Photo by Gregory Conniff for Wisconsin Examiner

The divestment of staff, science and sustainability programs at USDA isn’t just a budget cut; it could be a direct threat to the nation’s food system. Experts warn of far-reaching consequences: unsafe food for consumers, more invasive and economically damaging pests for farmers, and an agriculture industry forced to adapt to climate change with less scientific insight.

“We might see more farming in the dark, essentially,” said Michal Happ, a climate change and rural community expert at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.

Investigate Midwest spoke with multiple agricultural experts and more than 30 current and former USDA employees to better understand Rollins’ leadership style, her impact on the department and the profound consequences her administration will have for farmers, rural families and consumers.

What emerged was a picture of a leader who has brought sweeping changes and largely embraced President Trump’s agenda of downsizing the federal government. However, Rollins has also been tasked with managing Trump policies that she has privately rebuked and cuts made before she assumed office.

Trump tapped Rollins to head the massive federal department at a crucial time for American agriculture. Farmers are grappling with changing weather patterns, shifting trade policies, and even internal administration critiques of pesticide use — a report from Health Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr.’s “Make America Healthy Again” commission, which Rollins applauded, slammed farms’ pesticide reliance.

Trump has praised Rollins’ performance. In mid-April, as an aside during a press conference, Trump thanked her for lowering egg prices. “Brooke Rollins, secretary of agriculture, did a great job,” he said. During his first term, she maneuvered into his inner circle and, as Politico reported, has quickly become “one of the most powerful conservatives in the country.”

Rollins has said her mission is to be the voice of farmers in Trump’s cabinet. She appears to have pull with the president, but questions remain about her influence over decisions affecting the USDA and its staff.

Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, appeared to wield significant control over department operations, at least until recently. It influenced everything from policy language to which USDA offices remain open, according to court records and Rollins’ hearing testimony.

In a statement to Investigate Midwest, the USDA rejected any characterization that Rollins was not solely responsible for department actions.

“The claims you cite are absurd and without merit,” it said. “Secretary Rollins was appointed by President Trump to lead the Department and to insinuate that anyone other than the Constitutionally directed cabinet officer is making the decisions at USDA is unwarranted.”

She’s also been sandwiched between Trump’s signature policy, an extreme stance on immigration, and the reality of agriculture’s labor force.

“We might see more farming in the dark, essentially.”

Michal Happ, a climate change and rural community expert at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy

Because of immigration raids, some farms’ labor pools have been depleted, and, already, some fields have not been harvested. Farmers have pleaded for relief. In early June, Rollins pushed Trump to pause enforcement on farms, The New York Times reported. After the news broke, Rollins proclaimed she was in lockstep with Trump.

Raids on farms resumed days later, but Trump recently expressed support for giving farmers discretion over undocumented workers.

“Brooke Rollins brought it up, and she said, ‘So, we have a little problem. The farmers are losing a lot of people,’ and we figured it out, and we have some great stuff being written,” he said during a July 4 speech.

On July 8, Rollins said undocumented farmworkers would receive “no amnesty.”

Farming is inherently risky. Making a living depends on good weather and profitable markets. Farmers try to limit variables, but Rollins’ first months have added disorder into the food system, said Mike Lavender, a policy expert for the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

“All of it is this theme of creating needless uncertainty and confusion amongst people who are trying to do the exact opposite in order to be successful in their livelihoods, support their families and ultimately support their communities,” he said.

The USDA did not directly answer questions about Rollins’ tenure, and, in a statement, it said she was cleaning up a mess left by her predecessor, Tom Vilsack.

“Secretary Rollins is working to reorient USDA to put Farmers First and be more effective and efficient at serving the American people,” the department said. “President Biden and Secretary Vilsack left USDA in complete disarray, including hiring thousands of employees with no sustainable way to pay them.”

In congressional hearings, Rollins said the USDA, which has lost more than 15,000 employees, has enough staff to fulfill its mission. Trump’s desire to make new deals with trading partners — which is causing confusion and financial anxiety for farmers — will create stability for agricultural producers, Rollins has said.

“I do believe, with every fiber of my being, that this era of unlimited or unprecedented prosperity for the ag community is just around the corner,” Rollins told Congress in June. “I’m just really, really sure of that.”

Rollins has painted the present as being “strikingly similar” to the time of the American Revolution, a period she often invokes in speeches. She has also cast her leadership in Biblical terms, citing Romans 13:12, saying she wears an “armor of light” in her current position.

“There is just a lot of darkness — not with this White House or my current boss, President Trump, or our cabinet, but the government in general,” Rollins told Decision Magazine, a religious publication, during an interview last month.

The USDA did not answer when asked if Rollins views rank-and-file employees as part of the “darkness.” But her management of employees varies drastically from her two predecessors, Vilsack and Sonny Perdue, Trump’s first agriculture secretary.

Perdue was a veterinarian and, as governor of Georgia, had led a large bureaucracy, experience that translated into running a complex federal department in a “thoughtful, analytical way,” said Kevin Shea, a USDA employee for 45 years under Republican and Democrat administrations.

“The first Trump administration at USDA was run very professionally,” Shea said. Now, however, “the USDA political leadership seems to be particularly scornful of its career workforce.”

For instance, very little information filters down to employees. Leadership has not effectively communicated what it wants, so it’s been a “gradual process of learning what is and is not OK,” said Ethan Roberts, president of AFGE Local 3247, a union representing government employees, and a nine-year USDA employee.

Agency staff used to plan months or years ahead, but that’s difficult now because they don’t know if they’ll still have jobs or if the office will exist, said one current employee who requested anonymity for fear of reprisal.

Her two predecessors regularly sent department-wide emails that communicated their goals and priorities, current and former employees said. Rollins seems to have a different audience in mind.

“She just posts on X what she’s doing,” said Laura Dodson, the vice president of AFGE Local 3403 and a longtime USDA employee. X, the social media company owned by Musk, requires an account to view posts. “It just seems everything’s coming from DOGE and whatever the White House is saying about federal employees.”

The first Trump administration also instituted funding freezes and reduced staff, including relocating USDA offices out of Washington, D.C. One of the affected agencies was the Economic Research Service, which provides insights into markets the industry relies on.

In 2019, Dodson and her colleagues were called into a conference room. If their job description was called, they would remain where they had established their lives. The others, the vast majority, would be relocated to Kansas City, Missouri. Employees started crying.

Despite that episode from Trump’s first term, Dodson said, the tone of his second stint is markedly different as DOGE, overseen by Musk until May, has wantonly carved up federal agencies.

“They still maintained a veneer of respectability. They were trying to do this for the greater good,” she said about the USDA under Perdue. “Now, with people like Elon Musk, it’s clear this is not the pursuit of efficiency. It’s the pursuit of cruelty.”

For instance, school nutrition researchers were told to flag any studies that included the word “class” — an attempt to discover funding for diversity, equity and inclusion, a Trump target, said one employee who asked for anonymity for fear of reprisal.

Another time, DOGE’s main liaison to the USDA, Gavin Kliger, requested that the word “tracking” be added to the list of words to flag in grants that could be terminated, according to an email included in a lawsuit.

“Tracking the exact carbon output of soybean yields does not provide a direct benefit to farmers,” he reasoned in an email to staff, “and we can reallocate that funding in a way that more directly benefits farmers.”

Kliger’s LinkedIn resume does not show any experience in agriculture. He graduated from the University of California-Berkeley in 2020 and has worked exclusively for tech and artificial intelligence companies. He has helped slash staff and funding at other agencies, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

It’s unclear how he came to this understanding about carbon tracking.

Carbon is essential to soil health, producing higher yields. Knowing how much carbon is escaping their soil can help farmers adopt better soil management techniques. This not only helps farmers grow more efficiently but helps keep the plant from warming. Soy industry groups have expressed the importance of tracking carbon footprints.

Also, under a Biden-era rule, measuring carbon output helps put money directly in farmers’ pockets — they can sell their output on carbon offset markets.

Despite this misguided reasoning, Kliger appears to have had considerable influence at the USDA.

In the same email, he said he wanted to surpass DOGE’s goal of cutting $120 million in climate-focused grants by a certain date. “I spoke with the Secretary tonight who was supportive of these initiatives – working on getting a memo formalized for her signature in parallel,” he wrote.

Kliger did not respond to requests for comment to his USDA email address. The USDA did not respond when asked about the email or how much influence Kliger had.

“All decisions made at the USDA are at the direction of secretary Rollins to best fulfil (sic) president trumps (sic) agenda,” the department said.

Kliger appears to have moved on. The USDA said his access to the National Finance Center, which manages employee payroll, has been “deactivated due to lack of use. … We would refer you to” the Small Business Administration.

While voices with no agricultural experience have been elevated, those with expertise — USDA employees — have been pushed aside and silenced, current and former employees said.

One skirmish between DOGE and the USDA’s rank-and-file has involved the Trump administration’s return-to-office policies. Some Republican leaders and Musk have claimed that allowing employees to work remotely is a waste.

In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic forced remote work for staffers at the Farm Service Agency, which helps farmers access federal funding. As the year progressed, Perdue, the agriculture secretary at the time, considered calling workers back to the office.

However, an internal study found that employees had actually been more efficient, said Charles Dodson, a 30-year FSA veteran who retired late last year.

Despite that, Trump ordered remote workers back to offices when he retook the presidency. At the same time, DOGE began canceling leases of local offices around the country.

At a May hearing, members of Congress accused Rollins of being unaware that local FSA offices were being closed. Rollins did not deny the accusation. Then at a June hearing, she said the General Services Administration, a DOGE target, was behind the closures. (Some offices have since reopened.)

