Washington State Standard

Let there be light.

When Washington state lawmakers return to Olympia for the 2027 legislative session, natural light will again shine on the House and Senate chambers. 

Construction to restore skylights in the state Capitol begins in June and is slated to end in December, according to the state Department of Enterprise Services. It’ll cost the state roughly $8.6 million.

Built in 1928, the Legislative Building initially featured skylights and laylights over the chambers, but they were removed in the 1970s and roofed over due to seismic risk. It’s now impossible to tell they were ever there.

This left the chambers, where bills are debated and voted on for a few months per year, lit by electric lighting, instead of the “soft ambient glow of the filtered daylight,” according to a 2017 feasibility study. Most legislating in Olympia happens in the winter and spring, when the days are short, and the weather tends to be rainy.

Lt. Gov. Denny Heck believes it’s appropriate to restore the skylights as the Capitol approaches its centennial. 

It should’ve been done a long time ago, he said. 

“It’s been there 100 years, and it’s gonna be there another 500 years,” Heck said. “That’s how we ought to treat this place.”

He has his fingers crossed that it’ll be beneficial, “maybe even improve some behavior, who knows?” Heck laughed at the idea of putting some “sunshine” back on legislators as a symbol of transparency in government. 

Sen. Mark Schoesler, R-Ritzville, sees it as restoring the Capitol to its “historic elegance.”

“It’s really important historical preservation,” said Schoesler, the Republican lead on the capital budget. “I think when people see it, they’ll wonder why we waited so long.”

The difficulty of restoring the skylights while still meeting building codes and improving acoustics and security presented an obstacle.

Schoesler said House lawmakers long “despised” the project, while the Senate was more receptive. Heck noted that spending money on the Capitol is always politically fraught, seen by some as lawmakers indulging in upgrades to their workplace over other priorities.

The work this year will include the skylights and electric shades, as well as updating audio-visual equipment for the chambers, replacing existing lights with energy-efficient LEDs and upgrading fire alert systems. The 2017 study called the project “very complex.”

It’s just the latest way the state has tried to return the Capitol to its prior self. The state has reopened some access to the Capitol dome, which had long been restricted. Now, some legislators will get a guided tour of the building’s upper reaches each year. 

Schoesler, who had long been pushing to ease the dome restrictions, said his colleagues were excited to see the Capitol’s inner workings.

“It’s all our Capitol,” Schoesler said.

A federal judge has rejected a request to ditch political maps for Washington’s Legislature that he approved two years ago.

Now, opponents are waiting to see if the U.S. Supreme Court will weigh in on whether the maps comply with an April ruling from the high court in the case Louisiana v. Callais, which significantly curtailed the use of race in drawing districts. 

U.S. District Court Judge Robert Lasnik approved the redrawing of legislative district boundaries in 2024 to enhance the political voice of Latino voters in the Yakima Valley. This came in response to a lawsuit over the map the state’s bipartisan redistricting commission came up with in 2021.

Lasnik on Friday denied opponents’ motion to undo his changes and restore the commission-drawn boundaries.

In a 10-page order, Lasnik said Jose Trevino and state Rep. Alex Ybarra, R-Quincy, didn’t have standing to file their motion for the revised map to be tossed out.

Trevino and Ybarra, who intervened in 2022 in the dispute, argued Lasnik’s earlier ruling doesn’t comply with the Callais decision.

They’ve also petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case and have asked the high court to expedite consideration of their appeal. 

“Expedited consideration of this motion and the petition for writ of certiorari is warranted because the 2026 elections in Washington, like every other State, are looming,” says a motion filed Friday by their attorneys, one of whom is state House Minority Leader Drew Stokesbary, R-Auburn.

Absent relief from the court, Washington’s elections will take place under a map that is impermissible based on the Callais ruling, they argue.

On Sunday, Trevino’s lawyers told the Supreme Court that with Lasnik’s decision, it is “the only remaining avenue” to ensure the state legislative map used in Washington’s upcoming election is in line with its recent ruling.

Lawyers representing the Latino plaintiffs in the original case oppose the request to speed up review of the petition to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

They pointed to a concurrence authored in 2022 by Justice Brett Kavanaugh in an Alabama districting case. In it, he cites the “Purcell principle,” a bedrock tenet of election law, that discourages federal courts from swooping in and messing with a state’s laws in the run-up to an election.

Secretary of State Steve Hobbs welcomed Lasnik’s ruling. 

Hobbs warned that with candidate filing complete ahead of the Aug. 4 primary, a shift in the maps this year would’ve been a “recipe for chaos.” Sixty-seven candidates are seeking seats in the 13 districts that were redrawn in 2024, according to state election officials.

Meanwhile, on Monday, the Supreme Court opted not to wade in on cases concerning legislative maps in Mississippi and North Dakota. Rather, in an unsigned court, they sent each case back to lower courts to be reconsidered in light of last month’s ruling.

This story updated with comment from Steve Hobbs.

Theo Angelis is Washington’s newest state Supreme Court justice.

While he has been on the court for about six weeks, Angelis was formally sworn in Monday in a ceremony at the Temple of Justice in Olympia. Gov. Bob Ferguson appointed him to the role in March.

“Anyone who’s ever worked with Justice Angelis will say the same thing,” Ferguson said Monday. “For such a brilliant legal mind, he’s also the nicest guy you will ever want to meet.”

Angelis is replacing retired Justice Barbara Madsen, who had been on the court since 1993. She was the first woman elected to the court and served as chief justice from 2010 to 2017.

“I pledge to you, as a justice, I will be prepared and thoughtful,” Angelis said. “I will approach each case with passion and dedication. I will care deeply, always, about how every decision impacts people in Washington, and I will respect everyone who appears before this court.”

“Our work is not just deciding cases, though, it also is in supervising our justice system in the state, and that work, in some ways, is even more important,” Angelis continued. “I am dedicated to continually re-examining, rebuilding, and reforming our justice system.”

Angelis joins the high court from private practice at K&L Gates, where he specialized in intellectual property and appellate litigation. In that work, he represented many companies, including numerous based outside the United States. 

He has also worked pro bono extensively, including representing children denied counsel, immigrants and people experiencing homelessness. 

Julie Anne Halter, managing partner at K&L Gates in Seattle, said she realized Angelis was “wicked smart” when she first met him 25 years ago. She said he had made clear early in his tenure at the firm that the only thing that could take him away from it was becoming a judge.

“As Justice Angelis steps onto the court, he is exactly where he is supposed to be,” Halter said. “He is principled, yet open-minded, well-informed, yet intensely curious. He is an independent critical thinker, but very much in touch with the realities of everyday people.”

Angelis is the child of an immigrant father from Greece and a mother whose parents were refugees from Turkey. His father John Angelis, a reverend, delivered the invocation and benediction at Monday’s ceremony. Angelis is active in the Greek Orthodox Church and has served as a Sunday School teacher.

Angelis holds degrees from Claremont McKenna College, the London School of Economics, Oxford University and Yale Law School. He also clerked on the District of Columbia Court of Appeals for a judge appointed by Ronald Reagan.

He joins the court as a monumental legal fight looms over the future of a state income tax on high earners. The Legislature approved the tax earlier this year. It’s expected the justices will need to decide whether to follow nearly century-old precedent that found such a levy unconstitutional.

Angelis is headed for an election battle to retain his seat. He faces retired Federal Way Municipal Court Judge Dave Larson, who narrowly lost a campaign for the high court in 2024; Sharonda Amamilo, a family and juvenile court judge in Thurston County; and Greg Miller. 

The campaign is sure to be expensive. Angelis has raised $144,000, while Larson, who has support from the state Republican Party, has brought in $136,000 and Amamilo has raised $15,000, according to campaign finance filings.

The winner will serve the remainder of Madsen’s term, which runs until January 2029. Full terms on the court run six years.

Angelis is Ferguson’s second appointment, after Justice Colleen Melody was tapped for the court late last year. Their two appointments and other departures are resulting in significant turnover on the court.

Ferguson had worked with both of his appointees: Melody at the attorney general’s office and Angelis early in his career at K&L Gates. Neither of them had prior judicial experience.

In her retirement from the court, Madsen will be teaching state constitutional law at Gonzaga University.

Angelis, who is married with two kids, splits his time between Seattle and Olympia.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Conversations with survivors of sexual abuse left Missouri state Sen. Tracy McCreery wondering what could have prevented the harm, leading her to sponsor a bill that would require clergy and religious workers to report suspected child abuse or neglect.

Her bill would have forced ministers to report even if they learned of abuse during confession or another religious rite. She urges people to view the issue through the lens of child safety and not against religion.

“Children are just very vulnerable and it’s up to us as adults to not allow them to be harmed,” the Democrat told Stateline. “There shouldn’t be an exception for adults that know about something and just don’t report it.”

Her bill failed to advance as the Missouri legislative session drew to a close. Other state lawmakers across the country also are grappling with the question of who should be required to report suspected child abuse or neglect, known as “mandated reporters.”

Some legislators are weighing whether clergy should be included — and whether they should be forced to reveal information from confessions. Other lawmakers are wrestling with whether sports coaches, talent agents, camp leaders and other professions with access to children should be mandated reporters.

The religious freedom question played out most recently in Washington state. A Washington law enacted last year requires clergy to report suspected child abuse and neglect, even when they receive the information through confidential communication during a religious rite, such as confession. Catholic bishops and then Orthodox churches sued, saying it violated their First Amendment right to religious freedom. The U.S. Justice Department joined the lawsuit on the bishops’ side.

Confession is considered a sacred rite in the Catholic faith. Penitents confess their sins to a priest, who is forbidden by church law from revealing anything said. The Washington law “puts Roman Catholic priests to an impossible choice: violate 2,000 years of Church teaching and incur automatic excommunication or refuse to comply with Washington law and be subject to imprisonment, fine, and civil liability,” the bishops’ suit said.

A federal judge blocked enforcement of that portion of the law, and the state eventually agreed to drop the obligation. Clergy remain mandated reporters, but state prosecutors do not enforce reporting requirements related to confession.

In New York, a pending bill would add any “clergy member or other minister of any religion” to the list of required reporters, similar to a Kansas bill that passed the state House but died in the Senate this session. Both bills would exempt information received through a confession.

South Dakota lawmakers also considered adding clergy to the state’s list of mandated reporters this year, with exemptions for confession, though that proposal failed in committee. Church opponents said requiring faith leaders to make “subjective” calls on whether difficult life circumstances or poverty amount to reportable abuse or neglect would interfere with the clergy-parishioner relationship, and run afoul of First Amendment protections, the South Dakota Searchlight reported.

A pending Vermont bill, however, aims to end the mandatory reporting exception for confession.

McCreery rejects the idea that an adult should be able to confess to abuse in a religious setting without prompting a report, and thinks there are loopholes in reporting laws that undermine child safety.

“That really repulses me,” she said. “Why are we not thinking about our obligations to protect the child?”

But Chris Motz, senior counsel with First Liberty Institute, which pursues religious freedom cases, said the Washington litigation should serve as a lesson to other states considering similar bills.

“The lesson for state legislators is going to be that they have to respect long-standing religious rights, while balancing the important interests in safeguarding children,” he said. “We don’t have to always see things as sort of a winner take all, this or that. We can do a little bit with both hands.”

Carrying the legal burden

The bills sometimes define “clergy” widely, including not only ordained leaders such as priests and rabbis, but also those who serve as spiritual leaders of any religious community, church or sect.

Michael W. Halcomb, an ordained minister and assistant professor at Montreat College in North Carolina, told Stateline that if abusers know clergy must report anything disclosed in counseling or confession, they may never seek help at all.

“If reporting is mandated, abusers will likely never come forward for help or counseling,” Halcomb said. “That means the abuse stays completely hidden no matter what happens.”

Halcomb said many pastors are not equipped to determine where “spiritual guidance ends and a formal criminal confession begins,” which could complicate broad reporting mandates.

“Whoever has the ability to isolate a child, in other words, should have to carry the legal burden to report.”

But Vermont Democratic state Rep. Esme Cole introduced a bill seeking to repeal the state’s clergy-confidentiality exception. Cole said the bill is not aimed at one denomination or only at what is said in confession. She said it is also about abuse known about by church leaders that is never reported; she wants such leaders to be required to report as well.

The issue is personal, Cole told Stateline. A close friend, she said, is an adult survivor of physical and emotional abuse that happened in a church setting when he was about 10. The priest accused of the abuse, she said, never faced discipline and was instead moved elsewhere.

Cole calls it the “pass the trash” loophole.

“When there’s bad behavior, and by bad behavior I mean real abuse committed by a member of the diocese they move them to the next church over or two churches over,” Cole said. “If we want to stop that kind of movement in its tracks, it needs to be reported.”

Cole’s proposal comes against the backdrop of a long history of clergy abuse allegations in Vermont’s only Catholic diocese. After the Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 2024, another 118 people submitted confidential claims, after previously settling 67 lawsuits for about $34.5 million, VTDigger reported.

Who else should report?

Other states are debating whether to add coaches and other professionals with access to children to mandated-reporter lists.

If the goal is protecting children, Halcomb said, states should look beyond churches and impose reporting duties on “anyone with unsupervised authority over minors,” including club sports coaches, private tutors and camp volunteers.

This month, Connecticut passed legislation requiring paid municipal youth camp directors, assistant directors and staff members age 21 or older to serve as mandated reporters.

Although the South Dakota clergy bill failed, the legislature did approve a separate measure requiring any “coach of a school activity” to be a mandated reporter. Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden signed it into law in March.

California expanded its definition of mandated reporters to explicitly include certain school volunteers, governing board members and private school employees as of July 1, 2026, and requires annual mandated-reporter training. The state also enacted a law last year that added talent agents, talent managers and talent coaches who work with minors.

Beth Sanborn, a retired Pennsylvania police officer, now leads other school resource officers in mandated-reporter training sessions as a Montgomery County School Safety Coordinator. She asks them to imagine being pressed to describe to a stranger their last sexual encounter.

The question elicits nervous giggles from flustered adult officers, she said. She then asks them to think of a young child who has been sexually abused by a relative, and how the fear and shame can be overwhelming enough for them to not seek help.

“What if you’re an 11-year-old kid and what if it was nonconsensual? What if it was your uncle?” Sanborn said. “Do you really want to share that with a stranger? It became a shared responsibility for us who are trained to recognize these signs.”

In Pennsylvania, Sanborn said she saw a complete shift in mandated reporting after 2012, when the state enacted a law that requires school employees and contractors with direct contact with children to receive training on recognizing and reporting child abuse. The laws were enacted in the aftermath of the Jerry Sandusky scandal at Penn State.

Sandusky, a former assistant football coach, was convicted in 2012 of sexually abusing young boys. The scandal led to the dismissal of Joe Paterno, Penn State’s revered longtime football coach, who was criticized for not doing enough after learning of an allegation involving Sandusky as early as 1998.

Sanborn thinks some school officials, from teachers to officers, hesitate to report because of a common misconception they must prove abuse occurred. The point of mandated reporting, she said, is for adults to pass along a reasonable concern before a child is harmed.

“The school resource officer gets to see one facet of a kid’s behavior. The coach gets to see another. The guidance counselor sees another. The favorite teacher sees another.”

Stateline reporter Robbie Sequeira can be reached at rsequeira@stateline.org. 

This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Washington State Standard, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

For more than a year, Rep. Tarra Simmons has been dogged by allegations she improperly used her cachet as a lawmaker and cash from her prior campaigns to assist two nonprofit organizations, one of which was her employer.

Simmons emphatically denies wrongdoing and calls the charges unsubstantiated. But as the case has dragged on, she said her political foes have been wielding the allegations as a cudgel in an ongoing campaign of harassment.

“Even if all of the facts were true, which they are not, there is no evidence that I violated any ethical rules,” Simmons said. 

But the state’s Legislative Ethics Board isn’t convinced. It concluded last fall that “reasonable cause existed” that the Democratic lawmaker violated conflict of interest and special privilege laws.

Simmons rejected the board’s finding and will get a chance to defend herself at a public hearing in Olympia, scheduled for early June.

