee County Circuit Court, Hannah C. Dugan, Judge
• Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Wisconsin Republicans want to remove Judge Hannah Dugan. Here's how that may work
• Wisconsin Watch: Impeach Justice Janet Protasiewicz? Here’s what’s missing from debate
• State Bar of Wisconsin: Legal Research 101: Understanding Judicial Misconduct and Disability in Wisconsin
• WPR: Wisconsin Republicans now have impeachment power. Here’s how the process works

Could the Wisconsin Legislature remove Milwaukee Judge Hannah Dugan from office over her ICE case? 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.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

A memo issued by Democratic Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers’ administration directs state employees to contact an attorney before offering any cooperation if they are encountered in the workplace by a federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent.

ICE enforces immigration laws, including seeking and deporting individuals in the U.S. illegally.

The April 18 memo directs employees to:

Not answer the ICE agent’s questions.

Not give consent for the agent to enter a nonpublic area.

Call the attorney who represents their office and, if that fails, ask the agent to return later.

Not give the agent data without approval from the attorney. 

Republican U.S. Rep. Bryan Steil of southern Wisconsin criticized Evers after the April 25 arrest of Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan. She is charged with obstructing immigration authorities from arresting a criminal defendant in her courtroom.
Evers said he did not encourage state employees to break the law.

GOP lawmakers asked him to rescind the memo.

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

Sources

• U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement: Enforcement and Removal Operations
• Wisconsin Department of Administration: Instructions for State Employees Encountering ICE or Other Federal Agents at Their Workplace
• Fox News: 'Liberal activists': GOP lawmaker rails against judge's alleged 'textbook case of obstruction'
• Wisconsin Watch: Arrest of Milwaukee judge echoes Massachusetts case — with one key difference
• WISN-TV: Gov. Evers says 'not encouraging' state employees to break the law in new ICE directives
• Associated Press: Wisconsin governor’s guidance on dealing with ICE agents draws GOP backlash
• Wisconsin Legislature: Letter, April 29, 2025

Did Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers tell state employees not to assist federal immigration officials? 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.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Fire was the primary cause of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 in New York City, according to the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Fires were caused by debris from one of the center’s Twin Towers, according to NIST, a federal agency that investigates building failures.

The towers were struck by airplanes as part of a terrorist attack on Sept. 11, 2001.

More than 200 people, including scientists and engineers outside of NIST, produced the 2008 NIST report on the center attacks.

The consensus among them and other investigators was fire was the primary cause of the Building 7 collapse, international engineering academics wrote in 2020.

U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, suggested April 21 that the 47-story building was felled by a “controlled demolition” and that the government has covered up something. He cited a film that raised the demolition conspiracy theory.

NIST said it found no evidence of a blast.

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

Sources

• National Institute of Standards and Technology: FAQs – NIST WTC 7 Investigation
• National September 11 Memorial & Museum: 9/11 FAQs
• U.S. Commerce Department: 20 Years Later: NIST's World Trade Center Investigation and Its Legacy
• SiF 2020 – The 11th International Conference on Structures in Fire: The Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Revisited
• Benny Johnson: Ron Johnson interview (1:07:20)
• Fire Fighters for 9-11 Truth: Calling Out Bravo-7, 2020 Edition

Was a World Trade Center building destroyed on 9/11 by ‘controlled demolition’? 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.