On the ground, the situation has caused confusion and consternation for USDA employees.

When one employee reported to a new office, they were told they weren’t on the list of transfers. How could they follow the order to report to an office if they weren’t allowed in? Another USDA employee, a researcher, was ordered to report to a Forest Service trailer in the woods. And another employee, according to NPR, was told to report to a shed where a boat was stored.

The USDA has also intimidated its workforce, current and former employees said.

According to Roberts, the department veteran and union representative, USDA scientists have been instructed to deflect questions from university researchers — their frequent collaborators — about the agency’s internal affairs.

“They’re being told to say those things for fear it looks like the USDA is silencing them,” he said, “which they are.”

Surveillance also has increased. While the government has used software to monitor employee emails for years, the Trump administration has altered it to detect emails sent to a personal or college account. As part of a leak investigation, one staffer was placed on administrative leave after emailing their personal account, even though it did not contain the leaked material officials were looking for.

The USDA did not respond to a question about the leak investigation.

Some employees have responded by doing only what is asked of them, not going above and beyond. Dodson, the retiree, recounted what a current staffer told him: “I’m afraid to do anything else. I just want to survive and not get fired.”

The lack of staff is a major obstacle, Shea said.

“There couldn’t be a worse time to lower our guard,” he said. “APHIS cannot do its job with that level of personnel. It simply cannot do it. I’ve never been more concerned about the agency’s ability to carry out its mission going forward.”

The USDA has implemented a hiring freeze, but in April it exempted APHIS. The agency has posted job listings online.

“Secretary Rollins will not compromise the critical work of the Department,” the USDA said. The exempted positions “carry out functions that are critical to the safety and security of the American people, our national forests, the inspection and safety of the Nation’s agriculture and food supply system.”

Another challenge Rollins has faced is trade, the lifeblood of U.S. agriculture.

When Trump returned to office, he generated chaos in the agricultural markets by starting a trade war and implementing higher tariffs. In response, Rollins has embarked on a global tour to establish new trade partners.

She has announced a few “Make Agriculture Great Again trade wins.” She recently proclaimed that Namibia, an African country, agreed to accept frozen poultry from the U.S. The Biden administration had opened the market after allaying the country’s concerns about bird flu. Also, she declared Costa Rica accepting U.S. dairy a win for Trump. An industry trade group said the “win has been several years in the making.”

Rollins has said repeatedly that the agricultural trade deficit — the U.S. imports more products from overseas than it exports — is bad for the country. The tariffs were intended to address the deficit, but the narrative hit a snag in early June.

Politico reported the USDA had delayed a regularly scheduled report because it showed Trump’s tariffs could exacerbate the trade deficit. Days later, Rollins defended the delay. “I want to be sure every piece of research we move out is the best, the best-cited, etc.,” she told Congress. (The hearing was about a week after news broke that the MAHA report, which Rollins supported, cited nonexistent studies.)

Perhaps the most pressing issue facing Rollins is helping the agriculture industry as it grapples with climate change, which is altering how farmers grow food and commodities. Rollins, however, has denied the planet is warming.

Her husband is an executive at an oil and gas company, and in a 2018 speech, she said “research of CO2 being a pollutant is just not valid,” according to Inside Climate News. More recently, she led the America First Policy Institute, which pushes Trump’s agenda. She employed another Trump loyalist, Carla Sands, who once said the idea of climate change is “Marxism to control humanity,” according to Politico.

In January, before Rollins was sworn in, USDA employees were directed to “unpublish any landing pages (on the USDA’s website) focused on climate change,” according to court records. Research involving climate change has also been effectively banned, current employees said. If studies include words such as “climate,” “clean energy,” “sustainable construction” or dozens of others, the research will not be funded.

Climate change is having profound effects on agriculture. For instance, the Corn Belt — considered the prime region for growing the valuable commodity used in everything from soft drinks to gasoline — is inching northward. In decades, instead of Iowa and Illinois, Minnesota and the Dakotas could be America’s breadbasket, researchers have predicted.

More recent research shows that, as the world keeps warming and farming gets harder, U.S. corn production could fall by 40% by century’s end.

If the USDA ignores climate issues, farmers could be struggling alone, said Happ, of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.

“They want to adapt to what’s going on,” he said. “They want to still have their land there and steward it for the next generation or two. Without those resources, they’re going to just have to figure it out on their own.”

The USDA did not respond when asked about Rollins’ household’s financial stake in fossil fuels. At a congressional hearing, Rollins agreed with a representative who said sound policy follows sound science. The USDA did not respond when asked why the USDA was not following climate change science.

The USDA has forced out 98 of 167 food safety scientists at the Agricultural Research Service, a department arm that studies how to prevent deadly pathogens, such as E. coli or Salmonella, from entering the food supply.

Foodborne illnesses could become more prevalent because the work the scientists were doing will likely just end, said Roberts, the union representative who works for the Agricultural Research Service.

“Who knows what we’ve lost? What discoveries or products that were going to be invented that we’ll just never see?” Roberts said. “We’ll be stuck with the tools we have now.”

A robust food safety system, with research and vigilant monitoring, is necessary to help prevent foodborne illnesses, which not only can hospitalize consumers but also have long-lasting health consequences, said Barbara Kowalcyk, a longtime food safety researcher who is now at George Washington University. In a 2013 study, Kowalcyk and her colleagues showed foodborne infections could lead to, among other conditions, chronic kidney disease, arthritis and cognitive deficits.

An example of science and government oversight working in concert to save lives stems from a deadly outbreak in the 1990s, she said. After eating undercooked hamburgers at Jack in the Box, more than 700 people fell ill and four children died.

The scandal put the USDA’s food safety system under an intense microscope, and the department changed how it protected America’s meat supply. Instead of eyeing and smelling a carcass, the USDA began testing for pathogens, a monumental task to implement.

The original testing procedure was first developed in the 1960s and refined over the decades. Since the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service began using the system — named Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point — cases of foodborne illness from beef have declined dramatically.

“Lots of effort went into that,” Kowalcyk said. “We don’t see the same level of outbreaks in ground beef that we used to.”

Rollins plans on altering the USDA’s, and the country’s, future through her actions. Cutting funding to farmers, axing scientists, instilling fear in remaining employees — it’s about changing the country’s course.

“It isn’t just about the next four years,” she told Breitbart in May. “It’s about the next 250 years.”

But it could all backfire on farmers, rural communities and consumers, said Lavender, with the national sustainable agriculture coalition.

“The draining of expertise at USDA,” he said, “whether that’s scientific expertise or just expertise of people who have been there for a period of time and have built up knowledge —  it will ultimately come home to roost.”

---

This article first appeared on Investigate Midwest and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. To republish, go to the original and consult the Investigate Midwest republishing guidelines.

The Federal Corrections Institution in Tallahassee, Florida, photographed on Thursday, July 24, 2025. Ghislaine Maxwell, former girlfriend of the late financier and Florida sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, is serving a 20-year sentence at the low-security prison for conspiring with Epstein to sexually abuse girls. (Photo by Christine Sexton/Florida Phoenix)

WASHINGTON — The fallout over President Donald Trump’s handling of financier and Florida sex offender Jeffrey Epstein’s case files permeated business on Capitol Hill Thursday, as Senate Democrats urged release of the information.

Meanwhile, in Tallahassee, Florida, a top Department of Justice official interviewed Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s former girlfriend and a key figure in the growing controversy.

David O. Markus, lawyer for Ghislaine Maxwell, speaks to reporters outside the Joseph Woodrow Hatchett United States Courthouse and Federal Building in downtown Tallahassee, Florida, on Thursday, July 24, 2025. (Video by Christine Sexton/Florida Phoenix)

Members of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary accused their Republican counterparts on the panel of “concealing the Epstein files” after they voted to quash an amendment from New Jersey’s Sen. Cory Booker, who proposed tying the start date of an opioid data collection bill to the release of Epstein case material.

The committee’s tumult came a day after U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson sent his members home early for their six-week August break to avoid voting on efforts by both House Democrats and Republicans to make the files public.

Before heading back to their districts, three House Republicans voted Wednesday with Democrats on a House Committee on Oversight panel to subpoena the Department of Justice to turn over all Epstein investigation records. GOP Reps. Nancy Mace of South Carolina, Scott Perry of Pennsylvania and Brian Jack of Georgia voted in favor of the push led by Pennsylvania Democrat Summer Lee.

Earlier, House Oversight Chair James Comer of Kentucky issued a subpoena for an Aug. 11 deposition with Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year prison sentence in Florida for conspiring with the financier to sexually abuse girls.

‘Lies and obfuscation’

Epstein died in his New York City jail cell in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal charges for sex trafficking minors. He pleaded guilty in 2008 in Florida for procuring and soliciting minors for sex.

The wealthy broker was surrounded by a powerful circle of friends, including Trump. Attorney General Pam Bondi informed the president in May that his name appeared among many others in the case files, The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday. The context in which Trump’s name appears is unclear.

“We had the power today, the possibility today, to force out the truth regarding the Epstein files and the lies and the obfuscation that is happening by this administration,” Booker said after the GOP-led panel advanced an amendment offered by Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas that rendered Booker’s effort moot.

Booker eventually withdrew his amendment after roughly 40 minutes of back-and-forth in the middle of a vote, and after Sen. Lindsey Graham vowed to help him with a separate funding issue related to the underlying bill to address opioid overdose deaths.

“What we’re trying to do with this bill is really good, and there’s no end to this (Epstein debate). If this is a headline about ‘Cornyn blocks transparency of Epstein,’ then that would be sad because he’s responding to your amendment that would make the bill, quite frankly, fail,” said the South Carolina Republican. “I don’t think it’s helpful.”