Such hearings before the ethics board are rare. The last occurred a decade ago, and involved a House member’s posting of state-produced photos and videos on her campaign Facebook page.

The board will conduct the hearing with an administrative law judge presiding over procedural questions. If Simmons is found to have breached ethics rules, she could be fined up to $5,000 per violation and ordered to pay the state’s costs.

The situation is coming to a head in an election year for Simmons, who is in House leadership and has garnered attention as the first formerly incarcerated person to serve in the Legislature.

Doug McKinley, Simmons’ attorney, called the investigation “the most flawed and one-sided I’ve ever seen.” He added that, “Rep. Simmons has been caught in the maw of a process that doesn’t provide fundamental safeguards.”

McKinley has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  It will be considered May 20.

Friends and enemies

Simmons, of Bremerton, won a House seat in 2020 and has been reelected twice. She represents the 23rd Legislative District in Kitsap County that includes the communities of Hansville, Kingston, Poulsbo, Bremerton and Bainbridge Island.

She serves as deputy speaker pro tem, a highly visible role in the Democratic caucus that requires frequently presiding over floor sessions. 

The complaint that incited the ethics investigation was filed in February 2025.

On Oct. 15, the board concluded that reasonable cause existed that Simmons violated the Ethics Act. Simmons and the board discussed a possible settlement throughout the fall, but the lawmaker declined to sign a proposed stipulated agreement. She said she objected because the agreement contained mistruths.

In January, the board set dates for the public hearing on June 8 and 9 and released a 13-page order with contours of its findings.

It diagrams Simmons’ interactions with two nonprofit organizations, the American Equity and Justice Group and the Equity in Education Coalition, portraying her as willing to use her influence as a lawmaker and leftover campaign funds to help them.

The complaint was filed by Kim Gordon, a Seattle attorney and treasurer of the American Equity and Justice Group, that has developed a data dashboard on arrests and outcomes in the criminal justice system.

Gordon declined to comment. In her complaint filed Feb. 21, 2025, she wrote Simmons “has been an important, necessary, and appreciated voice in our legislature. But there is growing concern at apparent violations of the prohibition on special privileges – violations that harm constituents and the legislature alike.”

“My hope is that by initiating the process, I have made it possible for the Legislative Ethics Board to evaluate the situation and, if appropriate, assist Rep. Simmons in corrective action,” she wrote.

The complaint asserted ethical violations dated back to 2023. It contained no specifics, but Gordon offered to provide investigators names of witnesses and where to find documents.

Unpacking the allegations

The board’s order starts with her ties to Anthony Powers, founder and executive director of American Equity and Justice Group, who was incarcerated as a teen and later granted early release from a long sentence with the help of the Seattle Clemency Project.

He and Simmons knew each other through their work with others who have been incarcerated.

In the 2023 legislative session, Simmons secured $250,000 in the state budget to “contract with an equity and justice nonprofit organization to expand the capacity of the existing equity dashboard program.”

That money was destined for Powers’ nonprofit to compile two decades of felony sentencing data for adults in Washington into a public database.

Late that year, at a lunch meeting, Simmons told Powers of a man she thought would be a good fit for his staff. He told her the group lacked money to hire him. Simmons said she would make a $10,000 donation from her surplus campaign fund account. The man, unidentified in the report, was hired in early 2024.

According to the board order, Powers said Simmons provided the money to hire her friend.

Simmons denied putting any conditions on use of the donation.

In a declaration to the board, Simmons said that she told Powers “that if he interviewed my friend and found the connection to be what he needed, I would donate the money needed to make the hire.” She also said she supplied information on private foundations that might assist.

In February 2024, after attending several internal meetings, Simmons suggested leaders hold a retreat to plan for the group’s future. When told there was no money, Simmons donated $40,000 from her campaign surplus account to cover the costs. 

But, in an American Equity and Justice Group board meeting later that month, members were told that Simmons was involved in a relationship with the man she encouraged Powers to hire, according to the ethics investigation. The nonprofit’s board determined this presented a conflict of interest and subsequently returned both of her donations and laid off the man, citing a lack of resources.

Simmons told ethics board investigators, “he’s not my boyfriend.” 

A second proviso

The investigation also highlighted issues around $1.35 million in grant funds secured by Simmons in the 2024 supplemental budget. The money went to the Administrative Office of the Courts to dole out for an expansion of the American Equity and Justice Group dashboard. 

As written, it required subcontracting $500,000 of work with a nonprofit organization “that advocates for equity in technology and education to provide the public with data on social determinants that impact education outcomes.”

The only qualifying subcontractor was the Equity in Education Coalition, which focuses on improving education outcomes in disadvantaged communities. Founded in 2012, leaders renamed it Equity in Education Center in 2024.

Simmons was employed as the coalition’s part-time director of strategy from December 2023 through Jan. 10, 2025, then an additional three months as an independent contractor. Her tasks included facilitating connections with legislators, community leaders and governmental entities.

Sharonne Navas, the coalition executive director, told ethics board investigators that Simmons was not paid with any money from the grant funds but was paid exclusively from money received from individual and corporate donations.

Not on speaking terms

On March 8, 2025, two weeks after Gordon filed her complaint, Simmons engaged Powers in a lengthy late-night text exchange, excerpts of which are in the ethics board report.

Simmons said the exchange was spurred by Powers’ attendance at a support group named “Leaders they’re trying to cancel” that she said she formed with others who had had negative experiences while leading or working with nonprofits.

In the texts, she expressed frustration and threatened to withhold support for Powers’ organization where, at the time, Gordon worked as an employee and served on its board.

“Hey. I think unless you are willing to hold Kim accountable for the harm she’s causing me, you shouldn’t come to our leaders they’re trying to cancel group,” she texted. “I did a lot for YOU primarily…then AEJG secondarily. To be harmed like this is an incredible slap in the face.” 

Powers responded, “If you’re coming at me for someone else’s actions then I think I’ll part ways for now. If you can’t be friends without expecting me to have unconditional loyalty to you and not be able to be professional in one space and friends in another then I wish you well, but I don’t need to be treated like this.”

Last November, Powers filed an ethics complaint alleging Simmons had harassed him in a series of posts on Facebook, accusing him of lying and scheming with Gordon. The ethics board dismissed that complaint May 2, noting that because the posts were on Simmons’ personal Facebook page, it had no jurisdiction.

Complaint dismissed over separate campaign finance violation

In addition to the pending ethics complaint, Simmons faced recent allegations that she improperly gave $30,000 of campaign funds to a Nevada nonprofit that works with formerly incarcerated individuals before it registered as a charitable organization in Washington.

Late last month, she signed a statement of understanding for the state Public Disclosure Commission in which she admitted to the violation. She also agreed to pay a $300 civil penalty.

On May 6, commission executive director Peter Lavallee and compliance officer Tanya Mercier wrote to Simmons, summing up the findings and noting that the matter had been resolved and dismissed. Their letter said the lawmaker was “very cooperative throughout the investigation.”

That probe resulted from a complaint filed Dec. 23, 2025, by Val Torrens, who is chair of the 23rd Legislative Democrats. Her husband is a $1,000 donor to Daria Ilgen, a Democrat who is challenging Simmons in this year’s election.

The complaint centered on two separate $15,000 contributions that Simmons made from her cache of unspent campaign funds to Better Minds Better Communities on July 7 and Aug. 18, 2025. Both donations were properly disclosed on campaign finance filings.

Jovan Jackson, the group’s founder, is a formerly incarcerated person who won a seat in the Nevada Legislature in 2024. He, like Simmons, is the first person who served time to be elected into their respective legislatures. The group, which does not have an active website, is focused on helping people who were incarcerated, Simmons said.

State law allows candidates to dispose of unspent campaign funds after an election in various ways, such as transfers to party or caucus political committees and refunds to donors. They can also be donated to nonprofits that are also registered as charitable organizations in Washington.

Jackson registered the group when Simmons told him of the requirement. 

“We did what we felt was right,” Torrens said of the complaint. “ She should know the rules. The rules weren’t followed. That’s what we took issue with.”

In the past two years, a dozen states have either approved new U.S. House maps or are moving toward doing so — a highly unusual mid-decade revamp prompted by President Donald Trump and a U.S. Supreme Court ruling late last month. And the situation isn’t settled yet — even as ballots are being printed and early voting is already underway in some places. Pending litigation could scramble the situation even further.

Redistricting, the process of redrawing the geographic boundaries of U.S. House and state legislative districts, usually takes place every 10 years following the census.

Trump upended that schedule early last year, when he began pressuring state GOP officials to redraw their maps to help Republicans hold onto a slim, five-seat majority in the U.S. House ahead of potentially grim 2026 midterm elections for his party.

The Supreme Court recast the redistricting fight with its ruling in Louisiana v. Callais. That decision all but nullified a provision of the federal Voting Rights Act that required states to draw electoral maps to give racial minority voters the opportunity to elect their chosen candidates.

A total of nine states — Alabama, California, Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas and Utah — have redrawn their maps since last year. At least three other states — Georgia, Louisiana and South Carolina — appear likely to follow suit, though Georgia’s new maps would not be in effect for the upcoming midterm elections.

As things currently stand, Republicans are likely to gain up to 17 seats, while Democrats are likely to gain up to six seats.

In the aftermath of the Callais decision, hundreds of protesters have gathered at statehouses in recent weeks, particularly in the South, to decry what they say is a concerted effort to dilute Black voting and governing power. Republicans argue that maps should be “colorblind.” Gerrymandering to benefit one political party over another is legal at the federal level, though some states have their own laws restricting it.

The latest redistricting efforts are changing elections that have already begun. Some candidates must now pivot to races in brand-new districts with just a few weeks until their primaries. They’ve spent money and time reaching people who can no longer vote for them, fighting opponents different from the ones they now face. At least one Tennessee Democratic candidate no longer lives within the new boundaries of the district he’s seeking to represent.

Voters in states such as Alabama will now be asked to turn out for primary elections in both May and August, in addition to the November general election.

Here’s where things stand now.

Nine states already have redrawn their maps

Alabama

Republicans could gain 1 seat.*

A 2023 court order required Alabama to draw a congressional map with a second majority-Black district. But after the Callais decision last month, Alabama’s Republican state officials asked the U.S. Supreme Court to let them reinstate the old map, which has just one majority-Black, majority-Democratic district and which the court had previously ruled racially discriminatory. The high court quickly agreed.

Republican Gov. Kay Ivey has announced new primary elections in August for the affected districts. These will be held in addition to next Tuesday’s statewide primaries for other federal and state offices.

Alabama is also appealing a separate ruling requiring it to redraw two state Senate districts. That case is still ongoing.

California

Democrats likely to gain 3-5 seats.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom last year led the Democratic response to Trump’s call for Republican-led states to redraw their congressional maps.

In November 2025, California voters approved Newsom’s proposal to temporarily override the state’s independent redistricting commission and instead to allow the Democratic-dominated legislature to redraw the maps to create districts more favorable to Democrats. The new map is valid through 2030.

Florida

Republicans likely to gain 1-4 seats.

Last month, the Republican-majority Florida Legislature approved Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis’ new congressional map that could net the GOP up to four new congressional seats.

Both DeSantis and the voting rights organizations suing to block the new map agree it violates parts of the state constitution. But DeSantis argues the constitution’s anti-gerrymandering amendments, which were overwhelmingly adopted by Florida voters in 2010, are invalid, partly due to the Callais ruling.

Missouri

Republicans likely to gain 1 seat.

Earlier this week, the Missouri Supreme Court upheld the state’s gerrymandered 2025 congressional map, handing Republicans a victory. Last summer, Trump pressured Missouri Republicans to help maintain the GOP majority in the U.S. House, so lawmakers met in a special session to draw a map that likely will give them an additional seat by carving off parts of Kansas City into surrounding rural districts.

The new map will be used in Missouri’s August primary, the state Supreme Court ruled this week, because it’s uncertain whether a referendum petition seeking to repeal the map will succeed.

North Carolina

Republicans likely to gain 1 seat.

At Trump’s behest, North Carolina’s Republican-controlled legislature redrew the state’s congressional map last fall. It was an effort to make the state’s only competitive district solidly Republican. The maps passed strictly along party lines. The state’s congressional delegation is now likely to be 11 Republicans and three Democrats. North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein is a Democrat, but redistricting isn’t subject to the governor’s veto.

Ohio

Republicans likely to gain up to 2 seats.

Last fall, Ohio Republican House Speaker Matt Huffman publicly rebuffed Trump’s national push to gain more seats in Congress, while state Democrats proposed their own maps. An Ohio redistricting commission eventually approved a new map last October that is likely to yield 12 Republicans and three Democrats, compared with the current 10-5 split. GOP and Democratic lawmakers called it a “compromise.”

That map will be in place for the next six years. But political operatives told the Ohio Capital Journal they expect to see more redistricting efforts in 2030.

Tennessee

Republicans likely to gain 1 seat.

In a chaotic special session earlier this month, Republican lawmakers in Tennessee redrew congressional maps to shatter the state’s only majority-Black, majority-Democratic district. The newly passed map now favors Republicans in all nine Tennessee districts. Hundreds protested at the Tennessee statehouse as House Republicans voted on the new map and House Democrats gathered at the front of the chamber, locking arms in a show of solidarity.

This week, Tennessee House Speaker Cameron Sexton, a Republican, punished his Democratic colleagues for their protests by stripping them of committee and subcommittee appointments. On Friday morning, longtime Democratic U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen announced he would not seek reelection after his district was carved up in the redrawing of the maps.

Texas

Republicans likely to gain 3-5 seats.

The nation’s redistricting battle kicked off in Texas last summer, after Trump pressured the Texas GOP to redraw the state’s congressional map to add up to five more Republican seats. State House Democrats pushed back, fleeing the state temporarily in August to halt the vote. But the map eventually passed after they returned. Civil rights groups sued, saying the new map was racially discriminatory.

In April, the U.S. Supreme Court permanently upheld the new map, ensuring it remains in place for the 2026 midterms.

Utah

Democrats likely to gain 1 seat.

In 2018, Utah voters approved an anti-gerrymandering ballot measure that created an independent redistricting process, but Utah’s Republican-dominated legislature repealed and replaced it in 2021. Voters rights groups sued, arguing the resulting new map was a partisan gerrymander.

Eventually, after a multi-year legal battle, a new court-ordered map in 2025 gives Democrats a chance to win one of the state’s four congressional districts. The Utah GOP proposed a ballot initiative this year to ask Utah voters to officially repeal the 2018 anti-gerrymandering law, but it failed last month after thousands of petition signers removed their signatures.

Three states are in the process of redrawing their maps

Georgia

Georgia Republican Gov. Brian Kemp has refused to pursue redistricting ahead of this year’s elections, which are already underway. But Kemp announced Wednesday that he will call a special session to redraw the state’s political maps for the 2028 elections. Georgia’s congressional delegation currently has nine Republicans and five Democrats.

Louisiana

Republicans could gain 1 seat.

The day after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Louisiana’s existing congressional districts as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, Republican Gov. Jeff Landry suspended the state’s congressional primaries to give lawmakers enough time to pass new maps.

This week, in a nearly 10-hour overnight committee hearing, Louisiana lawmakers advanced a bill that would eliminate one of the state’s two majority-Black districts. The new map, if it passes, likely would give Republicans another seat in Congress.

The new map must win approval from both chambers by June 1. Litigation over the decision to delay primaries is ongoing.

South Carolina

Republicans could gain 1 seat.

South Carolina legislators will gather Friday for a special session to redraw the state’s congressional lines just 12 days before early voting opens. Lawmakers have set a deadline of May 26 to pass a new map. Republican Gov. Henry McMaster, who previously said the matter was for the legislature to decide, called for the special session under pressure from the White House and state GOP.

The South Carolina GOP’s goal is to pass a bill that would delay U.S. House race primaries until August while keeping other primaries on schedule for June. One proposed map would cut South Carolina’s lone congressional Democrat, U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn, out of the seat he’s represented since 1992 and create all seven Republican seats.