Schumer calls for private Senate briefing

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer also put a spotlight on the Epstein case in his floor remarks Thursday, calling for the Trump administration to provide a closed-door briefing for all senators on details uncovered during the Epstein investigation, including whose names appeared in relation to the sex offender.

“The Senate deserves to hear directly from senior administration officials about Donald Trump’s name appearing in these files and the complete lack of transparency shown to date,” Schumer said.

Trump and his supporters, including some now working in his administration, dealt in conspiracy theories for years on the information surrounding the Epstein case, including whose names turned up during the investigation and the circumstances of his death.

A July 7 Department of Justice memo poured cold water on the fervor, declaring no incriminating “client list” exists and that officials would not be releasing any materials because of the risk of revealing victim identities. The department concluded Epstein harmed over 1,000 victims.

Trump answered swift and sharp criticism from his voter base by calling them “weaklings” for falling for a “Jeffrey Epstein hoax” in several social media posts.

In lieu of releasing the files, he ordered the unsealing of grand jury testimony in the case, which a Florida federal judge blocked Wednesday.

The president also told reporters that it was “appropriate” for Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, his former criminal defense lawyer, to interview Maxwell.

Interview at Florida federal courthouse

Blanche traveled to Florida, where reporters Thursday waited at the Joseph Woodrow Hatchett United States Courthouse and Federal Building in downtown Tallahassee, where the U.S. attorney’s office is located.

The courthouse is about 4 miles from the city’s Federal Correctional Institution, where Maxwell is serving time.

Blanche arrived around 9 a.m. Eastern at the courthouse, according to media reports. Maxwell’s appellate lawyer, David O. Markus, told ABC News, “We’re looking forward to a productive day” and declined further comment.

Markus, a Miami-based attorney with the firm Markus/Moss PLLC, emerged just before 4 p.m. Eastern and told news media outside the courthouse, including the Florida Phoenix, that Blanche “took a full day and asked a lot of questions, and Ms. Maxwell answered every single question.”

“She never invoked a privilege, she never declined to answer. She answered all the questions truthfully, honestly and to the best of her ability, and that’s all the comment we’re going to have about the meeting. We don’t want to comment on the substance of the meeting for obvious reasons,” Markus said.

Christine Sexton reported from Tallahassee. 

National Public Radio headquarters on North Capitol Street in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, July 15, 2025. (Photo by Jacob Fischler/States Newsroom)

President Donald Trump signed into law Thursday the bill Congress passed earlier this month to revoke $9 billion in previously approved spending for public broadcasting and foreign aid.

Trump’s signature was expected after his Office of Management and Budget compiled the list of requested rescissions.

Congressional Republicans approved a small slice of what the White House initially wanted, but the effort still represents a win for Trump, who used small majorities in both chambers of Congress to claw back money approved in bipartisan spending laws.

The law rescinds $1.1 billion for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a congressionally chartered nonprofit that provides a small share of funding for National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service but accounts for much larger portions of local public broadcasters’ revenue. The funding had been approved to cover the next two fiscal years.

The law also cancels about $8 billion in foreign aid accounts, including global health initiatives.

Republicans have long criticized NPR and PBS news programs as biased toward politically liberal points of view, while Trump’s America First movement has consistently called for reducing foreign aid.

The law does not touch the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, after Senate Republicans removed a provision to defund the program created during Republican George W. Bush’s presidency.

No Democrats voted for the law. Two Republicans in each chamber — Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and Mike Turner of Ohio — voted against it.

It passed 51-48 in the Senate and 216-213 in the House. Each chamber took votes in the wee hours as Republicans raced to meet a July 18 deadline.

Senate Appropriations Vice Chair Patty Murray, a Washington Democrat, warned the move undermined the annual appropriations process, which typically involves consideration of rescissions requests during bipartisan negotiations over government spending.

Congress last approved a stand-alone rescissions bill in 1992, following a series of requests from President George H.W. Bush, according to a report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C. (Photo courtesy of the Kennedy Center)

Republicans on the U.S. House Appropriations Committee voted Tuesday to rename the Opera House at the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C., for first lady Melania Trump.

The panel adopted, 33-25, a package of amendments to the bill funding the Interior Department, Environmental Protection Agency and related agencies for fiscal 2026 that included a provision to designate the First Lady Melania Trump Opera House at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

The vote was mostly party line, with Democrat Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington joining all Republicans present in voting in favor.

The ranking Democrat on the Interior-Environment Appropriations Subcommittee, Chellie Pingree of Maine, said she was “surprised” by the provision.

“Republicans snuck in something that I think is slightly divisive, which is renaming one section of the Kennedy Center after a family member of this administration,” Pingree said during the full committee markup, a meeting when a bill is debated, amended and voted on.

Subcommittee Chairman Mike Simpson, an Idaho Republican, responded that the name change was “an excellent way to recognize (the first lady’s) support and commitment to promoting the arts.”

“Yes, we renamed the Opera House at the Kennedy Center for the first lady, who is the honorary chairman of the board of trustees of the Kennedy Center,” Simpson said.

The Kennedy Center is considered one of the nation’s premier performing arts venues.

President Donald Trump removed several members of the Kennedy Center board in February, replacing them with loyalists who elected him board chair. He also fired the cultural center’s president, Deborah Rutter, and replaced her on an interim basis with Richard Grenell, who has held several roles over Trump’s two presidencies.

Interior-Environment bill

The House Interior-Environment spending bill proposes nearly $38 billion for departments and agencies covered by the measure, an overall spending cut of 6% compared to current levels that mainly comes from chopping 23% of the EPA’s budget.

The Interior Department would see a cut of less than one-half of 1% of its current funding, according to a summary provided by committee Republicans.

Arts and culture funding would also see major cuts in the bill.

The National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities would each see 35% cuts, bringing each agency’s funding to $135 million. The Smithsonian Institution would receive $961.3 million, representing a 12% cut. And the Kennedy Center itself would see a 17.2% cut, to $37.2 million.

The full House Appropriations Committee approved the bill, with the amendment, 33-28.

Appropriations bills must win 60 votes in the Senate to become law, which generally makes it difficult for overly partisan provisions to be included in the final text.

The corresponding Senate subcommittee has not released its version of the bill, but is scheduled to consider it Thursday.

Don Millis and Ann Jacob, the former and current chairs of the Wisconsin Elections Commission, testify Tuesday, Feb. 4, at an Assembly hearing on a commission rule for election observers. (Photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner)

Wisconsin was one of several states included in the U.S. Department of Justice’s request for statewide voter registration data — files that include data on millions of Americans. However, after WEC pointed DOJ to state law that would require the Department to pay $12,500 for the data, it has not followed up on the request, according to a Wisconsin Elections Commission spokesperson. 

The DOJ requests for voter data from at least nine states have raised concerns about what the Trump Administration plans to do with the information as President Donald Trump has remained fixated on disproven  conspiracy theories that the 2020 election was stolen from him.

Correspondence from US DOJ to WEC – 6.17.25

Through the spring and early summer, DOJ officials have requested information from state election authorities based on allegations that states have violated federal election laws. The June 17 letter sent to Wisconsin alleges that Wisconsin has not complied with the Help America Vote Act, a 2002 law meant to streamline and modernize the election process. 

The letter requested that WEC give DOJ Wisconsin’s statewide voter registration list, provide information on how the state manages the files of  voters who become inactive by moving elsewhere or dying and how it verifies voter citizenship. Most of the questions surround topics that have been common complaints among purveyors of election conspiracy theories over the past half decade. 

On July 2, WEC’s chief legal counsel Jim Witecha sent a letter in response to DOJ on behalf of the six election commissioners. The letter gives detailed answers to many of the questions while asserting that state law prevents the commission from simply handing over the voter data. 

State law requires that the elections commission charge a fee for obtaining voter registration data and the price for obtaining the full list is set at $12,500.

USDOJ Response Letter

“Wisconsin law requires the Commission to charge a fee for access to voter registration data and makes no exceptions for elected officials, government agencies, journalists, non-profits, academics, or any other group,” the letter states. 

More than two weeks later, the DOJ has not yet filed a request to purchase Wisconsin’s voter rolls, according to WEC spokesperson Emilee Miklas. 

Information about DOJ’s request to WEC is located on the state agency’s FAQ webpage, along with answers to questions that have been repeatedly raised by election deniers in the state.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The U.S. Capitol on July 2, 2025. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. House cleared legislation just after midnight Friday that will cancel $9 billion in previously approved spending for public broadcasting and foreign aid, marking only the second time in more than three decades Congress has approved a presidential rescissions request.

The 216-213 mostly party-line vote sends the bill to President Donald Trump for his signature and notches another legislative victory for the White House, following passage earlier in July of a giant tax and spending cut package. Republican Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and Mike Turner of Ohio voted against approval along with Democratic lawmakers.

The Senate voted to pass the bill earlier this week after removing the section that would have eliminated hundreds of millions of dollars for the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR.

South Dakota Republican Sen. Mike Rounds also secured a handshake deal with the White House budget director to transfer $9.4 million from an undisclosed account within the Interior Department to Native American radio stations in rural areas.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting will lose $1.1 billion in funding that Congress had previously approved for the fiscal year slated to begin Oct. 1 and for the year after that.

The corporation provides funding for National Public Radio, the Public Broadcasting Service and hundreds of local stations throughout the country.

Another $8 billion of foreign aid will be eliminated once Trump signs the legislation.

The White House budget office’s original rescissions request included more than a dozen accounts for reduced spending, including those addressing global health and democracy programs.

The proposal called on lawmakers to cancel $500 million the U.S. Agency for International Development used for “activities related to child and maternal health, HIV/ AIDS, and infectious diseases.”