At least a half dozen other states are interested in redrawing their maps

Mississippi

This week, Mississippi Republican Gov. Tate Reeves canceled a special legislative session he’d called to redraw districts for the state’s Supreme Court. Some GOP officials had hoped he’d add congressional redistricting to the agenda. Instead, he said this week, he’s working with Trump and the White House on a plan to redraw Mississippi’s congressional districts and legislative districts in the future. Reeves wants a map that would boot the lone Democrat in Mississippi’s U.S. House delegation, Rep. Bennie Thompson, from his seat.

If that happens, Republicans would likely gain one congressional seat.

Virginia

The Virginia Supreme Court earlier this month struck down a voter-approved redistricting amendment that could have given Democrats a 10-1 advantage in the state’s U.S. House delegation. Virginia voters last month had approved a referendum that would have netted Democrats three or four additional seats. Earlier this week, Virginia Democrats asked the U.S. Supreme Court to revive the amendment, in a case that’s ongoing.

Arizona, New Jersey, New York, Washington 

Officials in Arizona, New Jersey, New York and Washington all have suggested drawing new maps following the Callais decision, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The Colorado Voting Rights Act, passed last year by the state’s Democratic-majority legislature, will likely prevent the state from embarking on a redistricting effort. The state’s congressional delegation is currently split 4-4 between Democrats and Republicans. But a Democratic-led group is gathering signatures for ballot measures that would allow the state to change its maps ahead of the 2028 election.

*Seat gain predictions from The Cook Political Report.

This story was updated to include the Friday morning announcement by Tennessee Democratic U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen that he will not seek reelection. Stateline reporter Anna Claire Vollers can be reached at avollers@stateline.org.

This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Washington State Standard, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

Desperate to get a handle on rising property insurance costs driven by natural disasters, some state lawmakers are opening up a new line of attack in the effort to force oil companies to bear the cost of climate change effects. 

In three states, Democratic lawmakers introduced bills this session that would allow insurance companies or state attorneys general to take action against oil companies to offset the rising costs of insurance. 

While none of the measures became law this session, they signal the increasing urgency in states where wildfires, floods and other disasters have driven up the cost of insurance premiums and led some insurers to stop writing new policies. 

The proposals follow other state-led efforts to demand payment from fossil fuel producers for the mounting damages caused by climate change. States and municipalities have filed more than three dozen lawsuits over the industry’s role in the climate crisis, claiming companies violated a variety of laws, including consumer protection, public nuisance, failure to warn, fraud and racketeering.

Meanwhile, a handful of states have passed or introduced “climate Superfund” bills that use attribution science — a new field of research — to calculate the cost of disasters and charge fossil fuel companies for their role in causing them. 

Those efforts have drawn fierce opposition and legal challenges from oil companies and conservative groups. 

Now, some Democrats are using a similar premise to try to put large oil companies on the hook for the fast-growing insurance crisis. 

In many states, property insurance costs have skyrocketed as insurance companies have paid out increasing claims for wildfires, hurricanes and floods. Some insurers have stopped writing policies in certain areas. 

California and some other places have seen a surge of new policies on state-backed “last resort” insurance plans after residents failed to find coverage on the private market. California’s program, known as the FAIR Plan, was hit with billions in losses and sought a massive rate hike following the Los Angeles wildfires in 2025. 

A bill in California would empower the state attorney general to sue fossil fuel companies to recover insurance costs. That measure failed to advance out of committee last month, with Republicans and some Democrats expressing concerns about fuel prices among other issues. 

A bill in Hawaii would allow insurance companies to seek damages from fossil fuel companies for their role in causing disasters worsened by climate change. Any proceeds gathered from actions against polluters would be factored into insurance rates. 

The bill passed both the House and Senate, but failed to advance when a conference committee ran out of time before a deadline earlier this month, the Honolulu Star-Advertiser reported. 

“[T]he largest oil and gas corporations, who knowingly contributed to the drought conditions that made the Maui fires worse, pay nothing while continuing to rake in billions of dollars in profit every year,” Democratic state Sen. Jarrett Keohokalole wrote in a Honolulu Civil Beat op-ed. “Hawaiʻi taxpayers should not be forced to foot the bill for Big Oil’s deception.”

Meanwhile, a similar bill in New York, allowing both insurance companies and the state attorney general to take action against oil companies over insurance costs, has been introduced but has not yet had a hearing in committee.

As with all legislation targeting the fossil fuel industry, the insurance bills have encountered fierce opposition and powerful lobbying campaigns. If enacted, the proposals would undoubtedly face lawsuits. Fossil fuel companies have long argued that they extracted and sold their products while following a suite of federal regulations, insulating them from state claims of harm. 

States have countered that the companies knew about the dangers of climate change but lied to the public, noting the successful campaign to hold tobacco companies accountable for deception even though their products were sold legally. 

Stateline reporter Alex Brown can be reached at abrown@stateline.org.

This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Washington State Standard, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

A Washington judge on Friday sided with the state as he turned back a lawsuit seeking to block a controversial 2025 law concerning rights for parents of public school students.

Thurston County Superior Court Judge John Skinder acknowledged the case over House Bill 1296 is likely to be appealed.

The deeply partisan debate over the legislation was one of the most contentious of the 2025 legislative session. The law is enmeshed in broader debates over how schools handle sensitive issues around gender identity and inclusion that have become political flashpoints in recent years.

Critics of the law argue it gives the state more power than parents in their children’s education, and puts local school leaders in a bind of complying with the state law at risk of running afoul of the U.S. Constitution. 

The law allows the state to hold superintendents accountable and withhold school funding for violations. 

It rewrote a conservative-backed initiative that lawmakers passed the year prior. 

The initiative enshrined certain rights for parents of public school children, specifically around issues like reviewing classroom materials, obtaining medical records, and opting children out of assignments involving questions about their sexual experiences or their family’s religious beliefs.

Democrats argued changes were necessary to protect vulnerable children. Republicans argued the rewrite undermined the initiative. One change, for example, pushed back the deadline for parents to receive copies of their child’s school records from 10 days to 45 days. 

Parallel to the court fight is an initiative that will appear on this year’s November ballot that seeks to overturn House Bill 1296.

The plaintiffs challenging the law, including local school board directors and parents, argued it has multiple legal problems. 

Their attorney, Joel Ard, said it has resulted in policies that forbid parents from opting their children out of certain curriculum, and stop school employees from informing parents about their child’s gender transition, including if they adopt new pronouns.

The plaintiffs argue the law runs contrary to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling from last year that not allowing parents to pull their children out of LGBTQ+-themed instruction is unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

But the state countered that the law doesn’t do those things.

“This is a policy disagreement that’s dressed up as a civil complaint,” said William McGinty, of the state attorney general’s office.

“It does not state anywhere that public schools have to refuse to tell their parents anything, keep secrets from any parents, and it does not state anywhere that public districts or public school districts cannot have a policy to permit notice and opt-out opportunities for any particular subject of instruction,” McGinty added.

Ard conceded that these issues aren’t “leaping out of the face of the statute,” but claims the state Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction sees it that way, as the agency cites the law in mandating policies his clients take issue with. 

The state notes that model policies regarding transgender students were required years before House Bill 1296. The current policy from the Washington State School Directors’ Association holds that school employees should ask students how to identify them when communicating with the students’ parents, as revealing their transition could be “very dangerous.”

“The district will not condone the intentional or persistent refusal to respect a student’s gender identity or gender expression, or inappropriate release of information regarding a student’s transgender or gender-expansive status,” the model policy reads.

The plaintiffs include school board members from Kennwick, Deer Park, Lynden, Darrington and Woodland, and parents from Olympia and Tumwater. One board member, Gabe Galbraith from Kennewick, is running for state Senate as a Republican against incumbent Republican Sen. Nikki Torres, of Pasco.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Ard didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling Friday.

The state Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction said that it was “pleased by today’s decision to uphold the law,” which “balances parents’ rights with protections for students.”

Let’s Go Washington is pushing the initiative that will be on the ballot this year to overturn the law. In 2024, the group spearheaded the campaign for the original measure, Initiative 2081, which House Bill 1296 altered.

WASHINGTON — Democrats and advocacy groups urged a quick rejection of President Donald Trump’s latest executive order on compiling citizenship lists and creating traceable mail-in ballots in a federal court hearing Thursday.

Lawyers for the Democratic National Committee, Democratic minority leaders Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries of New York, and interest groups argued that, with the midterm elections less than six months away, there was no time to see how the Trump administration executes the order.

The Trump administration, meanwhile, argued the order had not been put into effect yet and therefore could not be overturned.

The groups are seeking a nationwide preliminary pause on Trump’s late-March order that U.S. citizenship and age data from the Social Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security be provided to states.

The proposal would result in a “maximum amount of confusion” and be a “nightmare for election officials,” said Danielle Lang, who argued on behalf of the League of United Latin American Citizens. “Waiting will only erode public confidence in elections.”

Thursday’s hearing marked the first courtroom showdown over the executive order. A coalition of Democratic state attorneys general have also sued to block the order. At least five lawsuits have been filed in total.

Trump’s edict also orders the U.S. Postal Service to promulgate a rule that would design special envelopes for mail-in ballots, including a unique barcode. States, which the U.S. Constitution delegates authority over election administration to, have argued the order would restrict mail-in voting.

‘No one knows’

U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee, had tough questions for both sides. He suggested the Democrats’ and aligned groups’ challenges may be premature because a rule specifying how the order would operate has yet to be written, though he also grasped their argument that the order was inherently unconstitutional. 

“No one knows what’s gonna be in the rule,” Nichols told lawyers for the Democratic groups.

“I think it’s very clear from the EO (executive order) that we know exactly what’s gonna be in the rule,” said Lalitha Madduri, who represented the Democratic groups and congressional leaders.

After back-and-forth, Nichols conceded, “I agree with your point: There can be no rulemaking consistent with the EO that can be lawful.”

Madduri also argued there is “no way to repair that harm” of uncertainty for voters.

Department of Justice senior trial counsel Stephen Pezzi said the plaintiffs have a right to “prepare for the darkest fears,” but, he argued, they can’t win a preliminary injunction based on speculation of error-prone citizenship lists and a postal rule not yet created.

There’s “certainly no irreparable harm,” Pezzi said.

Of the lists of intra-agency government data compiling U.S. citizens and their ages, Pezzi said “it’s not a list of individuals to be targeted. It’s not a list of noncitizens.” He also said it’s “not a concern” of the federal government what states do with the lists, if they even decide to use them.

“No list’s ever going to be perfect,” Pezzi said, adding that “responsible” states would not blindly kick people off voter rolls if their names do not appear on the lists verifying citizenship.

Commitment to updates

Nichols told Pezzi in the event he denied a preliminary injunction, he would expect information sharing from the government as the case continued.

“Fair enough,” Pezzi said.

“I didn’t hear a commitment,” Nichols warned, prompting agreement from Pezzi.

Nichols said he would soon issue an order and opinion, but did not specify a date. 

“I understand the time pressure here,” he said.

He warned the government to notify him of “anything even approaching a material change” on implementing Trump’s executive order — though he stopped short of issuing an official order requiring updates. But, he said, “it would not be good for the government,” if they do not promptly inform him of new developments.

Trump’s elections push

Democrats and voting rights groups maintain Trump’s order is effectively compiling an illegal national voter list and usurping the state authority over elections. The order’s opponents accuse Trump of trying to unilaterally assert power over elections.

Trump and his aides say the order will help secure the midterm elections this November. While voter fraud is extremely rare, Trump has long promoted false conspiracy theories surrounding his 2020 election loss.

The executive order, signed by Trump on March 31, came amid a broader campaign by the president to influence how elections are run. 

The Justice Department has sued 30 states and the District of Columbia for sensitive voter data that it plans to use to identify potential noncitizen voters. 

Trump has demanded that Congress pass the SAVE America Act, which would require voters to show documents proving their citizenship, though the bill has stalled in the Senate. Last year, Trump signed an executive order to unilaterally impose similar requirements that was blocked in federal court.

“President Trump has tried repeatedly to rewrite election rules for his own perceived partisan advantage,” Madduri, an attorney at Elias Law Group, wrote in a court filing.

GOP officials defend order

Republican state attorneys general have intervened in the lawsuits on behalf of the Trump administration and have urged federal judges to uphold the executive order. They have cast the order as offering “optional” resources.

Alabama, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and Texas intervened in the suit argued Thursday and were represented in the courtroom.  

The states “would like to access this resource so they may verify the accuracy of their own voter-registration lists. This flow of information between federal and state agencies is a common and critical feature of our federal system,” the Republican officials wrote in an April 20 court document.

The order requires lists of voting-age U.S. citizens living in each state to be provided to state officials at least 60 days before each federal election. 

The order does not tell states how to use the data, but it instructs the U.S. attorney general to prioritize investigations into state and local officials who issue federal ballots to ineligible voters.

The list of citizens will be drawn from naturalization and Social Security records, according to the order. It will also include data from SAVE, a powerful computer program maintained by Homeland Security that verifies citizenship by checking names against information in federal databases. 

The order also directs states, at least 90 days before a federal election, to tell the U.S. Postal Service whether they intend to allow ballots to be sent through the mail. States would then have to submit to USPS a list of voters planning to vote by mail at least 60 days before the election.

Opponents of the order argue that under federal law Trump cannot direct the postmaster general to take any action — on elections or any other matter. The Postal Service is overseen by a Board of Governors and the postmaster general reports to the board. 

Trump’s allies argue that the Constitution grants the president sweeping authority over executive branch agencies and that Congress cannot place agencies, like the Postal Service, beyond the president’s reach.

One of the largest data centers in the nation has been proposed on Alaska’s Arctic North Slope, where boosters say it could take advantage of abundant land, cold temperatures for cooling and a huge supply of natural gas for power.

The $500 million development would occupy an entire square mile with multiple buildings in a remote area off the Dalton Highway, some 25 miles south of the North Slope’s major infrastructure. That’s according to documents released this week by the state, which on Tuesday issued a preliminary decision to lease the property to the project’s operator.

A newly built pipeline would carry natural gas to fuel the data center’s power plant — which, according to the documents, could use more than twice as much of the fuel as urban Alaska consumes for electrical generation and home and commercial heating. The project could ultimately produce up to three gigawatts of power for its own use, making it competitive with some of the largest data centers under development in the Lower 48.

The company behind the project is Stak Energy, which last year proposed a far smaller project more narrowly focused on digital mining of cryptocurrency. It now says it plans to support “large-scale AI and cloud computing operations,” including training of large-scale machine learning models and high-performance scientific and analytical computing.

The company in November proposed its lease to the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, which subsequently published a notice to solicit competing bids. None came in, so the department is now proceeding with the leasing process, with a public comment period on the preliminary decision open through June 15.

Stak has not disclosed who would finance its new project, though it previously said it was raising money from Anchorage firm McKinley Alaska Private Investment.

Stak has expanded significantly in recent months, making a number of politically connected hires including Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s former natural resources commissioner, John Boyle, and a former special assistant at the natural resources department, Jim Shine.

The company’s founder and chief executive, Sparrow Mahoney, grew up in Alaska and attended Wasilla High School.

Stak officials declined to respond to specific questions about its proposal. But the company shared a prepared statement that describes itself as having “deep Alaska roots, built on decades of combined experience across the state’s energy and infrastructure landscape — and proud to help build Alaska’s next era of prosperity.”

The lease application, the company said, “reflects an important milestone for anchoring Alaska as America’s at-scale energy solution — a meaningful step toward bringing opportunity, jobs, and revenue home to stay.”

“Stak Energy is committed to responsible development, expanding opportunity, and contributing to a more diverse and resilient Alaskan economy,” the company said.

Energy experts said that Stak’s lease application, released by the state, is thorough. But it also raises a number of questions.

One is how quickly the company can secure the natural gas-powered turbines that it would use to generate electricity. Rising demand for those turbines, prompted by the rush to build new data centers and the overall expansion of natural gas-fired power, is leading to manufacturing backlogs as long as seven years; Stak says it wants its initial operations to begin in 2028.

Then, there’s the question of where, exactly, Stak will get its natural gas supply.

Alaska’s North Slope oil fields contain huge deposits of natural gas. But historically, petroleum companies have almost exclusively extracted oil from those fields, as it’s more energy-dense and can be shipped down the 800-mile trans-Alaska pipeline; minimal infrastructure exists to move North Slope natural gas to market.

Companies presumably would be willing to sell gas to a project like Stak’s, according to Antony Scott, a former commercial petroleum analyst for the Alaska Department of Natural Resources.

But details of Stak’s land lease application makes clear that at the time it was submitted, the company hadn’t yet struck a firm deal for gas supply, he added. Stak says its gas pipeline could run anywhere between 25 and 90 miles, which implies that it could connect to any number of different petroleum fields on the North Slope.

“That means they don’t have a gas supply,” Scott said.

Scott added, though, that the project’s remote location — and the fact that it wouldn’t connect to Alaska’s urban power grid and risk driving up demand and prices for electricity, like data centers have in the Lower 48 — help smooth the project’s path.

“The issue of data centers and the effect on normal humanity’s electricity bills is causing real angst,” Scott said. On Alaska’s North Slope, he added, “we avoid all of that. You can just step into this friendly environment.”

Stak’s application and supporting material say its project has another leg up on Lower 48 developments.

Outside projects have faced increasingly strident opposition in response to their enormous consumption of water for cooling. The company says in its lease application materials that its North Slope location is a “crucial design advantage” because of an average annual temperature of 12F — allowing it to use air for cooling instead of depending on water.

Air cooling, the company says, is expected to reduce water consumption by 90% or more, “compared to industry norms.” Stak isn’t proposing any formal use for the project’s waste heat for now, but it says that “potential applications” include keeping greenhouses warm or supporting aquaculture.

One comparative disadvantage for Stak: It would be powering its computer infrastructure with fossil fuels. Some technology companies with carbon emissions targets are making efforts to run their data centers on non-fossil energy like nuclear power, wind and solar, though other projects have also tapped into natural gas.

Stak, in its application, says it’s monitoring developments in technology that could allow it to capture and store its carbon emissions. But at least initially, a dearth of infrastructure and a lack of understanding of the region’s geology for storing carbon are among the obstacles it faces, the company said.

Dunleavy’s administration, which has pushed to develop a data center industry in Alaska, has issued a preliminary, formal decision that the project is in the state’s “best interest” — a necessary step before it can issue the 50-year land lease that it’s currently considering.

The preliminary decision cites a peak construction workforce of 1,500 people, with some 60 permanent jobs that would be created by the project.

Stak will have to complete additional permitting before the project can move forward — namely, a federal Clean Water Act authorization needed to create the company’s gravel pad that will elevate its power plants and computer systems at least five feet off the tundra.

The project would require an enormous amount of gravel — some 7 million cubic yards worth, according to the state leasing documents.

That’s nearly twice as much as petroleum company ConocoPhillips is authorized to use for its big Willow oil project, Stak says.

Nathaniel Herz welcomes tips at natherz@gmail.com or (907) 793-0312. This article was originally published in Northern Journal, a newsletter from Herz. Subscribe at this link.

Food stamp enrollment in Washington state fell sharply between last summer and early this year amid federal cuts to the program and as fewer immigrants accessed benefits.

The decline here is small compared to some other states, but the number of households receiving food assistance dropped from 548,000 in March 2025 to 525,000 in March this year. 

State officials say some of the decrease can be attributed to the lingering effects of the lengthy federal government shutdown last fall that threatened the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, and similar food programs. 

“We really haven’t climbed out of that,” said Claire Lane, director of the statewide Anti-Hunger and Nutrition Coalition.

Enrollment has gone down almost every month since January 2025, per data from the state Department of Social and Health Services, which runs the program here.

In Washington, Basic Food benefits include the federal SNAP program and the state’s Food Assistance Program, which mirrors SNAP but extends benefits to immigrants with lawful status who don’t qualify for the federal version. The Food Assistance Program is fully state-funded. 

Noncitizen enrollment in Basic Food has plummeted roughly 23%, from over 47,000 households to 36,500. The peak was nearly 50,000 in fall 2024, before President Donald Trump retook office. Mixed-status homes with both citizen and noncitizen residents have fallen 6%.

Meanwhile, U.S. citizen enrollment has dropped a little over 2%. Most of that decline came last fall, during the government shutdown. Whether the Trump administration would issue SNAP benefits in the middle of the shutdown was in question.

The national average for declines in SNAP benefits between January 2025 and January 2026 was 10%. Some states had larger declines. Arizona saw a more than 43% reduction. Louisiana, Georgia, Florida, Nevada and North Carolina were also in double figures.

This comes as food prices increase. 

In the Seattle area, for example, they’ve gone up 3.8% over the past year, outpacing the national average, according to federal data released this week. The war in Iran has shocked prices for numerous grocery items. SNAP helps low-income residents pay for groceries.

The tax cut law congressional Republicans passed last summer, known as the “big, beautiful bill,” is expected to cut roughly $187 billion in federal nutrition spending over the next decade.

Previously, SNAP required able-bodied adults age 54 and younger without dependents to work at least 20 hours per week to access food stamps. The GOP megabill upped that to age 64 and added work requirements for parents whose children are at least 14 years old. Previously exempt veterans, former foster youth and people experiencing homelessness also need to work.

Those changes have taken effect. Applicants who don’t meet these new requirements but otherwise qualify can get three months of benefits. Enrollment is expected to continue to drop as the food aid lapses for this group.

State officials have estimated that 137,000 residents in Washington stand to lose their benefits from the more stringent work requirements.

“People have heard the news,” said Lane, with the Anti-Hunger and Nutrition Coalition. “They know what Congress did last summer. They know that there are cuts coming and eligibility changes coming. And so I think it’s had a chilling effect on people applying for benefits.”

The federal law also cut eligibility for refugees and asylees. However, state lawmakers this year approved money to continue providing state food benefits to the roughly 30,000 immigrants who no longer qualify due to this provision. Washington is also spending $9.3 million to staff up to implement the new work requirements.

More changes are coming. Starting next year, the state could need to foot the bill for some SNAP spending previously covered by the federal government if it doesn’t reduce its overpayments and underpayments. States will also have to share some of the administrative costs of running the program. 

Republicans have said the idea is to root out waste, fraud and abuse in SNAP and other federal programs to save taxpayer dollars. But critics say it’ll drown low-income people in paperwork, an obstacle to benefits even for those who remain eligible.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has tried to access personal data of state food stamp recipients, raising fears it could be used for immigration enforcement and potentially chilling noncitizens’ interest in accessing the program.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The U.S. Supreme Court decided Thursday to preserve telehealth access to the abortion drug mifepristone until after the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled on the merits of the high-stakes federal lawsuit Louisiana v. Food and Drug Administration.

Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas issued dissenting opinions.

In his dissent, Thomas said the rule violates the Comstock Act, a long unenforced 1873 law that bans the mailing of “obscene” material. During the 2024 presidential campaign, President Donald Trump said he didn’t support using the Comstock Act to stop mail delivery of abortion pills, saying he thought the federal government should have nothing to do with the issue.

Mifepristone’s manufacturer “makes a passing reference to the possibility of lost sales,” Alito wrote in his dissent. “But lost sales in states where abortifacients are generally illegal are not ‘irreparable injuries’ that can justify granting a stay.”

Abortion-rights advocates around the country called the decision a relief after two weeks of uncertainty.

On May 1, the appellate court sided with Louisiana, where state officials sued the FDA in October, arguing that a rule allowing telehealth access to mifepristone, one of two drugs used to terminate a pregnancy in the first trimester or to treat miscarriage, undermines the state’s abortion ban. Danco Laboratories and GenBioPro, two manufacturers of mifepristone, filed emergency appeals, leading the Supreme Court to issue a 10-day stay on May 4, extended until today.

“Though today’s decision means that mifepristone remains available through telehealth for now, this fight is not over,” said Dr. Camille A. Clare, president of the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, in an emailed statement. “The chaos and confusion wrought by competing decisions and the revocation and restoration of access on an almost daily basis do real harm to patients and to the clinicians who care for them.”

Abortion opponents decried Thursday’s decision.

“Women deserve better than dangerous abortion drugs sent through the mail without physician oversight or in-person support,” said Jor-El Godsey, president of Heartbeat International, a major network of anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers. “A state like Louisiana that values life in its laws should be able to protect its smallest residents as well as their moms.”

The FDA’s approved two-drug regimen via telemedicine is an increasingly common abortion method, especially for people living in parts of the country where abortion is banned or difficult to access.

Last month, a federal district court paused the lawsuit at the request of the FDA until after the completion of a safety review on mifepristone. That review was prompted by non-peer reviewed, anti-abortion research and in spite of the drug’s record of safety and efficacy since 2000. The state appealed to the 5th Circuit.

Due to multiple ongoing efforts to restrict or block mifepristone, abortion providers have told Stateline they are ready to eventually switch to a misoprostol-only method, which researchers have found to be as safe as the two-drug regimen but typically involves more symptoms and is slightly less effective.

National groups have tried to pressure the Trump administration to drop the Biden-era rule allowing telehealth abortion and called for the head of FDA Commissioner Marty Makary for reportedly slow-walking a safety review of the drug until after the midterm elections. Makary resigned on Tuesday, and anti-abortion groups wasted no time in getting Acting Commissioner Kyle Diamantas on the phone.

Live Action founder and president Lila Rose, in a written statement, said she talked to the acting commissioner on Wednesday and that he said he was morally opposed to abortion. “Diamantas told me that reviewing the abortion pill is a top priority for him and the administration,” Rose posted on X.

Students for Life of America President Kristan Hawkins wrote a similar message to supporters in an email on Thursday, saying Diamantas will be the “most pro-life FDA commissioner in American history.”

But many doctors around the country say curbing access to telehealth abortion is likely to cause harm to people in states with bans who may face more barriers to obtaining an abortion without that option.

“Women will be forced to travel long distances — at times hundreds of miles — to access safe, essential health care at a doctor’s office, no longer having the option to receive mifepristone via telemedicine,” wrote Rob Davidson, an emergency physician in Michigan and executive director of the Committee to Protect Health Care, in a letter asking the Supreme Court to maintain access to telehealth abortion. The letter was cosigned by more than 2,200 physicians.

Stateline reporter Sofia Resnick can be reached at sresnick@stateline.org.  Stateline reporter Kelcie Moseley-Morris can be reached at kmoseley@stateline.org. 

This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Washington State Standard, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

The fiscal leaders of several states are demanding transparency and consumer fairness as President Donald Trump’s administration seeks to refund billions in international tariffs following a recent Supreme Court loss. 

In a February decision, the high court dealt a blow to the president’s trade agenda, ruling by a 6-3 margin that the tariffs he issued under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act were illegal.

Last month, U.S. Customs and Border Protection began accepting applications from importers and brokers who are owed an estimated $166 billion in import tax refunds. While companies are receiving those refunds, it appears that many don’t intend to share those funds with consumers, who paid for much of the tariffs through higher prices. 

“We’re the ones who paid it. We’re the ones that need to get it back, and so any system that doesn’t get it to the little guy doesn’t get it to the right place,” Minnesota State Auditor Julie Blaha said on a press call Wednesday.

She was among eight Democratic state fiscal leaders who urged the White House to publicly disclose which firms are receiving tariff refunds and to ensure consumers are not left out.

Blaha said government agencies are well equipped for that task, noting the public websites set up during the coronavirus pandemic that disclosed which companies received pandemic grants and loans. There is currently no public database of tariff refund requests or agency determinations.  

“We’re not asking the federal government to do anything they don’t ask of states and local entities or nonprofits to do when they are using some of their funds,” she said. “We know how to do this kind of oversight.”

Blaha said transparency is particularly important since the White House is opposed to repaying the tariffs in the first place. The president has said his administration would “fight” the refund effort, though reports indicate more than $35 billion has already been sent to companies. 

Illinois State Treasurer Mike Frerichs said American consumers are suffering from high prices as the president and his inner circle enrich themselves. 

“No one trusts the federal government anymore,” he said. “They feel like the deck is stacked against them, and this example just adds further proof to their beliefs.”

State leaders estimated the tariffs cost Illinois consumers nearly $9 billion. But the current process does not ensure that those funds will be returned to consumers. 

“Trump’s system is opaque by design, with no guarantee of the $9 billion owed to Illinois families and businesses returning home,” Frerichs said Wednesday. “…Millions of Americans and businesses deserve every penny back.”

The president blasted conservative Supreme Court justices who nixed his tariffs, saying their decision earlier this year was a “disgrace to our nation” as well as “unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution.”

He has remained committed to tariffs on foreign imports, believing that they will incentivize manufacturers to build products in the United States rather than overseas. 

After the Supreme Court loss, Trump ordered a 10% global tariff, which has also been challenged in court. Last week, the U.S. Court of International Trade granted a permanent injunction to a Florida-based toy manufacturer and a New York-based spice importer that sued the Trump administration over those tariffs. 

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org. 

This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Washington State Standard, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

The federal government announced Wednesday it’s reimbursing the Washington state health department $263 million for costs responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

The money is part of $538 million that Washington’s state and local health departments and hospital systems are receiving, according to U.S. Rep. Rick Larsen’s office. The state Military Department is getting $2 million. There’s also nearly $73 million for King County, $10 million for Pierce County, and $120 million for the Franciscan Health system. 

The money for the state Department of Health is meant to cover past expenses like personal protective equipment for healthcare workers and patients, lab equipment to expand COVID testing and added staff at hospitals and other healthcare facilities.

Nationwide, the Federal Emergency Management Agency announced $5.4 billion in reimbursements across the country, after years of delays. 

“FEMA finally releasing these reimbursements helps replenish coffers and strengthen health care systems, which protects affordable health care options for local families,” said Larsen, a Democrat from Everett. 

Washington Sen. Patty Murray, a Democrat, said in a statement that it’s “good to see that this money is finally getting out to Washington state entities that are owed it.”

“But these resources should have gone out the door a long time ago,” Murray continued.

She accused former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem of holding up the payments “for no good reason, and we need to keep speaking out about this administration treating disaster relief as a political cudgel.”

FEMA officials said the costs the federal government is covering are in line with an executive order from President Donald Trump aiming to audit expenses and stave off fraud.

Republican members of Congress, including the chair of the House Committee on Homeland Security, had also expressed frustration over delays in getting the funding out. 

The reimbursements remained “severely delinquent and subject to a lack of transparency and communication with recipients and subrecipients,” Rep. Andrew Garbarino, a Republican from New York, wrote in a letter in January to then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.

“Withholding these funds from the nation’s hospitals and public health systems cripples readiness and inhibits ongoing operations ahead of emerging challenges,” Garbarino continued.

In Washington, between 2020 and March 2023, nearly 2 million cases of COVID-19 were confirmed and 16,000 people died, according to data from the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. The first confirmed case of the virus in the nation was here in January 2020.

The pandemic squeezed hospitals, leading to yearslong financial fragility. They sustained upward of $4 billion in losses between 2021 and 2024, according to a Washington State Hospital Association survey. Meanwhile, they’re also bracing for steep cuts to Medicaid that congressional Republicans approved last year.

Trump has eyed putting more of the onus on states to prepare for and recover from disasters, instead of relying on federal assistance from FEMA.

Large, immigrant-rich cities saw population fall back between mid-2024 and mid-2025 after nation-leading increases the year before. 

Mid-sized cities led the pack in U.S. Census Bureau estimates to be released May 14. The largest numeric increases for the year were in Charlotte, North Carolina (up 20,731); Fort Worth, Texas (up 19,512); the Dallas suburb of Celina, Texas (up 12,710); and Seattle (up 11,572). 

Charlotte has been emphasizing affordable housing in recent years, including a city-sponsored 72-unit building on the site of a former mall, opening in late 2024. It was designed for older adults, people with incomes from 30% to 80% of the area’s median income, about $82,000 at the time. 

Morgan Dunn, 26, moved to Charlotte in 2024 for a banking job after growing up in California and living in Georgia and Utah. He and his wife are expecting their first child in September, and he said he likes having an affordable house with a half-acre lot where his four dogs can run.