“This proposal would not reduce treatment but would eliminate programs that are antithetical to American interests and worsen the lives of women and children, like ‘family planning’ and ‘reproductive health,’ LGBTQI+ activities, and ‘equity’ programs,” the request states. “Enacting the rescission would reinstate focus on appropriate health and life spending. This best serves the American taxpayer.”

The final bill includes that spending cut but says the cancellation cannot affect HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, nutrition, or maternal and child health programs. It also says that “does not apply to family planning and reproductive health programs.”

The White House asked to eliminate $83 million from the State Department’s democracy fund, writing that “aligns with the Administration’s efforts to eliminate wasteful USAID foreign assistance programs and focus remaining funds on priorities that advance American interests. This best serves the American taxpayer.”

Lawmakers included that request in the bill, along with nearly all the others, without any caveats or additional guardrails.

Congress last approved a stand-alone rescissions bill in 1992 following a series of requests from President George H.W. Bush, according to a report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

The first Trump administration sent Congress a rescission request in 2018 that passed the House, but didn’t receive Senate approval.

‘Wasteful spending’ or ‘stealing from the American people’?

House debate largely fell along party lines, with Republicans citing disagreements with how the Biden administration spent congressionally approved funding as the reason to claw back money that would have otherwise been doled out by the Trump administration.

North Carolina Republican Rep. Virginia Foxx said the $9 billion, spread across accounts that have existed for decades, was a prime example of “wasteful spending (that) overtook Washington during the Biden-Harris administration.”

“The American people saw the fiscal ruin that was created by the previous administration,” Foxx said. “That’s why they overwhelmingly chose Republicans to lead the nation and restore fiscal sanity. That restoration is here.”

The federal government spends about $6.8 trillion per year, with $4.1 trillion going to mandatory programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Another $1.8 trillion is spent on discretionary accounts, including for the departments of Agriculture, Defense, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Justice, Transportation and State. Nearly $900 billion goes toward net interest payments on the country’s debt.

Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, said during floor debate the bill represented the Trump administration “stealing from the American people.”

“This bill will shut down rural television and radio stations, cutting off coverage of local news; eliminating emergency information, like severe weather alerts; jeopardizing access to PBS Kids children’s programs, like Sesame Street,” DeLauro said.

The foreign aid spending reduction, she said, “rips life-saving support away from hungry, displaced and sick people in developing countries and conflict zones.”

DeLauro raised concerns that U.S. withdrawal as a source of support for people and nations that are struggling would leave space for non-democratic countries to increase their influence.

“When we retreat from the world, diplomatically and through our assistance to vulnerable people, America will be alone — without allies, in a less stable world, without the support of the international community,” DeLauro said. “And do you know who will come out ahead? China, Russia, Iran.”

No Kings Day protest march viewed from the Wisconsin State Capitol | Photo by Gregory Conniff for Wisconsin Examiner

Early campaign reports this week goosed speculation that Gov. Tony Evers might not run for a third term. Evers, who hasn’t declared his intentions, has only raised $757,214 this year and has $2 million in the bank, compared with the $5 million he raised during the same period in 2021, before his successful bid for a second term.

Some progressives, most vocally Dan Shafer, creator of The Recombubulation Area blog, have been calling on Evers to step aside. Traumatized by former President Joe Biden’s fumbling 2024 campaign, Shafer says Evers, who is 73 (a decade younger than Biden) should not make the mistake of hanging around too long and instead should “pass the torch.”

“This is not ultimately an argument about ideological differences or policy disagreements,” Shafer writes. For him, it’s about age. It’s about the Biden trauma. And it’s about the problem Democrats at both the state and national level seem to have nurturing the next generation of leaders.

For some progressives, it’s also about ideology and policy disagreements. Advocates for child care, public schools, criminal justice reform and protecting health care access were furious that Evers didn’t drive a harder bargain with Republicans in the recently completed state budget deal. 

Still, if Evers announces his retirement, a large, non-MAGA portion of Wisconsin will experience a moment of fear. In our closely divided purple state, there is a real possibility a Republican could win the governor’s office, just as new, fairer maps are finally giving Democrats a chance to compete for power in the state Legislature. The Republicans who have declared so far are wrapping themselves in the MAGA flag. Evers is popular across the state and has shown he can win.

Devin Remiker, the state Democratic party chair, has said he is “praying” Evers will run again. U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan, former chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told reporters recently that he couldn’t think of a better governor for Wisconsin than Evers.

If Evers doesn’t run, Attorney General Josh Kaul, Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez, state Sen. Kelda Roys and Secretary of State Sarah Godlewski are all likely Democratic candidates.

“There’s plenty of people on the bench who would love to be governor,” Pocan said. “… that’s not a concern. It’s really, I want the best person to be governor, and I think the best person who could be governor on the Democratic side is Tony Evers.”

Pocan calls Evers a “responsible adult” in contrast to Republicans who are following President Donald Trump off a cliff, slashing health care and food aid and driving up prices and deficits, making life a lot worse for a lot of people, including a projected 276,000 in Wisconsin who will lose health insurance and 49,000 who will lose food assistance under the federal mega bill.

There is an argument that Evers — “the most quintessentially Wisconsin politician I’ve ever seen,” as Pocan put it — accomplished what most Wisconsin voters wanted him to do in the budget process, put politics aside and get the best deal he could for state residents. Working across the aisle to achieve shared goals with the other party — including a last-minute maneuver that mitigates the disastrous Medicaid cuts Trump and congressional Republicans pushed through, drawing down $1 billion per year in federal funds for Wisconsin, was, as Evers himself pointed out, “significantly different” from the dynamic in Washington. 

“How about that, compromise?” Evers said Wisconsin voters told him, happily, when they heard about the deal. 

If the definition of compromise is a bargain that makes everyone unhappy, Democrats and progressives are clearly the more unhappy parties to this bargain.

Despite the glow of productive bipartisanship when the deal was struck, the details — and how the deal was done — are beginning to grate on some of Evers’ biggest former backers.

Big majorities of Republican legislators voted for the deal in both chambers. Five out of 15 Senate Democrats joined them, and there were only seven yes votes out of 45 Democrats in the state Assembly, where Speaker Robin Vos, who helped craft the budget, made it clear he didn’t need or want Democratic votes.

Arguably, the Democrats who gave impassioned floor speeches denouncing the budget have been in the minority in the Legislature for so long they never have to think about making the kinds of compromises involved in governing a divided state. If you look at it that way, it seems unfair of them to react angrily to Evers, a decent man who shares their goals and has worked diligently to accomplish what he can in the face of nasty opposition. Apart from Minority Leader Dianne Hesselbein, who joined the budget negotiations behind closed doors after it became clear Republicans were going to need some Democratic votes in the Senate, Democrats were largely shut out of the whole process.

And that’s the real problem with the way Evers governs, according to Robert Kraig of Citizen Action. By not involving legislative Democrats from the beginning, he disempowered not just those individual legislators but their constituents, giving up the pressure he could have brought to bear on Republicans if he leveraged citizen outrage and demands for action on broadly popular priorities — funding public schools, expanding Medicaid, keeping child care centers open, and the whole list of progressive policies in Evers’ original budget proposal.

Instead, Evers was the kind of adult in the room who sends everyone else out when it’s time to make a decision. 

This governing style, Kraig argues, is badly out of step with the political moment. As an increasingly dangerous, destructive administration sends masked agents to grab people off the street and throw them in detention centers or deport them without due process, liquidates safety net programs and deliberately destroys civil society, it’s going to take a massive, popular movement to fight back.

Maybe Shafer is right that a younger, dynamic Democratic candidate could emerge as a leader of that movement. Maybe the Democratic Party needs to stop praying for likeable, bipartisan father figures to deliver victory and instead open the doors to the somewhat chaotic, populist backlash that is brewing against the oligarchic, authoritarian kleptocracy led by Trump.

It’s a big risk. But we are in very risky times. Democrats, and the public at large, have not yet figured out how to defend against the unprecedented maliciousness of our current federal government and the MAGAfied Republican party. The whole idea of bipartisanship seems outdated in a world where one side is seeking to tear up the social contract, the Constitution, due process, the justice system, fair elections, and the most basic, longstanding protections against poverty, hunger and disease.

These are the same conditions that gave rise to the Progressive Era. Fighting Bob LaFollette fought the leaders of his own party and founded a nationwide movement to wrest control of government from the wealthy timber barons and railroad monopolies who, through corrupt, captive politicians, fought to control all the resources of our state and nation.

Now those same powerful interests are fighting to claw back everything, to destroy the reforms of the early 20th century protecting workers, the environment, and the public sphere. They are smashing public institutions and flouting legal constraints.

Democrats need to make the case to the public that they will fight back. And they need the public to rise up behind them to help them do it. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Reading Time: < 1 minute

President Donald Trump’s recently enacted big bill removes the federal income tax on certain tips and overtime, but those tax deductions end in 2028 and have other limitations.

Under the new law, restaurant servers, barbers and other workers who typically work for tips can deduct up to $25,000 of tip income – meaning that amount isn’t taxable. 

For overtime pay, the tax deduction is up to $12,500.

Both deductions generally are for people who earn less than $150,000 annually.

Federal payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare (FICA), and state and local taxes, still apply.

The tipped income provision would affect about 2% of households, and they would receive an average tax cut of $1,800 annually, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimated.

About 8% of hourly workers and 4% of salaried workers regularly work overtime, according to the Yale Budget Lab.

The average annual savings for the overtime provision is $1,400, according to the White House.