“It’s a great city for the younger generations for the sake of job opportunities combined with the cost of living,” Dunn said in a message to Stateline.

New York City, which led the nation in growth between mid-2023 and mid-2024 with 162,991 more people, fell to dead last in population change — a decrease of 12,196 last year.  

Also near the bottom were Memphis, Tennessee (losing 4,575 people); Los Angeles, down 3,621; St. Louis, down 2,301, and Albuquerque, New Mexico, down 2,290. Like New York City, Los Angeles ranked high the year before with an increase of 24,421, seventh-highest in the nation before falling to third-to-last.

window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}});

Part of the reason for New York City’s fast-changing population shifts is that population growth was revised up for 2022-2024 to reflect more immigration, especially from asylum seekers, some of whom were bused from Texas. Parts of Queens had some of the largest influxes in the nation from asylum seekers, especially from Ecuador, according to a Stateline analysis. 

But immigration fell off in late 2024 and early 2025 as both the Biden and Trump administrations sought to put a lid on asylum seekers. Between 2024 and 2024 immigration “retreated from recent historical highs to more typical levels experienced before the pandemic,” according to a March report by New York City. Of the city’s five boroughs, only the Bronx and Staten Island gained population. 

“Big-city growth slowed significantly between 2024 and 2025, with some major hubs even seeing small declines,” Matt Erickson, a statistician in the Census Bureau’s Population Division, said in a statement. “In contrast, midsized cities found a ‘Goldilocks zone’ where domestic and international migration, paired with new housing, helped prevent the sluggish growth seen in small towns and larger metropolitan centers.”

In some states smaller cities had the big increases, such as the contrast between New York City’s decline and an increase of 2,933 in suburban Kiryas Joel village, a Hasidic Jewish enclave in Orange County, or New Mexico, where Albuquerque lost population but its suburb Rio Rancho gained 1,972. 

Louisiana’s Baton Rouge gained while New Orleans lost, as did Everett, Massachusetts, a Boston suburb that grew as the city lost population.

Some urban areas did well anyway: Atlanta had the biggest increase in Georgia, as did Chicago in Illinois, Detroit in Michigan, Kansas City in Missouri, and Newark in New Jersey. 

Other milestones: Austin, Texas, became the 12th city with more than a million residents, and Raleigh, North Carolina, became the 39th city of more than 500,000. The South had 11 of the top 12 numeric gains. 

Stateline reporter Tim Henderson can be reached at thenderson@stateline.org.

This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Washington State Standard, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. House Thursday rejected a proposal to rein in President Donald Trump’s months-long military actions in Iran that have left more than a dozen U.S. military members dead, while killing thousands of civilians and displacing millions in the Middle East, according to third-party monitors. 

The measure, known as the War Powers Resolution, is a tool for Congress to limit the president’s ability to initiate or escalate military actions abroad. The resolution failed in a 212-212 vote. Most Democrats voted for the measure, though Jared Golden of Maine opposed it. Three Republicans also crossed party lines to vote in favor. They were Tom Barrett of Michigan, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and Thomas Massie of Kentucky.

Democratic Rep. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey sponsored the measure, H.Con. Res. 75. 

During Wednesday’s debate on the House floor, Gottheimer said that Congress has still not been briefed on the progress or objectives in the Iran war, and argued it’s a violation of the U.S. Constitution. 

“Oversight is a key constitutional responsibility of Congress,” he said. 

Pentagon officials testified before Congress this week that the war so far has cost $29 billion, not including Iran’s drone and missile damage to U.S. military installations in the region.

Republican Rep. Brian Mast of Florida, who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee, argued on the House floor that Iran was an “imminent threat.” He added that he was satisfied with the briefings from the Trump administration’s top military officials. 

The U.S. Senate on Wednesday rejected an identical measure, its seventh vote on the matter. Three Republicans joined nearly all Democrats, a sign of growing dissatisfaction with the president’s own party amid the war. 

GOP Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky joined Democrats. Sen. John Fetterman, Democrat of Pennsylvania, joined Republicans. 

The Iran war started on Feb. 28 and so far, at least 13 U.S. military members have died. Human Rights Activists in Iran, a nongovernmental organization based in Fairfax, Virginia, estimated that at least 1,701 civilians, including 254 children have died because of the war. 

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimated in late March that up to 3.2 million Iranians have been displaced due to the U.S. and Israel attack on Iran.  

Health officials from the U.S. cities hosting the 2026 FIFA World Cup say they are preparing to deal with infectious diseases, heat-related illness, and an array of other health threats when millions of fans, many of them from overseas, come to watch the games.

The World Cup is expected to draw between 5 million and 7 million soccer fans to the 11 U.S. host cities, which are Atlanta, Boston, Dallas, Houston, Kansas City, Los Angeles, Miami, New York City (in partnership with East Rutherford, New Jersey), Philadelphia, the San Francisco Bay Area and Seattle.

The newly formed Big Cities Health Coalition, a consortium of health officials from 36 of the nation’s largest health departments, says it has been formulating a strategy to mitigate any negative health impacts from such a large influx of people entering the country at once.

At a news briefing on Wednesday, health officials from Atlanta, Dallas, New York City, Philadelphia, and San Jose said they are preparing for disease monitoring and contact tracing during the weeks of soccer matches, which begin on June 11.

The officials said they aren’t concerned about the hantavirus, which is very rare. However, they are worried about the spread of measles after recent outbreaks around the country.

“Somebody might be here for a game in Atlanta and be exposed to something — let’s say measles, since that’s been so prevalent lately,” said Marcus Plescia, district health director at the Fulton County Board of Health, which includes the Atlanta region, “But by the time we realize that and start to look at who might be at risk, that fan might have traveled to Dallas to see their team playing there.”

“Something that happens here may actually have its impact somewhere else, and we’re going to have to think about how we handle that and hand off information.”

Alister Martin, commissioner of New York City’s health and mental hygiene department, said health officials also are concerned about extreme heat, alcohol and drug use, and sexually transmitted diseases.

“Relevant teams from disease control to mental health have been preparing to work in new capacities for months, and most recently, we tested our emergency capacity at our healthcare facilities,” Martin said.

At the briefing, the health officials said they are strapped for resources as a result of the expiration of COVID-19-era public health funding, and that host cities have gotten federal dollars for security and infrastructure needs but not for public health.

“In Atlanta, at least, there’s been some significant investment in infrastructure improvements, and those are very important things,” Plescia said. “We’ve not received a lot of direct funding for specific public health services.”

Stateline reporter Shalina Chatlani can be reached at schatlani@stateline.org.

This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Washington State Standard, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate approved a resolution Thursday that will prevent lawmakers in that chamber from receiving their paychecks during any government shutdowns that begin after this year’s midterm elections. 

The voice vote on the measure from Louisiana Republican Sen. John Kennedy will not impact members in the House of Representatives since each chamber of Congress is able to set its own rules and procedures. 

The two-page resolution requires the secretary of the Senate to disperse but then hold onto lawmakers paychecks if Congress fails to fund any agency within the federal government on time. 

Kennedy said during a floor speech Wednesday he hoped the resolution would reduce the likelihood of future government shutdowns, following three within the last year. 

“It’s got to stop,” he said. “Shutting down government should not be our default solution to our refusal to work out our issues and our differences.”

Similar to how federal employees receive back pay after a shutdown ends, Kennedy said his resolution would do the same for senators.

“The senator’s salary just would not be available to that senator while we’re in a shutdown but once a shutdown is over you’ll get your money,” he said. 

In order to get the votes to adopt the resolution, Kennedy said he “had to make a few accommodations,” including that it did not apply to the House and wouldn’t take effect before the elections to comply with the 27th Amendment.  

Members of Congress earn $174,000 annually, with those in leadership positions making more. The Constitution allows lawmakers to set their own salaries, which are covered by a permanent, mandatory appropriation. 

Lawmakers and the president, unlike the staff who work for them or those throughout the rest of the federal government, received their salaries during past shutdowns unless they took action to halt their paychecks. 

Several members asked either the House Chief Administrative Officer or the Senate Finance Clerk to hold onto their paychecks during the first shutdown. 

Congress is supposed to pass the dozen annual government funding bills before the start of the new fiscal year on Oct. 1 but hasn’t completed all of its work on time in three decades. 

Lawmakers regularly approve at least one stopgap spending bill to keep federal programs running mostly on autopilot while the House and Senate work to finalize those appropriations bills during the fall, typically sending them to the president sometime in December. 

Policy differences and heightened political tensions, however, led to three shutdowns of varying impact during this fiscal year. 

The first began last October and lasted through Nov. 12 as Democrats tried unsuccessfully to force Republicans to extend enhanced tax credits for people who buy health insurance on the Affordable Care Act marketplace. 

Lawmakers were able to pass six of the spending bills before a brief partial shutdown took place from Jan. 31 through Feb. 3. The law that ended that funding lapse included five more of the spending bills, leaving Homeland Security as the only department without its annual appropriations bill. 

Democratic demands for constraints on immigration enforcement after federal officers shot and killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis led to a third shutdown for many of the agencies within DHS. That lasted from Feb. 14 through April 30 when Congress approved their last funding bill without new spending for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol. 

Republicans plan to use the complex budget reconciliation process to approve $72 billion that would cover three years of immigration enforcement activities. GOP lawmakers can do that without Democratic votes in the Senate as long as they stick to the rules.  

Lawmakers in both chambers have also begun work on the next fiscal year’s batch of 12 government funding bills, though it’s highly unlikely they all become law before the end of September. 

That presents the possibility of yet another government shutdown just weeks before voters head to the polls during November’s midterm elections to decide which political party will control Congress for the next two years. 

A federal judge is weighing whether to toss redrawn political maps for Washington’s Legislature that he approved two years ago, a move that state officials warn would take “a wrecking ball” to the upcoming primary, possibly forcing it to be rescheduled.

The legal tussle centers on U.S. District Court Judge Robert Lasnik’s controversial penning of new legislative district boundaries to enhance the political voice of Latino voters in the Yakima Valley. This revamp shifted more than 300,000 people across 13 legislative districts in eastern and western Washington ahead of elections in 2024. 

Those challenging the maps argued in a motion filed last week that Lasnik should undo his decision because it does not align with the U.S. Supreme Court’s direction in Louisiana v. Callais, a ruling in late April that significantly curtailed the use of race in redrawing legislative boundaries. 

They want him to restore the lines drawn by Washington’s bipartisan redistricting commission in 2021. Alternatively, they want Lasnik to inform the U.S. Supreme Court that he’s prepared to do so if a separate appeal on the maps that is pending before the high court is sent back to him.

“The circumstances of this case strongly favor relief,” and to not do so would be a “manifest injustice,” reads the brief filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on behalf of Jose Trevino and state Rep. Alex Ybarra, R-Quincy. Lasnick allowed them to intervene in the case at an earlier stage, in 2022. House Minority Leader Drew Stokesbary, R-Auburn, an attorney, is part of the firm representing them.

‘Simply too late’

The plaintiffs — Latino voters whose earlier lawsuit resulted in the map approved by Lasnik — submitted a blistering response in court last week, describing the intervenors’ arguments as flimsy and denouncing their call for judicial haste. 

Asking the court to reverse the boundary changes and restart an election cycle already underway “is unjustified and prejudicial,” they said. “Nothing warrants such an imprudent compression of time on a motion of such consequence,” they added.

Stuart Holmes, Washington’s election director, said in a declaration to the court this week that of the 294 people who filed last week to run for a legislative office, 67 are seeking seats in one of the districts with changed boundaries.

The request to restore the previous map is “a recipe for chaos,” Secretary of State Steve Hobbs said in his legal response to the motion.

“It is simply too late to alter legislative districts for the 2026 elections,” he said. Ordering changes now “will create significant voter confusion, and result in significant expenses for Washington and counties in Washington,” he said. 

He also said it would “create a significant possibility” of the Aug. 4 primary getting delayed.

Separately, attorneys for the state and for the plaintiffs pointed out that Trevino and Ybarra already petitioned the Supreme Court to consider their challenge to the constitutionality of the maps Lasnik approved. Responses from the state and plaintiffs to that petition are due by June 2.

Since the Supreme Court could soon weigh in, there is no need for Lasnik to act now, attorneys for the state argued.

But Trevino and Ybarra disagree. They contend the status quo “will almost certainly ensure that 2026 legislative elections in Washington are held under a map that can no longer withstand constitutional scrutiny.”

Chalking the lines

The original plaintiffs in the case are Latino voters who contested the 15th Legislative District borders adopted by the state’s redistricting commission and approved by the Washington Legislature in early 2022.

The lawsuit contended that map violated the federal Voting Rights Act because it impaired the ability of Latino voters to participate equally in elections. The case included a trial in June 2022 featuring testimony from commissioners and voting experts.

Plaintiffs argued that while Latinos were a slight majority of the district’s voters, the final contours included areas where their turnout is historically lower and excluded communities where Latinos are more politically active. 

This fracturing can depress Latino turnout and weaken their voting strength, they argued.

 

Lasnik agreed, ruling in August 2023 that the configuration of the district diluted the Latino vote. In early 2024, Lasnik approved a new district map covering communities from East Yakima to Pasco and including Wapato, Toppenish, Granger and Sunnyside. Nearly all of the historic lands of the Yakama Nation Reservation are in the district.

As part of the solution, he renumbered the 15th district as the 14th, ensuring legislative positions, including the state Senate seat, were on ballots in presidential election years starting that year.

Changing the lines in the Yakima Valley also had a domino effect, with western Washington districts in King, Pierce, Thurston and Clark counties reconfigured too.

Trevino and Ybarra, and a third man, Ismael Campos, intervened in the case as registered voters. They argued race was given too much weight in the drawing of boundaries and that the map should be redone with a focus on compactness and communities of interest. 

The Bureau of Land Management issued a final decision late last week canceling a series of permits that allowed bison grazing on federal land by the nonprofit conservation organization American Prairie.

The move, which came after American Prairie and multiple other organizations formally protested a preliminary decision earlier this year, was condemned by conservation groups but praised by elected officials in Montana, who have sought the cancellation of bison grazing leases for years.

“This final decision is a victory for the rule of law and the generations of Montanans who have stewarded our lands with care,” Gov. Greg Gianforte said in a statement. “For far too long, the Biden administration ignored the clear language of the Taylor Grazing Act in favor of an ideological experiment. I’m proud of our administration for leading the fight to reach this decision and I thank Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum and BLM for putting Montanans first.”

American Prairie has a mission to conserve prairie land in Montana to create one of the largest nature reserves in the country, abutting Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge and Upper Missouri Breaks National Monument. The nonprofit owns and leases more than 500,000 acres in the state.

Across some sections of that leased acreage — specifically six allotments comprising around 63,000 acres of federal land, according to the group — American Prairie grazes around 900 bison under the authorization of the BLM, with some leases stretching back two decades.

“American Prairie has lawfully grazed bison on BLM lands for more than 20 years, complying with every rule, regulation, and permit requirement,” said Alison Fox, CEO of American Prairie. “BLM lawfully issued these permits and recognized that bison are qualified to graze on federal lands under longstanding practice and law. Reversing course now under political pressure undermines trust in the agency’s decision-making and threatens the future of bison restoration across the West.”

The decision by BLM focused on the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act, which is the legal framework that created grazing districts and governs leases on federal lands.

According to the BLM decision, the Act allows permits to be issued “to graze livestock,” and under a new interpretation of federal statutes, bison do not meet the definition of livestock.

Citing a legal dictionary, the decision states that livestock refers to domestic animals “used for production-oriented purposes.”

“The BLM lacks statutory authority to issue grazing permits under the TGA where the animals to be grazed are treated as wildlife and intended for conservation purposes and will not be managed for production,” the decision states.

It goes on to state that American Prairie’s bison operations are not domestic nor production oriented.

“This decision affirms what livestock producers have long argued for in the compliance of governing law,” Montana Stockgrowers Association President Lesley Robinson in a statement.

BLM terminated all bison or combined cattle/bison grazing permits for American Prairie and reissued cattle-only grazing permits on six federal allotments. The permit terminations will be effective on Sept. 30, to allow American Prairie to remove its bison herd from the land parcels.