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

Sources

• Congress.gov: H.R.1 – One Big Beautiful Bill Act
• Fortune: The rules for paying taxes on tips and overtime are changing thanks to Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill. Here’s what to expect
• RSM: No tax on tips and overtime: What employers should know
• Tax Policy Center: Tax-Free Tips: How Would They Impact Tipped Workers?
• Yale Budget Lab: “No Tax on Overtime” Raises Questions about Policy Design, Equity, and Tax Avoidance
• The White House: President Trump has signed the One Big Beautiful Bill into Law
• Associated Press: What to know — and what isn’t known yet — about US tax deductions for tips and overtime pay
• CNBC: Trump’s ‘big beautiful’ bill promises no tax on tips and overtime, but there’s a limit—here’s who qualifies
• USA Today: Did 'Big Beautiful Bill' include no tax on overtime? What to know about Trump’s 'promises kept'
• BankRate: No tax on tips and overtime: Here's how your taxes may shrink

Does Trump’s big bill end taxes on tips and overtime? 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.

White House budget director Russ Vought speaks with reporters inside the U.S. Capitol building on Tuesday, July 15, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate on Tuesday night moved one step closer to canceling $9 billion in previously approved funding for several foreign aid programs and public broadcasting after GOP leaders addressed some objections.

Nearly all the chamber’s Republicans voted to begin debate on the bill, though Maine’s Susan Collins, Kentucky’s Mitch McConnell and Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski opposed the procedural step along with every Democrat.

The 51-50 vote marked a significant moment for President Donald Trump’s rescissions request, which faced more headwinds in the Senate than in the House. Vice President JD Vance cast the tie-breaking vote.

Trump proposed doing away with $1.1 billion for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting that lawmakers had approved for the next two fiscal years as well as $8.3 billion from several foreign aid accounts.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting provides funding to National Public Radio, the Public Broadcasting Service and local media stations throughout the country.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said before the vote that some of the progress stemmed from removing a spending cut for the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, a global health program to combat HIV/AIDS launched by former President George W. Bush.

“There was a lot of interest among our members in doing something on the PEPFAR issue and that’s reflected in the substitute,” Thune said. “And we hope that if we can get this across the finish line in the Senate that the House would accept that one small modification.”

South Dakota Republican Sen. Mike Rounds, who had raised concerns about cutting funding for rural public broadcasting stations run by tribal communities, announced a few hours before the vote he’d reached an agreement with the White House.

“We wanted to make sure tribal broadcast services in South Dakota continued to operate which provide potentially lifesaving emergency alerts,” Rounds wrote in a social media post. “We worked with the Trump administration to find Green New Deal money that could be reallocated to continue grants to tribal radio stations without interruption.”

Rounds said during a brief interview that $9.4 million will be transferred from an account within the Interior Department directly to 28 Native American radio stations in nine states.

“I had concerns specifically about the impact on these radio stations that are in rural areas with people that have basically very few other resources, and to me, they got caught in the crossfire on public broadcasting,” Rounds said. “And so I just wanted to get it fixed and I was successful in getting it fixed.”

White House budget director Russ Vought told reporters after a closed-door lunch meeting with Republican senators that he didn’t want to get “too far ahead” of discussions, but that his office was working with GOP senators to ensure certain local broadcast stations “have the opportunity to continue to do their early warning system and local reporting.”

Maine’s Collins wants more details

Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Collins, who voiced reservations about several of the rescissions during a June hearing, said preserving full funding for PEPFAR represented “progress.”

But Collins said a few hours before the vote she still wants more details from the White House budget office about the exact source of the other $9 billion in cuts to previously approved spending.

“One of the issues, which I raised at lunch, is the total is still $9 billion and it’s unclear to me how you get to $9 billion, because he’s listed a number of programs he wants to, quote, protect,” Collins said, referring to Vought. “So we still have the problem of not having detailed account information from OMB.”

Collins, R-Maine, then held up a printed version of the 1992 rescissions request that President George H.W. Bush sent Congress, which she said was “extremely detailed” and listed each account.

“I would contrast that to the message that we got for this rescission, which just has a paragraph and doesn’t tell you how it’s broken down in each program,” Collins said, adding she’s still “considering the options.”

The Senate’s procedural vote began a maximum of 10 hours of debate that will be followed by a marathon amendment voting session that could rework the bill. A final passage vote could take place as soon as Wednesday.

Trump expected to send more requests

The House approved the legislation in June, but the measure will have to go back across the Capitol for a final vote since the Senate is expected to make changes.

The effort to cancel funding that Congress previously approved in bipartisan government funding bills began last month when the Trump administration sent Congress this rescission request.

The initiative, led by White House budget director Vought, is part of Republicans’ ongoing efforts to reduce federal spending, which totaled $6.8 trillion during the last full fiscal year.

Vought expects to send lawmakers additional rescissions proposals in the months ahead, though he hasn’t said publicly when or what funding he’ll request Congress eliminate.

Once the White House submits a rescission request, it can legally freeze funding on those accounts for 45 days while Congress debates whether to approve, amend, or ignore the proposal.

Johnson slams funding for public media

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said during a press conference before the PEPFAR removal was announced that he hoped the Senate didn’t change the bill at all.

“I’ve urged them, as I always do, to please keep the product unamended because we have a narrow margin and we’ve got to pass it,” Johnson said. “But we’re going to process whatever they send us whenever they send (it to) us and I’m hopeful that it will be soon.”

Johnson said canceling the previously approved funding on some foreign aid programs and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting represented “low-hanging fruit.”

Federal funding for public media, Johnson said, embodied a “misuse of taxpayer dollars” on organizations that produce “biased reporting.”

“While at its origination NPR and PBS might have made some sense, and maybe it does now,” Johnson said. “But it shouldn’t be subsidized by taxpayers.”

Trump has also sought to encourage Republican senators to pass the bill without making any significant changes.

“It is very important that all Republicans adhere to my Recissions Bill and, in particular, DEFUND THE CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING (PBS and NPR), which is worse than CNN & MSDNC put together,” Trump wrote on social media last week. “Any Republican that votes to allow this monstrosity to continue broadcasting will not have my support or Endorsement. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

In an aerial view from a helicopter, the migrant detention center dubbed "Alligator Alcatraz" by Florida Republicans is seen at the site of the Dade-Collier Training and Transition Airport on July 4, 2025 in Ochopee, Florida.  (Photo by Alon Skuy/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Former top immigration officials from the Biden administration warned Tuesday that billions for immigration enforcement signed into law earlier this month will escalate the rapid detention and deportations of immigrants.

During a virtual press conference with the immigration advocacy group America’s Voice, the former Department of Homeland Security officials said they expect to see a trend toward states building “soft” temporary detention centers similar to Florida’s “Alligator Alcatraz,” the name given by Florida Republicans to an Everglades detention center.

Funding for those initiatives will come from President Donald Trump’s tax break and spending cut bill signed into law earlier this month that provides roughly $170 billion for immigration enforcement, the former officials said.

Trump’s massive tax and spending cut bill provides $30 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, making it the nation’s highest-funded law enforcement agency, to hire 10,000 new agents and carry out deportations. Another $45 billion will go to ICE for the detention of immigrants and $450 million in grants to states to partake in border enforcement.

Billions more are provided for border security and for the military to partake in border-related enforcement.

Andrea Flores, who directed border management for the National Security Council under former President Joe Biden said she expects to see states running their own immigration detention centers similar to the “Alligator Alcatraz” center that state officials quickly erected to hold immigrants. That state-run facility in the Florida Everglades is expected to house up to 5,000 immigrants.

Safety for migrants questioned

Jason Houser, who served as ICE chief of staff in the Biden administration, said the quickly built detention centers will likely create an unsafe environment for immigrants brought there. The lack of experience and training for employees running those centers will also put migrants at risk, he said.

“People are gonna get hurt,” he said. “They’re gonna die.”

He added that with the arrest quotas that immigration officials have been given, roughly 3,000 arrests a day, “ICE is going to focus on those (immigrants) that are easily reachable, those who have been complying and checking in,” either with immigration officials or appearing in immigration court.

“Hitting quotas is not in the national security interest,” Houser said.

Houser said with the rapid arrest and detention of immigrants, the need for detention centers will likely lead to states building the “soft sided” detention centers in “some of the most rural parts of the country where they cannot be properly staffed and resourced.”

Flores said if states work to build their own centers like the one in Florida, there will likely be a lack of oversight because DHS has significantly fired federal employees that ran the watchdog that conducted oversight of ICE — the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.

Flores currently serves as the vice president of immigration policy at FWD.us, which focuses on immigration policy and reform.

Increase expected in third-country removals

Royce Murray, a former DHS assistant secretary for border and immigration policy and a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services official during the Biden administration, said she is concerned that the Trump administration will now be able to ramp up third-country removals with the increase in funding.

Any removals  to a third country “have to be to a country that is safe,” she said.

If an immigrant has a final order of removal but their home country will not accept their deportation, then the United States typically looks for another country that will accept the removal — a third country.

The Trump administration has tried to secure agreements with countries to take deportees, such as Mexico and South Sudan, which recently ended a civil war, but is still experiencing violence. The State Department warns against travel to South Sudan, but the Trump administration won a case before the Supreme Court seeking to use the East African country for third-country removals.

Murray said that the Trump administration is using third-country removals to “create a climate of fear” and get immigrants to self-deport.

She said if third-country removals are going to take place, they “need to be a place where people can successfully integrate.”

Wisconsin has joined a lawsuit against the Trump administration's action to withhold $6.8 billion for education progams supporting English language learners, migrants, low-income children, adult learners and others. (Photo by Klaus Vedfelt/Getty Images)

Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul joined 23 states and the District of Columbia Monday in suing the Trump administration for withholding $6.8 billion meant for six U.S. Department of Education programs, which help support English language learners, migrants, low-income children, adult learners and others. 

The funds, approved in the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act 2025 and signed into law on March 15, are typically distributed to states by July 1. However, the Department of Education notified the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction as well as other state education agencies on June 30 that they would be withholding the funds. 

“Depriving our schools of critical resources is bad for our schools, bad for students, and bad for Wisconsin,” Attorney General Josh Kaul said in a statement. “This unlawful funding freeze should be stopped.”

The Wisconsin DPI said in a statement that the federal agency gave no specific explanation for the action. Instead, the U.S. Department of Education said that “decisions have not yet been made concerning submissions and awards for this upcoming academic year” and “accordingly, the Department will not be issuing Grant Award Notifications obligating funds for these programs on July 1 prior to completing that review. The Department remains committed to ensuring taxpayer resources are spent in accordance with the President’s priorities and the Department’s statutory responsibilities.” 

The withholding of funds comes as the Trump administration continues to pursue closing the Department of Education with a plan to lay off more than 1,000 agency employees and resume drastically cutting the agency after getting the greenlight from the U.S. Supreme Court Monday. The Trump administration has also withheld other funds this year, including for grants for mental health in schools. A spokesperson for the Office of Management and Budget said in a statement about the review of education funding that “initial findings have shown that many of these grant programs have been grossly misused to subsidize a radical leftwing agenda.” 

The multi-state lawsuit argues that the freeze of the $6.8 billion violates federal laws and regulations that authorize and fund the programs, federal laws, including the Antideficiency Act and Impoundment Control Act, that govern the federal budgeting process and the constitutional separation of powers doctrine and the Presentment Clause. 

The coalition of states is requesting that the court provide declaratory relief by finding the freeze is unlawful and offer injunctive relief by requiring the release of the funds. 

Over $72 million is being withheld from Wisconsin. Without the funding, school districts face funding shortfalls for programs that have already been planned, DPI may have to lay off 20 employees and programs at Wisconsin’s technical colleges are in trouble with $7.5 million in adult education grants being withheld.

State Superintendent Jill Underly said in a statement that Wisconsin schools depend on the federal funding distributed through an array of programs to support students. There are five programs affected: Title I-C, which supports migrant education, Title II-A, which goes towards teacher training and retention, Title III-A, which supports education of English language learners, Title IV-A, which is for student enrichment and after-school programs and Title IV-B, which supports community learning centers.

“Make no mistake, stopping this money has had and will continue to harm our families and communities,” Underly said. 

Wisconsin schools have received funding through these federal programs for decades to help carry out related programs. According to DPI, federal funding makes up about 8% of funding for Wisconsin schools with nearly $850 million coming into the state. 

Sen. Tammy Baldwin alongside 31 other U.S. senators penned a letter to Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought and Education Secretary Linda McMahon, calling on them to release the money. 

“This delay not only undermines effective state and local planning for using these funds to address student needs consistent with federal education law, which often takes place months before these funds become available, but also flies in the face of the nation’s education laws which confers state and local educational agency discretion on permissible uses of federal formula grant funds,” the senators wrote. “We are shocked by the continued lack of respect for states and local schools evidenced by this latest action by the administration.”

“It is unacceptable that the administration is picking and choosing what parts of the appropriations law to follow, and you must immediately implement the entire law as Congress intended and as the oaths you swore require you to do,” the lawmakers said. 

The lawmakers also said the “review” being undertaken by the administration appears to be intentional to delay the funding and will result in budget cuts for schools. They said it is happening “with no public information about what the review entails, what data the administration is examining or a timeline for such review.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

If you live in the US and want either a new or even a used electric vehicle, you have less than three months to buy one before things get much more expensive. Come September 30, the $7,500 credit for new EVs and the $4,000 credit for used EVs is set to expire. With President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed into law on July 4, automakers like Tesla and Ford are urging buyers to move quickly before the savings disappear.

Although Tesla boss Elon Musk has previously thrown his support behind the removal of the credits, the carmaker appears eager to ramp up sales as much as it can. The company’s homepage has been updated with a huge banner stating, ‘$7,500 Federal Tax Credit Ending’, and adding that shoppers need to take delivery by September if they want the savings.

Read: Ford Swaps Employee Pricing For A Deal That Might Actually Save You More

In addition, Tesla started sending out emails, telling consumers to ‘order soon to get your $7,500.’ Currently, it’s possible to buy a brand new Tesla Model 3 Long Range Rear-Wheel Drive for $34,990 with the credit, but after the credit is removed, the price will increase to $42,490, unless Tesla starts to discount it from October. Additionally, it’s possible to buy a Model Y Long Range Rear-Wheel Drive for as little as $37,490 with the credit. Exclude the $7,500 saving, and the price is $44,990.

The Cybertruck is included in the incentive as well. The full $7,500 credit currently applies to both the Long Range and All-Wheel Drive versions, dropping their starting prices to $69,990 and $79,990.

Ford Offers Perks to Stay Competitive

Ford is also doing what it can to encourage sales. It has extended an offer for a complimentary home EV charger and installation from July 8 through to September 30. Last week, On top of that, Ford has rolled out a new “zero, zero, zero” financing deal: zero down payment, zero payments for the first 90 days, and zero percent interest for 48 months on select models.

“There’s never a better time to buy an EV than now,” said Stacey Ferreira, Ford’s head of US sales strategy, in a recent interview with Business Insider. “There are lots of incentives out on the marketplace, the tax credit is still there for the time being.”

With the tax credits set to expire, the push from automakers feels more urgent than generous. Are these final offers truly great deals, or just marketing wrapped in a deadline? If you’re considering an EV, now’s the time to weigh the savings against the pressure and decide if the timing works for you.

Congresswoman Gwen Moore speaks during the protest against President Donald Trump and Elon Musk on April 5, 2025. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore joined U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington) in issuing a letter calling on the heads of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to reinstate directives protecting crime victims who are seeking T or U visas from immigration enforcement.

Moore and Jayapal called for the Trump Administration to reinstate ICE Directive 11005.3, which offered protections for immigrant crime victims, and for people currently in ICE custody who have applied for a T or U visa to be released within 60 days of the letter.

“Congress created victim-based immigration benefits to encourage noncitizen victims to seek assistance and report crimes committed against them despite their undocumented status,” Moore and Jayapal wrote.

The Biden-era directive posited that, rather than hindering law enforcement, “when victims have access to humanitarian protections, regardless of their immigration status, and can feel safe in coming forward, it strengthens the ability of local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies, including ICE, to detect, investigate, and prosecute crimes.”

In their letter, Moore and Jayapal highlighted the directive’s ties to the Violence Against Women Act,  stressing that, “T and U visas were designed to strengthen the relationship and build trust between victims of crime and law enforcement.” Prosecutors often rely on T and U visa holders for “critical eyewitness testimony” the letter states. “These visa programs make everyone in our communities safer. Without them, undocumented victims and witnesses might be too scared to come forward to report crimes to the detriment of all.”

Under ICE Directive 1105.3, the agency was instructed to “exercise prosecutorial discretion to facilitate access to justice and victim-based immigration benefits by noncitizen crime victims.” Agents were directed to “refrain from taking civil immigration enforcement action against known beneficiaries of victim-based immigration benefits and those known to have a pending application for such benefits.” ICE officers were also directed to “look for indicia or evidence that suggests a noncitizen is a victim of a crime, such as being the beneficiary of an order of protection or being the recipient of an eligibility letter from the Office of Trafficking in Persons.”

The Trump administration’s broad crackdown on immigrants who lack permanent legal status has targeted  crime victims who hold or are applying for T or U visas.  In June Ramone Morales Reyes, a Milwaukee man who had lived in the United States for decades and was actively cooperating in a U-Visa investigation, was arrested and detained by ICE. After arresting Morales Reyes, DHS Sec. Noem issued a press release claiming that Morales Reyes had penned a letter threatening to assassinate President Donald Trump. The letter, however, had been written in perfect English with only a few misspellings. Morales Reyes’ family, as well as immigration advocates and attorneys, said that it was impossible for him to have written the letter as he could not speak English and was not proficient in reading or writing in Spanish. When ICE arrested Morales Reyes, local law enforcement were already investigating the possibility that someone was attempting to frame him. 

In early June, Morales Reyes was released from ICE detention on bond, and a man who’d been arrested for attempting to rob him months earlier admitted to forging the letter to trigger a deportation, and prevent Morales Reyes from testifying against him. Moore and U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan sought to visit Morales Reyes while he was in custody, and called on Noem to retract her statement accusing him of threatening Trump. 

Rather than retracting the accusations, however, DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin issued a statement after Morales Reyes was released on bond calling him a “criminal illegal alien” and claiming that, while he is no longer under investigation for threats against Trump, “he is in the country illegally” and has committed previous crimes. The statement asserted  that “DHS will continue to fight for the arrest, detention, and removal of illegal aliens who have no right to be in this country.” 

ICE also worked to deport Yessenia Ruano, a Milwaukee  teacher’s aid. Ruano had been a victim of human trafficking, and was applying for a T-Visa. In mid-June, Ruano opted to return to El Salvador with her two daughters, who were born in the United States. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Cadillac is aiming to lead the pack when it comes to luxury EV offerings in the US, and it doesn’t plan to slow down, even as federal tax incentives disappear. By the end of September, President Trump’s One Bill Beautiful Bill Act will eliminate credits, effectively increasing the prices of all eligible new EVs by $7,500. It comes at a bad time for Cadillac, which has recently grown its EV family dramatically.