A spokesperson for American Prairie told the Daily Montanan the organization plans to appeal the decision.

“This final decision by the BLM makes it clear that this is an all-out attack on conservation. It is a textbook example of the government moving the goal posts and changing the rules in the middle of the game to reach a predetermined outcome,” said Mary Cochenour, attorney for American Prairie. “There have been no grazing violations, and the administrative record contains objective evidence showing that rangeland conditions have improved over the last two decades with bison on the landscape.”

In addition to the protest lodged by American Prairie, BLM said that the agency received 34 other protest letters that “contained nearly 200 unique protest points,” including many from tribal governments and organizations.

In response to concerns the decision could impact dozens of tribal nations that retaining rights to hunt and manage bison across traditional lands, the BLM notes that its decision is specific to “this particular non-tribal permittee” and the agency is “not adjudicating grazing rights of any tribal governments or representatives.”

According to a 2025 BLM infographic about the agency’s grazing program, there are 41 grazing permits for bison issued by the bureau, alongside 18,000 permits and leases overall (including eight for reindeer.)

The state of Montana originally protested a series of permits issued to American Prairie in 2022, arguing that replacing production livestock with non-production bison damaged the local economy and ignored the statutory requirements for federal grazing permits.

Gianforte and the entire federal delegation, all Republicans, had sent letters to the Trump administration urging the repeal of the bison leases.

Members of the state’s delegation also praised the decision in statements to the press.

“Nobody makes better beef than Montana ranchers. This decision is a return to the original mission the BLM was created for,” said Rep. Ryan Zinke in a statement to the media. “The Taylor Grazing Act made clear these lands play a critical role in feeding our nation and sustaining rural communities, they are not meant to be locked up to satisfy the latest Washington political agenda. In Montana, working lands support ranching families who help put food on America’s tables.”

Montana’s senior Sen. Steve Daines thanked Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and President Donald Trump for “restoring common sense land management.”

Attorney General Austin Knudsen, who worked on behalf of the state to cancel the bison leases, called the decision a “huge victory” for Montana farmers and ranchers.”

“As someone who grew up farming and ranching in Northeast Montana, I know how important this decision is to protect the hardworking livestock and ranching communities in that region and keep the elitists from destroying their livelihood,” Knudsen said.

Montana is also looking to restrict leases on state land for bison grazing, with a recent proposal by the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, at the behest of the state Land Board —comprising Gianforte and Montana’s five statewide elected officials including Knudsen — seeking to give preference for bidders involved in “production livestock operations.”

Friday’s decision was signed by Bill Groffy, acting director of the BLM.

A vote to confirm President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the BLM, Steve Pearce, is also expected soon.

 

This story was originally produced by Daily Montanan, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Washington State Standard, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

It’s going to be another tough year for Washington farmers, who were already facing record-low worldwide commodity prices. 

While consumers benefit from lower prices on things like wheat (resulting in cheaper bread) and pork, wheat growers and pig farmers are footing the bill for these savings. 

Many farmers are experiencing a triple hit on their finances from the U.S. and Israel attacks on Iran, with higher costs for fuel, shipping and fertilizer. “Unless you have perfect insight” and bought your fertilizer and stocked up on diesel fuel before the war in Iran began, explained T. Randall Fortenbery, professor and Thomas B. Mick Endowed Chair of the Washington State University’s School of Economic Sciences.

Even before the war, Washington had steep fuel prices, with one of the highest gas taxes in the country. Agricultural fuel buyers are eligible for an exemption from surcharges tied to the state’s cap-and-trade program.

Farmers in Washington export most of their crops. So their prices are set in the global marketplace and do not necessarily reflect their costs. If they try to pass along an increase in fuel costs to transport their crops, for example, buyers will just choose to do business with someone else, Fortenbery said.

“Washington grows almost 300 different commodities; most of them have an export market,” Fortenbery said. The prices for their goods are set by that global market, so increases in their costs to grow and transport wheat, alfalfa or hops cannot be passed along to the consumer.

Ed Chvatal, a major wheat and alfalfa hay and seed grower in Walla Walla, says increased fertilizer and fuel prices are a big concern for him and his neighbors.

“I’m not going to get into the politics … all I know is it’s causing some grief,” he said.

Because farming 6,000 acres requires careful planning, Chvatal isn’t experiencing war-related pain yet. He bought fertilizer for his current wheat crop last fall and he purchased a tanker of diesel in January. The farm can hold about 15,000 gallons on site, which will last them into the first part of the harvest, maybe until July. And they won’t need more fertilizer until the fall.

“I lucked out there. It wasn’t because I was brilliant,” Chvatal said, explaining that timing and planning force most of his purchasing decisions. And sometimes the results are not as good.

Even if the war ends tomorrow, most economists believe fuel and fertilizer prices will not drop before 2027, because it will take a while for production to ramp back up after the Strait of Hormuz reopens. So Chvatal will experience cost increases by late summer and he will be paying more to ship his grains to customers this year.

The shippers will add a fuel surcharge, but he doesn’t have that freedom. The market sets the price he will receive for his wheat. Prices won’t change unless there’s a production interruption elsewhere, Chvatal explained – a drought in the Midwest, for example.

“The world can produce enough food for everybody. It’s a matter of what people will pay for it. Then there’s weather and political issues,” he said.

The price of wheat has been below the cost of production for the past three years, Chvatal said. This spring’s crop was looking good and the price had been bouncing up a bit. “I took off my pessimistic hat and put it on the rack,” he said. Then Iran happened.

Chvatal has farmed on his family acreage for the past 40 years and has seen a lot of ups and downs, but things have been different since the pandemic. Input costs went up and never came back down. Labor costs have also gone up because of new state regulations around overtime and because seasonal workers are harder to recruit.

“There’s a point where it’s frustrating. I don’t have the time and effort to go protest and bitch about things. I’m just trying to put food on the table for my family. I have six full-time employees who also want the farm to succeed,” Chvatal said.

“I’ve seen it before,” he added, “but this one has a different flavor. It’s kind of like the perfect storm.”

So why do farmers stay in the business if it’s so difficult to make a profit?

Professor Fortenbery points out that they experience good years and bad. For example, wheat prices were more than double what they are now six or seven years ago. Adding high fuel and fertilizer costs to already low prices is going to make things particularly tough for farmers this year.

One of the oddities of the current situation is that most of America’s fertilizer comes from Canada, not the Middle East, but worldwide shortages will drive up prices everywhere, Fortenbery said.

Chvatal wishes the state government would help farmers out by giving them a break on new overtime regulations — an unrelated issue that also affects his input costs. He’s also concerned about the ways data centers are pushing up electricity rates. And says the debate over water rights is a constant pressure.

But Chvatal has no plans to give up on farming or dramatically change how he runs his operation.

“I love it and have done it all my life. Hopefully, my children will want to take it on,” he said, but adds back a hint of the dark cloud he is sitting under right now. “Things are tough around here. You wonder why young people aren’t coming back to farming. It’s very capital-intensive. It’s hard work.”

WASHINGTON — Officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Wednesday the risk of a member of the general public contracting hantavirus remains low despite several passengers on a cruise ship becoming infected with the disease. 

Dr. Brendan Jackson, an epidemiologist and the agency’s team lead in Nebraska, said Americans who were on the MV Hondius cruise ship after others were diagnosed with the illness were flown to the National Quarantine Center at the University of Nebraska.

Healthcare providers at the site have been talking with each passenger about whether they may have been exposed to any of the people with confirmed cases. They’re also monitoring the Americans for fevers or other symptoms. 

“This particular virus has a long incubation period, so the monitoring period is 42 days,” Jackson said. “And the 42 days started with the departure of the ship, so May 11 was day one.” 

Any cruise ship passengers who traveled on commercial flights, leading to possible exposures for others on those planes, left the ship before the infections were diagnosed, he said.  

“The passengers that are being monitored who were on shared flights were separate from the passengers who were on the ship at the time the outbreak was detected. So they had actually left the ship before the outbreak was detected,” Jackson said. 

“All the passengers that were on the ship after that detection phase were transported just several days ago on a private plane directly from the Canary Islands to here in Omaha, Nebraska,” he added. 

CDC officials are working with local and state public health officials to ensure anyone who may have been exposed outside of the cruise ship isolates at home and monitors themselves for symptoms. 

The officials on the call declined to say how many people are being monitored for possible exposure or where they are located in the country, citing privacy concerns.

They also declined to talk about the two cruise ship passengers taken to Emory University Hospital’s Serious Communicable Diseases Unit in Georgia. 

Dr. David Fitter, incident manager for the agency’s hantavirus response, said that unlike the coronavirus pandemic that spread around the world in 2020, hantavirus is not new to public health officials. 

“At this moment I want to emphasize that the risk to the general public is low,” he said. 

In addition to monitoring Americans who were on the cruise ship and anyone they may have come into contact with, CDC officials have been talking frequently with lawmakers.

“We’ve held two Hill briefings and have just completed a call with the governors from the states of repatriated Americans,” Fitter said. “We’ve also held daily calls with state health officials. 

“Our role now is to continue our conversations with each passenger about their potential exposure and work with partners to ensure appropriate monitoring.”

CDC officials have encouraged the people at the Nebraska facility to stay there throughout the quarantine period but there are not currently any state or federal quarantine orders in place.

Are you feeling left out of all the gerrymandering action around the country? Are you wondering why the Northwest — even defined broadly — isn’t getting in all the fun of parties redrawing their congressional district maps to do everything they can to wipe out the other side?

It’s just not as easy for the Northwest as in some places. With California already done and gerrymandered, we’re probably going to have to watch most of this action from afar.

To see why, let’s start with the smaller-population states.

Alaska and Wyoming have only one representative apiece, so there are no district lines to redraw.

Montana in this decade regained the second district it once had, and the line between the two districts is new. But it actually resembles the way Montana was split decades ago, with westside and eastside districts. While the approach may benefit Democrats a little more than Republicans, the fact is both districts have been decisively red through this decade. Not much joy for either party there.

Idaho, with two districts, is similar: Both are strongly Republican in a strongly Republican state. There would be no way for Democrats to redraw the lines (even if they were able) to significantly improve their odds. That might change somewhat if the state gains, as it likely will, a third House seat with the next census, but not until then.

Oregon offers a few more possibilities, for Republicans. The congressional map now is what you might call a light gerrymander, designed to give Democrats — who do get the larger share of votes overall —  five out of six congressional districts, rather than the four of six that voting patterns would suggest. But at least one of those districts, the 5th, is closely competitive, and a Republican did win it in 2022.

Early on in the last redistricting process, Oregon Democrats considered a map that might make that fifth district darker blue by splitting the Portland metro area a little more deeply. That theoretically could be revived, but in truth it probably would make little difference now.

And if Republicans abruptly were able to control the Oregon process and design a map of their dreams? By consolidating the bulk of the Portland metro area into two districts, and splitting certain other places like Lane County, they could plausibly develop a map with three Democratic and three Republican districts. Maybe. But Republican control of that sort isn’t in view.

The one state where the party in charge would have a more practical shot at gaining a district — just one at most — would be Washington state.

There, 10 districts now are split between eight Democratic (one of those barely, and recently, Republican) and two Republican, so you wouldn’t expect Democrats to find much room to maneuver. (Republicans, were they able, probably could draw maps splitting the state evenly between the parties).

However, unlikely as it sounds, maps intended to change the Washington split to nine Democrats and one Republican are circulating. Most of the districts look like a thinly-sliced pie centered on Seattle. Portions of strongly Democratic King County (Seattle) would help populate seven or eight of the state’s districts. The only Republican district, number 5, left under this plan would be located in the southeast corner of the state, anchored by Spokane and Walla Walla.

As one sarcastic Facebook commenter said, “You know it’s a good map when downtown Seattle is in the same district as Spokane valley.”

Back to reality: None of that is likely to happen, though it’s not impossible.

There is no path to doing it this year, since Washington state (like Idaho and many other states) uses a bipartisan redistricting commission (established in 1983) to redraw the maps, and it is not scheduled to meet again until after the next census. It could reconvene before then only with a two-thirds vote of the legislature.

Virginia had a similar situation, but its legislature voted to change the state constitution to allow for a temporary redistricting change, which was approved by the voters, and later thrown out in court.

Washington’s legislature would need at least two-thirds of each chamber to approve such a change, and while Democrats have decisive control at Olympia, they’re well short of that mark. Republicans, of course, are far further away from it. Any constitutional change, as in Virginia, also would have to go to the voters for approval.

In January, Washington House Majority Leader Joe Fitzgibbon of West Seattle proposed a constitutional amendment to allow this kind of congressional redistricting if another state triggered it by redistricting first. The proposal failed to pass, but he warned: “Washington state is not going to just sit by while Donald Trump and his allies in Texas, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio seek to rig the US House to lock in a Republican majority.”

The odds probably don’t favor such Democratic supermajorities even in this blue-trending year. But if it does happen, a new map could be on the table. Washington state Democratic Chair Shasti Conrad told the New York Times: “People have been asking, ‘What can Washington do with redistricting?’ They’re seeing other states like Virginia do it, so why can’t we?”

The Northwest isn’t redistricting central. But don’t write it off completely.

This story was originally produced by Oregon Capital Chronicle, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Washington State Standard, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

WASHINGTON — Long-time federal immigration official David Venturella will lead U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency spearheading President Donald Trump’s mass deportation campaign, according to a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson.

Venturella will replace outgoing ICE acting Director Todd Lyons, who last month announced he would leave his position by May 31, the DHS official told States Newsroom on Wednesday. Venturella will also take on the role on an acting basis. ICE has been without a permanent, Senate-confirmed director since Trump first took office in 2017.

Venturella will oversee an agency that has come under intense congressional and public scrutiny after federal immigration agents shot and killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis in January. 

The deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti led to a months-long shutdown of DHS, after Democrats pushed for constraints on federal immigration officers. The shutdown ended last month, and Republicans are moving forward with funding ICE and Customs and Border Protection for the next three years, through a complex legislative process that does not require Democratic votes. 

Venturella worked at DHS during the Obama administration, when he led the Secure Communities program in which local law enforcement shared fingerprints and booking information with federal immigration officials to identify immigrants in the country without legal authorization. The Obama administration eventually ended the program, but Trump revived it in 2017.

Venturella has also worked for the private prison company GEO, which earns billions in government contracts to detain immigrants across the country. He retired from GEO in 2023 after serving as the vice president of client relations.

Last year, FIFA President Gianni Infantino likened this year’s World Cup to “104 Super Bowls.”

With the soccer tournament a month away, that’s feeling like a stretch. 

In Seattle, which will host six matches, bullish expectations for the local tourism economy have dampened. Many other cities are in the same boat. 

The World Cup will take place between June and July, with 104 games scheduled in 16 cities across the U.S., Canada and Mexico.

Millions of tickets sold for the U.S. matches haven’t translated to hotel bookings, as domestic travelers outpace those from other countries, according to an analysis from the American Hotel and Lodging Association. 

In Seattle, nearly 80% of respondents to the association’s survey reported bookings below expectations, and behind a typical summer. Many industry professionals across the country called the World Cup a “non-event” for their businesses.

There had been a hope that the tournament would push travelers out of Seattle’s booked-up urban core and into suburbs, spreading wealth from the world’s biggest sporting event. That hasn’t come to pass.

The head of Washington state’s hospitality association is trying to stay positive.

“The industry is hurting, it’s been hurting, and a good summer is welcome,” said Anthony Anton, president and CEO of the Washington Hospitality Association. “And anything that happens above a good summer will be a blessing.”

“There’s no reason to be down about that,” Anton added.

The local tourism bureau is forecasting over $845 million in total economic impact for Seattle and King County, with $96 million in state and local tax revenue and supporting 20,000 jobs. That’s 91% of what had been anticipated back in December 2024.

Seattle-area hotels are on track to see room revenue grow nearly 10% compared to June 2025, and 9% in July over last year, according to an analysis from early this year by CoStar Group. Cities hosting Super Bowls usually see at least 50% growth, said Michael Stathokostopoulos, senior director of hospitality analytics at CoStar.

“Obviously this is going to be a positive event for the U.S.,” Stathokostopoulos said. “I think it was a little bit overestimated in the beginning, potentially now it’s a little bit underestimated.”

Local tourism leaders note that World Cup fans often book accommodations at the last minute. Demand could also be shifting away from traditional hotels and toward short-term rentals through platforms like Airbnb.

“Our message to hoteliers is that there’s still a ton of opportunity to land these bookings, especially when you consider how strong our appeal is with our compact downtown and stadium,” Visit Seattle spokesperson Joey Thompson said in an email.

Meanwhile, Seattle is planning to spend $32 million in a combination of state, local and federal dollars on World Cup preparations. Most is for safety and security efforts.

‘Hard to forecast’

There are a few factors that could be behind the lagging bookings. 

For one, Seattle didn’t draw matches with countries that have hordes of fans willing to travel. The teams include Qatar, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Egypt and Iran. Iran’s participation in the tournament had been in doubt given it is at war with the United States. 

“Do you think a lot of Tehranian businessmen are going to come to Seattle?” asked Mark Everton, CEO of Explore Seattle Southside and chair of the state association of destination marketing organizations.

The war has also strained the oil market, driving up fuel prices and thus flight costs, which could deter travelers. 

And Canadian tourism to the U.S. has dropped precipitously amid President Donald Trump’s rhetoric about our northern neighbor. Vehicle travel crossing the border into Washington state was down 45% in March compared to March 2024, before Trump took office. Canadian fans may not be eager to drive down to Seattle after catching a match in Vancouver, B.C.

Some fear that anxiety about the chaos of the World Cup spectacle could keep away potential visitors who would otherwise come to the region during its peak tourist season. 

“It’s very hard to forecast this event, because this event has never happened before,” said  Stathokostopoulos, because of having three countries host and a dramatically expanded field of teams competing.

On the upside for tourism, Seattle will play host to powerhouse Belgium and the U.S. team.

The hospitality industry is hopeful bookings will increase in the coming weeks as the World Cup approaches. This played out in the 2022 tournament in Qatar and other recent international soccer tournaments, said Visit Seattle Chief Business Officer Kelly Saling.

YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.

SUPPORT

The tournament’s length may also help, as matches are spread over weeks, unlike, say, the MLB All-Star Weekend that Seattle hosted in 2023, which brought lots of tourists but not for long. The World Cup’s schedule could give visitors the opportunity to sightsee — and spend money — for days between matches, including outside of the urban core.

And, come July, the city will host two, higher-profile knockout round matches, which are more likely to feature teams with mobs of traveling fans, like France, England, Germany, Spain, Argentina, Brazil.

Anton, of the hospitality association, argued the World Cup will serve as “the best possible postcard we could have for the Northwest.” This could interest travelers from around the world to someday visit the Puget Sound region. 

Local hotels have been struggling for years, with negative outside perceptions of public safety in Seattle that have made it a less attractive destination, high costs and then the pandemic, Anton said. He’s encouraging hoteliers to plan for a summer similar to those seen in the 2010s.

Capitalizing

The Downtown Seattle Association will be activating local parks during the tournament to give people reasons to come downtown. Drawing people there has been a yearslong pursuit for city leaders after the pandemic.

There’ll be watch parties at Westlake Park, music and more at Occidental Square, soccer-themed selfie stations at Pioneer Park. 

“We’re going to have so many people who are coming just for the game,” said Jennifer Casillas, a vice president at the association. “We want to show them all the other reasons to be here and to come back after the World Cup.”

A new law will ensure some of the revenue from the matches at Lumen Field stays in the community. It requires 30% of the state’s portion of sales tax revenue from the downtown stadiums to be distributed to neighborhood preservation and development groups in Pioneer Square, Chinatown-International District and Central District.

The law’s sponsor, Rep. Sharon Tomiko Santos, D-Seattle, said the negative spillover from the stadiums, like increasing traffic and limiting parking, have been felt in those neighborhoods with little benefit.

She said that the expectation during the MLB All-Star Weekend in 2023 was that restaurants and businesses in the Chinatown-International District would get residual revenue from the increased foot traffic. But the tourists didn’t come. Santos said she pushed the bill with the upcoming World Cup in mind.

“This is not a handout,” Santos said, “this is about protecting and saving a community.” 

The local World Cup organizing committee is pushing a guide, called the “Unity Loop,” allowing visitors to choose their own adventure and explore more of Seattle.

“Hopefully we’re going to see more large events on the horizon,” said James Sido, media relations director at the downtown association, “like the 2031 Women’s World Cup, for example; the NFL draft is always bouncing around from market to market.”

WASHINGTON — U.S. Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary on Tuesday became the latest member of President Donald Trump’s administration to leave their post this year. 

“I want to thank Dr. Marty Makary for having done a great job at the FDA. So much was accomplished under his leadership,” Trump wrote on social media. “He was a hard worker, who was respected by all, and will go on to have an outstanding career in Medicine. Kyle Diamantas, a very talented person, will be put in the Acting position.”

Diamantas was working as the deputy commissioner for food, leading the program that focuses on nutrition and food safety.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wrote in a social media post that Makary “pushed forward critical reforms and helped advance our mission to Make America Healthy Again.”

“I also want to thank Kyle Diamantas for stepping in as Acting Commissioner — his leadership has already delivered remarkable wins on the MAHA food agenda, and I have full confidence in his continued work,” Kennedy added. “We have an outstanding team at FDA, and the work continues without pause. The search for a new Commissioner is already underway, and we will move forward with urgency.”

Makary’s resignation marks the fourth time a senior member of the Trump administration has either left or been forced out during the last few months. 

Kristi Noem was ousted as Homeland Security secretary in early March, moving to a different job as a special envoy. Pam Bondi resigned as attorney general in early April to move back to the private sector. And Lori Chavez-DeRemer stepped down as Labor secretary in late April, following scandals.

The Senate voted to confirm Makary to lead the FDA in March 2025, with Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin of Illinois as well as Maggie Hassan and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire supporting him. 

Medication abortion

Makary’s decision to leave the FDA comes several months after anti-abortion organizations and some Republicans in Congress called for Trump to fire him over his record on access to medication abortion. 

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, and Lila Rose, founder of Live Action, both released statements in December pressing for the FDA to restrict access to mifepristone. 

“The FDA needs a new commissioner who will immediately reinstate in-person dispensing as it existed under President Trump’s first term and immediately conduct a comprehensive study,” Dannenfelser wrote in a statement at the time. “Commissioner Makary is severely undermining President Trump and Vice President Vance’s pro-life credentials and their position that states should have the right to enact and enforce pro-life protections. Makary must go.”

Missouri U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley sent a letter to Makary the following day urging him to wrap up a review of the current prescribing guidelines for mifepristone. 

Their frustration followed a Bloomberg Law news article that said Makary didn’t want to release the results of the study until after November’s midterm elections, which will determine which political party controls Congress for the next two years.

Environmental activists have raised the $32,000 needed to spare the trees surrounding a campground on the northern end of the Olympic Peninsula from logging. 

In what appears to be a first-of-its-kind agreement, the Elwha Legacy Forests Coalition paid Webster Logging to halt the cutting of a two-acre state-managed parcel around the Sadie Creek campground. Webster paid the Department of Natural Resources half of those funds, which will be divided between the agency and county beneficiaries.

“I honestly never dreamed we would raise that money so quickly,” said WendyRae Johnson, member of the coalition. “If we raised $32,000 in four days? Hello. People really said yes to it.” 

Activists raised the money online with a GoFundMe campaign.

The agreement took place without approval from the Department of Natural Resources. Without an official conservation agreement involving the state, the land, theoretically, could be put up for sale again for logging. 

Public Lands Commissioner Dave Upthegrove supports the idea of conservation leases and recently started an internal work group to begin developing policies, but said it was too early to take action at the Sadie Creek Campground. 

“At the surface, it sounds easy: two acres, just write your check,” Upthegrove told the Standard. “But really, what we’re doing is establishing a new legal process at the agency.”

Any conservation easement that would happen in the future would need to be approved by the Board of Natural Resources, he added. 

The Elwha Legacy Forests Coalition says its work isn’t done yet. The two acres that were saved comprise one of six units in the Doc Holliday timber sale.

The coalition hopes to save another larger unit, according to Elizabeth Dunne, an attorney with Earth Law Center who coordinated the Sadie Creek agreement. The 29-acre area contains so-called legacy forests — trees that aren’t quite old growth, but will be in the coming years if left standing.

Bruce Webster, the owner of the logging company, said he will log the area around July. 

“The hope is that we could swap out that acreage for other acreage that would be non-legacy forest, like monocrop plantation acreage,” said Dunne. 

Because the timber is worth more than $1 million, a swap is really the only viable option, she said, explaining that fundraising that amount would be unrealistic.

Over a year and a half ago, the group sent a proposal to the Department of Natural Resources to swap out the land for another parcel that’s part of a timber sale called Double Down. The agency didn’t respond.

To make a swap, the Department of Natural Resources would have to identify replacement timber and amend its existing contract with Webster Logging.

Even if that doesn’t happen and the other 29 acres are cut, the Sadie Creek Campground agreement “could be the start of something,” Johnson said.

In the future, the group hopes that the public will be able to bid on timber sales, not just loggers. 

If the agency allowed the public to bid on timber sales under the same conditions as logging companies, groups like the Elwha Legacy Forests Coalition could pay 10% down on a timber sale at time of sale and then have three years to come up with the rest of the money.

“We have opportunities to manage lands in a way that reflects their value beyond timber,” said Dunne.

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to clarify that the Department of Natural Resources did not respond to Elwha Legacy Forests Coalition’s proposal to swap other land for the 29 acres in the Doc Holliday timber sale. A previous version of the article said the agency had rejected the proposal.

JEFFERSON CITY, Missouri — Control of the U.S. House may run through a courtroom in Missouri.

In a red brick courthouse across the street from the state Capitol, the seven black-robed judges of the Missouri Supreme Court on Tuesday morning weighed the fate of a Republican gerrymander aimed at ousting U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, a 11-term Democrat from Kansas City.

In the afternoon, they upheld the map.

Its opponents “failed to show the 2025 Map clearly and undoubtedly violates the requirements” of the state constitution, the court ruled hours after holding oral arguments.

After the U.S. Supreme Court’s late April decision sharply curtailing the use of race in redistricting, much of the legal fight over gerrymandering is moving to state courts. The decision, Louisiana vs. Callais, gutted Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which limited states’ ability to divide districts where a majority of residents belong to a racial minority group.

Southern Republican states have rushed forward new maps over the past two weeks that take advantage of the landmark opinion, adding to a handful of others, including Missouri, that already drew new lines in recent months at President Donald Trump’s behest before the midterms elections this November. Another wave of gerrymanders across the rest of the country will likely follow next year ahead of the 2028 election.

State supreme courts may have the final word on some of the maps. Even if the maps don’t involve issues decided in Callais, like the challenge in Missouri, many states have constitutional or statutory provisions that curb gerrymandering and limit last-minute changes to elections — providing gerrymandering opponents with grounds to challenge new district boundaries.

With federal redistricting lawsuits increasingly difficult, state laws offer gerrymandering opponents another path. 

Thirty states have some form of a constitutional requirement for free elections, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. And at least 10 state supreme courts have found that state courts can decide cases involving allegations of partisan gerrymandering, according to a 2024 review by the State Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin Law School. 

“I think state courts are primarily going to be the place where future fights around these maps are playing out in a post-Callais landscape,” said Alicia Bannon, director of the judiciary program at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.

Legal challenges abound

The elevated importance of state courts was on full display Friday, when the Virginia Supreme Court invalidated an election in which voters narrowly approved a Democratic map. The decision leaves a new map in California as the party’s only successful response so far to the GOP redistricting onslaught. Democrats have made a longshot request to the U.S. Supreme Court to block the Virginia ruling.

Lawsuits have already been filed in state courts over new maps in Florida and Louisiana. Alabama’s new map could also face a legal challenge in state court, even after the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for the gerrymander to take effect. 

At stake in these courtroom fights is which party will control the U.S. House over the next two years, earning the power to advance or thwart legislation. While Democrats remain generally favored to retake the chamber in the November midterm elections, Republicans will likely emerge from the gerrymandering war with at least a handful of seats secured.

Suddenly, every state supreme court decision — including over a single seat in Missouri — takes on greater significance.

Marina Jenkins, executive director of the National Redistricting Foundation, which is helping challenge the Missouri map, told reporters on Monday that the state’s high court had a “spotlight on” it.

“Is the court going to do what it has done in the past in a nonpartisan way that is faithful to their own precedent,” she asked ahead of the decision. “Or are they going to roll over?”

Missouri case

The Republican-controlled Missouri General Assembly in September approved a map intended to leave the state with just one Democrat in Congress, in the St. Louis area. Kansas City was divided among three districts, splitting apart its Democratic-leaning and racially diverse core. 

The Missouri Supreme Court considered three challenges to the map. Two similar lawsuits argue that some of the congressional districts don’t follow the state constitution’s requirements that districts be as compact as possible.

A third lawsuit argues that the map shouldn’t be in effect for the 2026 election because opponents in December submitted more than 305,000 signatures seeking to force a statewide referendum vote on the lines. In the past, state officials have paused the implementation of measures subject to a referendum until a vote is held, but in this instance they say the new lines are active.

During Tuesday’s oral arguments, the judges sat almost entirely stone-faced as they listened. Only one judge asked a single question during arguments that stretched for more than an hour, offering no sense of how the court would rule.

“There is no such thing as a perfect map or a perfect district,” Missouri Principal Deputy Solicitor General Kathleen Hunker said.

Jonathan Hawley, an attorney representing Missouri voters who argue the referendum means the map isn’t in effect, said his case will decide whether the people of Missouri “still have a meaningful referendum.”

“The referendum right is the people’s veto,” Hawley said.

The Missouri Supreme Court hours later ruled against both challenges to the maps — allowing the new lines to be used this year.

“Had the drafters intended a referendum petition filing to automatically suspend any act of the General Assembly at issue in the referendum petition, they would have so stated,” the court’s opinion says.

Florida’s GOP gerrymander

Only two Southern states, Florida and Kentucky, allow courts to decide partisan gerrymandering cases.

Kentucky, which has a Democratic governor, hasn’t taken up redistricting this year. But a Florida Supreme Court decision striking down a new map there would effectively offset Democrats’ loss at the Virginia Supreme Court.

Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed into law a map passed by the state legislature during a special session on the same day as the Callais decision. The new congressional boundaries are designed to hand Republicans up to four additional seats.

Several voting rights groups have sued, alleging the map violates the Florida Constitution. A 2010 amendment approved by voters prohibits districts drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or incumbent.

“Instead of abiding by this law, the Legislature is defying the will of voters and backing a map that was crafted entirely with partisan intent,” Simone Leeper, senior legal counsel for redistricting at Campaign Legal Center, said in a statement. 

The Campaign Legal Center and the UCLA Voting Rights Project have sued jointly over the map.

DeSantis’s office told state lawmakers ahead of this year’s special session that the 2010 amendment requires the state legislature to account for race when drawing districts — and that the provisions regarding race can’t be severed from the rest of the amendment. In effect, DeSantis contends the whole amendment must be thrown out.

The Florida governor’s pitch, coupled with the Callais decision, persuaded GOP lawmakers.

“I have a ton of comfort because the Callais decision came out,” Florida state Rep. Alex Andrade, a Pensacola Republican, said. “I got to read it, and it perfectly summarizes exactly why we could, and should, change our 2022 maps.”

Map opponents’ chance of success at the Florida Supreme Court is unclear. The court as recently as 2015 blocked a congressional map as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander, but it has moved to the right in the years since. Six of the seven current justices were appointed by DeSantis and the other was appointed by a different Republican governor.

“The composition of the Florida Supreme Court has changed dramatically since that earlier ruling,” Bannon, the Brennan Center expert, said. “So I think there are questions about will the court be as open to those arguments.”

Process challenges

In other Southern states, map opponents are turning to arguments beside partisan gerrymandering.