The company has introduced several new electric models: the performance-focused Lyriq V, the full-size Escalade IQ and IQL, the compact Optiq and Optiq V, as well as the mid-size Vistiq and the ultra-luxury Celestiq.

Read: Nearly 1 Of 4 Cadillacs Sold Is Fully Electric

While the loss of the credit could push some automakers to lean more heavily on internal combustion engines, Cadillac appears committed to its EV trajectory. As John Roth, vice president of global Cadillac, put it, “you can never stick your head in the sand.”

Preparing for a Post-Credit Landscape

According to Roth, “the auto business is not a straight line. The EV business is certainly not.” He noted that while Cadillac will remain eligible for the $7,500 lease and non-lease vehicles through the third quarter, it is making plans for when the credit is removed.

Speaking with The Detroit Free Press, Roth didn’t reveal specific steps Cadillac will take once the credits are gone, but he made it clear that adjustments are underway.

Cadillac’s Plans

“Are we always game-theorying what’s going on in the marketplace? Absolutely,” he said. “As you look in our past, chip shortages, pandemics, you name it, we’ve been through a lot as an organization. And going through that makes you stronger about managing the challenges that are in front of you but also taking advantage of the tailwinds that are blowing behind you.”

Fortunately for Cadillac, it has remained relatively shielded from the impacts of trade tariffs enforced by President Trump. With the exception of the Optiq, all of Cadillac’s current US models are manufactured in the United States, meaning there has been “very limited impact, if you will, on the Cadillac brand.”

Reading Time: 4 minutes

For over a decade, Wisconsin has heard the same message from Republicans regarding full Medicaid expansion: Accepting 90% federal reimbursement to cover more low-income people will only set Wisconsin up for failure if the federal government abandons its part of the deal. 

At first glance, President Donald Trump’s recently signed big bill appears to validate that argument. The 40 states that have fully expanded are now expected to lose billions of dollars in federal aid while getting tagged with additional administrative costs to create work requirements and eligibility assessments required in the bill. 

But it turns out Wisconsin is still going to be subject to the new federal mandates without the higher federal reimbursement rate that expansion states will continue to receive. In other words, at a time when the Republican-controlled federal government is supposedly pulling out the rug from expansion states, Wisconsin is still left holding the bag.

A look back

Back in 2014, then-Gov. Scott Walker and Wisconsin Republicans made the controversial decision not to accept full Medicaid expansion.

At the time, Walker explained his goal “is to get more people out into the workplace, more people covered when it comes to health care and fewer people dependent on the government, not because we’ve kicked them out, but we’ve empowered them to take control of their own destiny.”

But he also argued that the federal government would eventually pull back on its commitment to fund Medicaid at 90%.

“That commitment is not going to be there and taxpayers all across America will be on the hook,” Walker said. “They are not going to be on the hook in Wisconsin.”

At the time, Wisconsin was one of 25 states not accepting expansion. Now, the state is one of the 10 remaining holdouts, with most of the others in the deep red South. Even reliably red states, like Arkansas and Louisiana, have accepted full expansion. 

Instead of accepting full expansion, Wisconsin chose to cover individuals through BadgerCare, the state’s Medicaid-supported health insurance program for low-income residents set up by former Gov. Tommy Thompson, a Republican. 

Walker and Republicans lowered Medicaid coverage to 100% of the federal poverty line from the previous 200% and eliminated the waiting list for childless adults. Those above the poverty line without employer-sponsored insurance could purchase it through the Affordable Care Act marketplace using federal subsidies, according to the Wisconsin Policy Forum.  

But Wisconsin taxpayers are paying more to cover individuals below the poverty line: 39.3% of costs rather than 10% under full Medicaid expansion. In 2023, Medicaid accounted for 15.7% of state taxpayer spending, according to the policy forum.

Under its approach, Wisconsin doesn’t have an eligibility gap like some states, something Republicans highlight as a reason the state doesn’t need to expand.

But that has come with a loss of federal funds. Over the past decade, Wisconsin’s Department of Health Services estimates, the state has spent about $2.6 billion more to cover the costs of a partial expansion compared with the projected cost under a federal expansion.

Under an expansion, more individuals would be able to access Medicaid. But the Wisconsin Policy Forum found it would have a somewhat modest impact on coverage levels — the percentage change in Medicaid enrollees would be 7.2%, compared with nearly 30% or more in other non-expansion states. 

Work requirements still in effect under Trump bill

With the recent federal bill, Walker and other Republicans still argue Wisconsin was right not to accept federal expansion. The state is going to experience the impacts to a lesser extent than fully expanded states. 

But because Wisconsin receives federal waivers for its Medicaid program, the state is still subject to some provisions under the new law, including the work requirements, eligibility determinations and provider taxes.

Under the new work requirements, individuals covered by Medicaid are required to prove they are working 80 hours per month — parents with dependent children or people who are medically frail are exempted.

As a result, some 230,000 Wisconsin residents could lose coverage while the state incurs administrative costs to account for the new requirements, according to an estimate from U.S. Senate Democrats based on data from the Congressional Budget Office.

The work requirements don’t stop at individuals covered by Medicaid alone; it also extends to coverage through marketplace subsidies, affecting over 200,000 Wisconsin residents. 

Work requirements used to be required for Wisconsin residents to access coverage through federal waivers, but in 2021 then-President Joe Biden removed the work requirement. 

The labor force participation rate has dipped from about 68% in 2017 to a little over 65% as of May 2025 but has remained higher than the national average, which is about 62%. Some reports suggest that decline is due to the aging workforce in the state.

Work requirements have also been found to increase the uninsured rate.  

The Wisconsin Policy Forum reports that one of the main reasons work requirements may lead to higher uninsured rates is that they are confusing and time-consuming. Some people may choose to get rid of coverage altogether to avoid unnecessary paperwork. 

What could happen with the federal bill?

The Kaiser Family Foundation also found that implementing work requirements will be costly for states, costing anywhere from $10 million to over $270 million, depending on the size of the state. DHS estimates the state will pay $6 million annually to implement work requirements, while receiving a lower federal match rate than fully expanded states to reimburse for administrative costs.

With a lower federal match rate, Wisconsin has increased Medicaid funding through hospital taxes, which the new state budget just increased from 1.8% to the federal maximum of 6% for the 2025-27 biennium budget.

Republican lawmakers in the state were quick to approve the hospital tax increase, despite their previous opposition to Medicaid expansion as a means for drawing down additional federal funding. If they hadn’t, the state’s 1.8% tax would have been frozen under Trump’s big bill. The increase will raise some $1 billion more annually in federal matching funds that the state can use to pay hospitals for care they provide Medicaid patients.

States that expanded will not lose the 90% federal match rate, but those like Wisconsin that didn’t will now miss out on an additional incentive to expand created during the Biden administration.

The incentive would have raised the federal match rate to 95% for two years, but was eliminated by Trump’s big bill. Instead Wisconsin will remain at about 60% reimbursement, while still facing the same bureaucratic requirements as expansion states.

Wisconsin still losing out from not expanding Medicaid — even under Trump’s big bill 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 will receive an estimated $1 billion more annually in federal funds for Medicaid because the state budget includes a change that pre-empts a provision in President Donald Trump’s big bill.

Trump’s bill would have prevented Wisconsin from raising its hospital tax.

But days before Trump signed it, the Republican-led Legislature and Democratic Gov. Tony Evers approved a 2025-27 state budget that raises Wisconsin’s hospital tax from 1.8% to 6%.

The increase will raise some $1 billion more annually in federal matching funds that the state can use to pay hospitals for care they provide Medicaid patients.

Wisconsin’s largest Medicaid program is BadgerCare Plus, which provides health insurance to about 1 million low-income people age 64 and under.

Republican U.S. Rep. Derrick Van Orden, who represents western Wisconsin, claimed that Trump’s bill “secured” the $1 billion.

The bill cuts roughly $1 trillion over 10 years from Medicaid, which costs nearly $900 billion annually.

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

Sources

• Wisconsin Hospital Association: WI State Budget Bill Includes Historic Medicaid Rate Increase for Hospitals
• Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Derrick Van Orden claims credit for Wisconsin's extra Medicaid dollars after voting to cut the program
• Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Ron Johnson laments Wisconsin's reach for Medicaid funds, spurred by the Trump bill he voted for
• Wisconsin Department of Administration: Wisconsin Health Services Department budget
• Wisconsin Legislature: Health Services budget
• Wisconsin Department of Health Services: BadgerCare Plus
• Wisconsin Department of Health Services: BadgerCare Plus
• X: Derrick Van Orden post
• Axios: Trump's spending bill cuts Medicaid: Here's what it's called in your state
• Kiplinger: What to Know About New Medicaid Cuts: Is Your Local Hospital Closing Soon?
• Wisconsin Watch: Have millions of nondisabled, working-age adults been added to Medicaid?

Does Donald Trump’s big bill provide an additional $1 billion annually for Wisconsin’s Medicaid program? 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The U.S. Education Department directed its federal student loan servicers to restart interest accrual on Aug. 1 for participants in the Biden-era SAVE plan. (Catherine Lane/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Interest accrual on the debt of nearly 7.7 million student loan borrowers enrolled in the Saving on a Valuable Education plan will resume Aug. 1, the U.S. Education Department said Wednesday.

The Biden-era income-driven repayment plan better known as SAVE saw legal challenges from several GOP-led states beginning in 2024, creating uncertainty for borrowers who were placed in an interest-free forbearance amid that legal limbo.

The SAVE plan, created in 2023, aimed to provide lower monthly loan payments for borrowers and forgive remaining debt after a certain period of time.

In February, a federal appeals court upheld a lower court injunction that blocked the SAVE plan from going into effect. The department said Wednesday that it’s instructing its federal student loan servicers to start charging interest Aug. 1 to comply with court orders.

When the SAVE plan forbearance ends, “borrowers will be responsible for making monthly payments that include any accrued interest as well as their principal amounts,” the department said in a written announcement.

“For years, the Biden Administration used so-called ‘loan forgiveness’ promises to win votes, but federal courts repeatedly ruled that those actions were unlawful,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement alongside the announcement.

“Congress designed these programs to ensure that borrowers repay their loans, yet the Biden Administration tried to illegally force taxpayers to foot the bill instead,” she added.

McMahon said her department is urging borrowers under the SAVE plan to “quickly transition to a legally compliant repayment plan.”

“Borrowers in SAVE cannot access important loan benefits and cannot make progress toward loan discharge programs authorized by Congress,” she said.

‘Unnecessary interest charges’

Mike Pierce, executive director of the Student Borrower Protection Center, blasted the department’s decision in a statement Wednesday.

“Instead of fixing the broken student loan system, Secretary McMahon is choosing to drown millions of people in unnecessary interest charges and blaming unrelated court cases for her own mismanagement,” he said.

“Every day, we hear from borrowers waiting on hold with their servicer for hours, begging the government to let them out of this forbearance, and help them get back on track — instead, McMahon is choosing to jack up the cost of their student debt without giving them a way out.”

The agency has taken heat for its sweeping actions in the months since President Donald Trump took office as he and his administration look to dismantle the department.

The department is also mired in a legal challenge over some of its most significant efforts so far, including laying off more than 1,300 employees earlier this year as part of a reduction in force effort, an executive order calling on McMahon to facilitate the closure of her own agency and Trump’s proposal to transfer some services to other federal agencies. These actions have been temporarily halted in court.

Meanwhile, President Donald Trump signed a massive tax and spending cut bill into law last week, part of which forces any borrower under the SAVE plan to opt in to a different repayment plan by July 1, 2028, or be automatically placed in a new, income-based repayment plan. 

Planned Parenthood has about 600 clinics in 48 states, and according to their calculations, more than 1.1 million patients could lose access to care because of a provision in the massive budget bill signed by President Donald Trump last week. (Photo by McKenzie Romero/Utah News Dispatch)

Days after President Donald Trump signed a massive budget bill, attorneys for Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its state members in Massachusetts and Utah filed a lawsuit Monday challenging a provision they say will affect more than 1 million patients who use their clinics across the U.S.

Planned Parenthood says if the defund provision stands, those targeted will be patients who use Medicaid as their insurance at its centers for services including birth control and cancer screenings. The organization says it only uses federal Medicaid funding for abortion in the very narrow cases allowed, including rape, incest, and to save a pregnant person’s life.

The complaint, filed in U.S. District Court of Massachusetts against U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Medicaid and Medicare administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz, challenges a provision on page 597 of the reconciliation bill. It prohibits Medicaid funding from going to any sexual and reproductive health clinics that provide abortions and received more than $800,000 in federal and state Medicaid funding in fiscal year 2023. That prohibition will last one year from the date the bill was signed.

While there may be a few independent clinics with operating budgets that high, it effectively singles out Planned Parenthood clinics. The entire organization has about 600 clinics in 48 states, and according to their calculations, more than 1.1 million patients could lose access to care because of the change in the law.

“This case is about making sure that patients who use Medicaid as their insurance to get birth control, cancer screenings, and STI testing and treatment can continue to do so at their local Planned Parenthood health center, and we will make that clear in court,” said Planned Parenthood Federation of America president and CEO Alexis McGill Johnson in a public statement.

The organization identified 200 of its clinics in 24 states that are at risk of closure with the cuts, and said nearly all of those clinics — 90% — are in states where abortion is legal. In 12 states, approximately 75% of abortion-providing Planned Parenthood health centers could close. Because of that, some reproductive health advocates have called it a backdoor nationwide abortion ban.

The nonprofit also warned that eliminating Planned Parenthood centers from the Medicaid program would likely also impact patients who use other forms of insurance, if centers are forced to cut their services or close. 

Planned Parenthood argued this section of the bill is unconstitutional because it specifies and punishes them, saying it violates equal protection laws and qualifies as retaliation against free speech rights. 

“The Defund Provision is a naked attempt to leverage the government’s spending power to attack and penalize Planned Parenthood and impermissibly single it out for unfavorable treatment,” the complaint says. “It does so not only because of Planned Parenthood members’ long history of providing legal abortions to patients across the country, but also because of Planned Parenthood’s unique role in advocating for policies to protect and expand access to sexual and reproductive health care, including abortion.”

The complaint also details numerous instances when Trump said he was committed to defunding Planned Parenthood in 2016 and 2017, during his first presidential term, and it highlighted the provisions of Project 2025 that called for the defunding of Planned Parenthood. Project 2025 is the blueprint document drafted by the conservative Heritage Foundation, and the administration has followed many of its directives so far.

According to the lawsuit, Planned Parenthood members have “structural independence,” meaning no member “has control over the operations or decision-making processes of another.” It’s argued in the complaint that 10 members, including plaintiff Planned Parenthood Association of Utah, don’t meet the definition of prohibited entity under the new law, because they do not provide abortion services or did not receive over $800,000 in Medicaid funds during fiscal year 2023. They say these members are not “affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, or clinics” of any prohibited entity because they are separately incorporated and independently governed.

“But these Non-Qualifying Members can take no comfort in the plain text of the statute,” reads the lawsuit. “Defendants will willfully misinterpret the statute to disqualify them from receiving federal Medicaid funding, based solely on their association with PPFA and other Planned Parenthood Members.”

“As the Trump administration guts our public health care system, we know millions will suffer and struggle to get care. We will not tolerate these attacks,” said Shireen Ghorbani, interim president of Planned Parenthood Association of Utah, in a statement. “For over 55 years, we have proudly cared for generations of Utahns, and we will always find ways to meet the health care needs of our communities. Here in Utah, we are used to politicians trying to strip away our rights for political gain. We haven’t backed down before, and we won’t now.”

Defunding will harm general wellness, not abortion care, Arizona clinic owner says

Planned Parenthood also noted in its complaint that the harms could be especially devastating because “even where alternative providers are theoretically available, those providers, who are already stretched to capacity, often do not offer the same comprehensive sexual and reproductive health service options, have long wait times for patients, and cannot accommodate the huge influx of patients who would need to find a new provider of care.”

Some clinics that operate independently of Planned Parenthood will be affected by the law as well. George Hill, president and CEO of Maine Family Planning, said they receive nearly $2 million from Medicaid funds (MaineCare) on a yearly basis, and about half of their patients are enrolled in some form of Medicaid. Hill said they plan to sue as well, but the timing is uncertain at this point. Abortion care makes up about 15% of their overall services, while the rest is routine gynecological and preventative health care, he said.

In the meantime, Hill plans to solicit as much support as possible from individual donors to keep the doors to their 19 clinics open and serving Medicaid patients.

“Whether or how long we’ll be able to do that is another question,” Hill said.

In Arizona, Dr. DeShawn Taylor operates the independent clinic Desert Star Institute for Family Planning. About 75% of the services at Desert Star are abortion related, and while Medicaid (AHCCCS in Arizona) dollars can’t be used for the procedure, Taylor said they could often at least get the initial consultation appointment covered by Medicaid.

The cuts that are coming, Taylor said, will not stop people from obtaining an abortion somehow. But there will be other downstream effects.

“People are already economically depressed,” she said. “What we’re going to see is people are still going to do what’s necessary to get (abortion) care, but what’s going to fall off is their ability to get their preventative care, their contraception, their wellness exams, those types of things.”

Plans for global growth rarely follow a straight line, especially when politics and international trade come into play. For BYD, one of the world’s fastest-rising automakers, a much-anticipated expansion into Mexico has been put on hold.

The reason? A mix of shifting geopolitical winds and concerns over U.S. trade policy, particularly in light of Donald Trump’s return to the White House. Still, the company isn’t slowing down entirely, and has just opened its first factory outside of Asia, located in Brazil.

Read: Major Carmaker Sued Over One Toilet Per 31 Workers And Other Horrors

As we reported last year, had been scoping out three locations in Mexico for a new factory. However, it paused its search in September to wait to see the outcome of the 2024 US presidential election, likely anticipating that a victory for Trump would likely shake up the status quo of international trade. That’s exactly what the 45th and 47th President has done.

While recently speaking at the opening of BYD’s new factory in Brazil, executive vice president Stella La said the surging automaker is rethinking its strategy.

“Geopolitical issues have a big impact on the automotive industry,” she told Bloomberg. “Now everybody is rethinking their strategy in other countries. We want to wait for more clarity before making our decision.”

BYD’s efforts to establish a base in Mexico were hampered in March, even before President Trump announced sweeping tariffs. That month, China’s commerce ministry delayed approval of the Mexican factory due to concerns the carmaker’s technology could be accessed by the US.

From Pause in Mexico to Progress in Brazil

Although Mexico is no longer in play for the moment, BYD is still moving forward in the region. The company’s new facility in Camaçari, Brazil , is now operational and has room to grow. It currently produces up to 150,000 vehicles a year, with plans to double that figure to 300,000 within two years.

However, the site has not been without controversy. Late last year, Brazilian authorities reported that some international workers at the plant had been living in conditions likened to modern-day slavery.

In response, Li emphasized the company’s commitment to reform. Going forward, she said, BYD will work more closely with local partners to uphold labor and human rights standards.

“We should slow down, step back from the focus on speed,” Li said. “It will take longer, but that’s OK.”