The Tennessee chapter of the NAACP has sued Republican Gov. Bill Lee and the state General Assembly to block a gerrymander passed last week from taking effect. The organization alleges Lee violated the state constitution in how he called a special session for a new map. 

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, a Republican, has urged a court to dismiss Lee and the legislature from lawsuit because they don’t conduct elections.

Alabama Democrats and voting rights groups are weighing a legal challenge to a new map that would focus on a 2022 amendment to the state constitution. The amendment requires election law changes to be made at least six months before a general election — a deadline of May 3 this year. Alabama’s redistricting special session began the next day.

In Louisiana, state lawmakers have not yet passed a new map after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the state’s current lines as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander because the legislature had previously created a second majority-Black district. Lawmakers are expected to advance a map aimed at ousting one of the state’s two Democratic House members, who are both Black.

After the Callais decision, Republican Gov. Jeff Landry suspended the state’s congressional primary elections although roughly 42,000 absentee ballots had already been cast. Lawsuits challenging the suspension have been filed in both federal and state court.

Too late to change?

In Missouri on Tuesday, lawyers for Republican state officials took the opposite approach, urging the state supreme court to keep the map in place for the 2026 election, even if the judges strike it down. Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, a Republican, told reporters afterward that preventing the state from using the map now would lead to confusion, even as 12 weeks remain before the primary election.

“It’ll be disarray for the people that have been going to town halls and listening to candidates,” Hoskins said. “It would be disarray for the candidates that are running and going out and meeting voters in their district. And it’d be disarray for the local election authorities and county clerks that have already started instituting” the new map.

Hoskins’ fears turned out to be unfounded, as the court upheld the map.

Cleaver, who is running for reelection, has said that his work ethic or commitment to voters won’t change regardless of his district boundaries. 

“If I have to serve the people who live just outside of Columbia and Jefferson City, then I’ll do that,” he said when he filed to run earlier this year.

Attorneys for the ACLU of Missouri, which supported challenges to the map, said it was unfair to Missouri residents for the state to create a problem and then argue it’s too late to change it. 

At a rally outside the Missouri Supreme Court on Tuesday, ACLU of Missouri Policy Director Tori Schafer expressed confidence the judges would side with map opponents — hours before they allowed the lines to move forward.

“But let me clear,” Schafer said, “democracy did not begin in a courtroom and it will not be saved in a courtroom.”

Florida Phoenix reporter Mitch Perry contributed to this report.

On paper it makes little sense. Ship traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, roughly 7,000 miles from the United States, is restricted and gasoline prices in this country soar? 

The strait is the major export route for oil produced by Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, Iraq, Bahrain and Iran, according to the International Energy Agency. But since Feb. 28, when the Iran war began and the narrow passageway between Oman and Iran became a battleground, U.S. gasoline prices have soared — and the prices of consumer products and services are poised to jump as well. 

Most oil passing through the strait goes to Asian markets, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. And due to greater domestic production, the U.S. is importing less crude oil from the Persian Gulf than it has in 40 years, EIA said in a March analysis.

So why are U.S. consumers paying so much more for gasoline? Globalization.

“Supply disruptions anywhere in the world can also affect prices everywhere in the world because we live in a global market,” explained Jeff Lenard, a vice president of the trade group National Association of Convenience Stores. “Oil and refined products like gasoline are traded on the commodities markets. Places with short supply are willing to pay more for product. That drives up the global price.”

Gas prices are tied to the global supply and demand for crude oil, meaning a disruption to the supply anywhere can have an effect everywhere, said Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, which tracks gas prices.

“It’s because the price of oil is based on how much is available in total. Since oil from there is in short supply, the rest of the oil all around the world becomes more expensive,” De Haan said.

A gallon of regular gasoline Monday cost an average of $4.52, according to AAA up from $4.14 a month ago and $3.14 a year ago. Consumer prices overall were up 0.9% in March, and were averaging 3.3% higher over the past year.

Dissecting prices

While the Middle East oil disruption affects prices throughout the world, retail pump costs can vary dramatically from state to state across the U.S.

California’s average Monday was $6.16, the nation’s highest, AAA reported. Next were Washington, $5.76, and Hawaii, $5.65. The lowest averages were in Oklahoma, $3.95, Mississippi, $3.98 and Arkansas, $4.

The price of crude oil is the biggest part of the price consumers pay at the pump. EIA estimates that it makes up 51% of the retail cost. Distribution and marketing account for 11%, refining costs and profits 20% and federal and state taxes 18%.

That means dramatic changes in the price of crude have a huge impact on retail prices.

 window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}});

The National Association of Convenience Stores estimates that each dollar the price of oil increases could be 2.4 cents a gallon at the pump.

Brent crude, the world benchmark, was $70.50 the day before the U.S. and Israel struck Iran. Monday morning, it was more than $104.

The $34 a barrel increase since the war began would mean a 82-cent per gallon increase. 

Competition can keep prices from rising too much. No gas station wants to be an outlier projecting much higher prices than the one across the street.

Taxes and gasoline prices

There are other factors impacting gasoline prices, notably taxes that vary from state to state. 

The federal tax on gasoline has been 18.4 cents a gallon since 1993. President Donald Trump said Monday he supports freezing the tax, though he offered no timeline. A suspension would need congressional approval, and Republican leaders have in the past been reluctant to embrace any pause.

While the average state tax is 33.55 cents a gallon, it varies widely. California’s taxes and fees are estimated at 70.9 cents a gallon, the nation’s highest. The lowest tax and fee rate is in Alaska, 9 cents a gallon.

California’s costs are also boosted by other factors, including its tough environmental standards. The state requires a special blend of gasoline that aims to help air quality.

“This fuel burns cleaner but is more expensive to produce because it requires more processing steps and expensive blending components,” EIA said.

Another reason for the higher prices is California’s reliance on in-state refineries. It doesn’t have as much proximity as other states to interstate supply pipelines

Ripple effects

About 20% of the world’s oil passed through the strait prior to the war. But reopening the strait would be unlikely to suddenly bring prices down.

“In complex supply chains, a disruption in one critical link, even if only briefly, can cascade through the system, well beyond the initial event,” Pinar Keskinocak, professor at the H. Milton Stewart School of Industrial and Systems Engineering at Georgia Tech, said in an analysis. “As delays persist and compound, interconnected systems often take a long time to recover, rebalance, and return to normal.”

“I don’t expect there to be an open flooding of barrels just leaving the region,” said Jerome Dortmans, co-head of global oil and products trading in Goldman Sachs Global Banking & Markets, in an analysis.

And if the Iran crisis continues and the strait remains restricted, more price pain is probably ahead.

“A prolonged disruption of Middle East oil trade would create oil market conditions for which there is no historical precedent,” said a March report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

Let’s Go Washington began gathering signatures Tuesday for an initiative to repeal the state’s new income tax on high earners, the start to what could be a blockbuster ballot battle this fall.

“We don’t care how you define it, income tax is illegal in this state. And the voters in the state have voted numerous times to ban an income tax,” Brian Heywood, the founder and chief financier of the conservative political committee, said at a morning news conference.

Qualifying won’t be easy. The group must turn in 308,911 valid signatures of registered voters by July 2 — a time span of 51 days. State election officials suggest submitting at least 390,000 signatures to account for invalid ones.

“We are extremely confident that we’ll be able to do this,” Heywood said, noting the group gathered more signatures in less time to get an initiative concerning natural gas on the ballot two years ago.

Chantell Mellott of North Bend filed the measure, IP26-645, on April 20. The state attorney general’s office issued a ballot title May 4 that was not challenged in the ensuing five-day appeal period.

The measure takes aim at Senate Bill 6346, the new law that imposes a 9.9% levy on household wage income above $1 million starting in 2028. Collections would begin in 2029 and generate around $3 billion a year from an estimated 21,000 filers.

The initiative, if passed, would repeal that levy on high earners. It also would prohibit state and local governments from passing any tax on individual income, regardless of source. And it would chisel into state law a definition of income as “any gain or benefit measured in money derived from an individual’s capital, labor, property, or other source.”

But, in a twist, the measure would retain provisions in the controversial law to expand a tax credit program for low-income families, provide tax relief for more businesses, and erase sales tax on diapers, personal hygiene products and over-the-counter drugs.

It also keeps in place elimination of the new sales tax on services in 2029. However, it would erase language pledging 5% of tax collections each year to the Fair Start for Kids account that supports early learning programs.

“We’re grateful that the Legislature was able to reduce some taxes on things that they’ve already been penalizing people on,” Heywood said. “So we’re not repealing any of those things.”

Millionaires Tax for Washington, a newly-formed labor-funded coalition, said it’s been expected that voters “will have the final say.” 

“We look forward to making our case to the public that this is a sensible policy that makes our tax code more fair and raises critically important funding for education, health care, and other public priorities, while reducing taxes on lower and middle income families and on small businesses,” said Aisling Kerins, the coalition’s political consultant.

Let’s Go Washington tried to pursue a referendum on the income tax, but was rebuffed by the Secretary of State Steve Hobbs’ office. The Supreme Court last week sided with Hobbs, saying a so-called necessity clause in the law shielded it from a referendum. A referendum would’ve required half as many signatures as an initiative to qualify for the ballot.

This measure, if it qualifies, would join two other initiatives sponsored by Let’s Go Washington that will appear atop ballots statewide in November. One concerns parental rights for public school students and the other participation of transgender girls competing in girls’ school sports.

This is a developing story.

This is the second installment providing an initial look at this year’s legislative races. You can read part one here.

This year’s midterms are significant for Washington state government, as all 98 seats in the state House and 24 of 49 state Senate seats are up for grabs. Meanwhile, a surge of retirements will mean many new lawmakers arriving in Olympia. 

The filing deadline for candidates was Friday at 5 p.m. They had until Monday evening to withdraw.

The primary will be Aug. 4, with the top two candidates advancing to the general election. Election Day is Nov. 3. 

Democrats currently hold a 59-39 majority in the state House and 30-19 in the Senate.

Here’s a look at some of the notable legislative races.

4th District

In this deeply red district, Rep. Suzanne Schmidt, R-Spokane Valley, is forgoing reelection to run for Spokane County commissioner. 

Four Republicans filed to take her place. Schmidt’s seatmate, Rep. Rob Chase, R-Spokane Valley, has endorsed his former legislative assistant, Hillary Pham, an Air Force veteran and former intergovernmental affairs officer at Spokane County.

Pham faces local Republican leader and former Central Valley school board member Debra Long, Trent Maier, who is the owner of a local hard cider manufacturer, and George Wagner.

6th District

Nine candidates entered the race for two House seats in this district, which Republicans have held since the 1990s. The 6th is in Spokane County and includes Airway Heights, Medical Lake and the Fairchild Air Force Base.  

Reps. Mike Volz and Jenny Graham, both from Spokane, are not seeking reelection. 

Four Republicans and two Democrats are vying for Volz’s seat. 

The Republicans include: Isaiah Paine, volunteer vice chair of the Spokane Solid Waste Advisory Committee; Jennifer Morton, a veteran and Airway Heights city council member; Alan Nolan, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel and vice president of the Mead School Board of Directors; and Sueann Davis, a former board member of Deer Park School District.

The Democrats are Nicolette Ocheltree, manager of housing and homelessness initiatives for the Spokane City Council and Michaela Kelso, state committee member of the Washington Democratic Party and executive board representative for the Spokane County Democrats.

In the race for Graham’s seat are Republican Jonathan Bingle, a former Spokane City Council member with a focus on public safety and homelessness policies; Democrat Julia Payne who is emphasizing affordability issues and accessibility for people with disabilities; and Aaron Croft, an Air Force veteran running as an Independent. 

10th District

This is a rare still-purple district in Washington, with two Democratic representatives and a Republican senator representing Island, Snohomish and Skagit counties. Rep. Dave Paul, D-Oak Harbor, has widened his election margins since first winning the seat in 2018 and a tight reelection battle in 2020. 

Paul faces two Republican foes: Tim Hazelo, the former chair of the Island County Republican Party, and Carrie Kennedy, who mounted a failed run for the district’s other House seat in 2024.

Both have found themselves in hot water. A jury found Hazelo guilty last year of two crimes over his refusal to wear a mask while observing ballot counting in 2024. He received probation, but no jail time. Kennedy drew fire in her last election bid for inflammatory social media posts and promoting conspiracy theories about the 2020 presidential election being “stolen.”

Paul, chair of the House Postsecondary Education and Workforce Committee, has raised about $39,000 for his reelection campaign, while neither Hazelo or Kennedy have brought in $1,000.

The district’s other House lawmaker, Democratic Rep. Clyde Shavers, faces only one challenger, Stanwood City Councilmember Robert “Chili” Hicks, a Republican. Both will advance to the general election in November.

15th District

This will be the second election in the 15th since a federal judge approved new legislative boundaries for the Yakima Valley district in 2024. The judge ruled that the previous map did not allow equal access for Latino voters. In the case’s wake, three Republican senators were pushed out. That includes Sen. Nikki Torres, R-Pasco, now running in the 8th District following the redistricting shuffle. 

Rep. Jeremie Dufault, R-Selah, is running unopposed for Torres’ Senate seat in the 15th. 

Three candidates are seeking to take Dufault’s House spot. 

Two are Republicans. Reedy Berg is a Yakima City Council member, assistant mayor and a history and civics teacher at Toppenish Middle School. Chase Foster of Zillah is chair of the Kennewick Housing Authority. Foster ran unsuccessfully against Rep. Chris Corry in 2024.

The third candidate, Liz Hallock, filed with a “No Kings” party affiliation. 

23rd District

There are two Democrat-versus-Democrat duels for the House seats in this district, which covers north Kitsap County and Bainbridge Island.

Rep. Greg Nance, D-Bainbridge Island, faces Kristin Lillegard, who has been endorsed by a local Democratic Socialist group. Lance Byrd, a Republican who lost a 2024 Senate bid, is also challenging Nance.

Meanwhile, Rep. Tarra Simmons, D-Bremerton, has drawn competition from Poulsbo Democrat Daria Ilgen.

Simmons is believed to be the first formerly incarcerated person to win a legislative race in the nation when she joined the Legislature in 2021. She has focused heavily on criminal justice issues during her time in the Legislature. 

Simmons has also drawn multiple ethics complaints, including from the chair of the 23rd District’s Democrats, for allegedly intimidating Ilgen, a member of the group’s executive board, as he considered a run.

Initially, Republican attorney Joel Ard filed to run against Simmons, as well, but later withdrew. Ard has taken the state to court numerous times to challenge state laws and has represented the state Republican Party. 

24th District

This Olympic Peninsula district will see two competitive primaries as one Democratic lawmaker faces his first reelection fight and another retires.

Five candidates are seeking to replace Rep. Steve Tharinger, D-Port Townsend, chair of the House committee that oversees the state construction budget. He missed much of the 2026 legislative session due to illness.

Patrick DePoe, a Makah tribal leader and executive director of the Association of Washington Tribes, is among the hopefuls for Tharinger’s seat. He mounted a failed bid for state public lands commissioner in 2024. He has the support of many progressive state legislators.

Marcia Kelbon, a longtime Republican from Jefferson County, filed to run with no party preference. A lawyer and Quilcene fire commissioner, she cited a “destructive” political climate as the reason for going unaffiliated, and said she has always leaned toward the middle politically. Kelbon ran as a Republican for the district’s Senate seat in 2024, losing in the general election.

Former Sequim high school teacher Kaylee Kuehn is running as a Democrat. She was previously an aide in the Legislature. Kuehn now works in communications, including teaching civility with The Building Bridges Project. State Superintendent of Public Instruction Chris Reykdal endorsed Kuehn.

Port Angeles City Councilmember Mark Hodgson, a Democrat, is also running for Tharinger’s seat. He has served in the military and locally as a law enforcement and corrections officer. He has been on multiple local boards and commissions, including the Clallam County Charter Review Commission.

Bradley Nemo Calloway filed to run for the House seat as a Democrat.

DePoe leads the fundraising battle, so far, followed by Kelbon, Kuehn and Hodgson.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Tharinger’s seatmate, Rep. Adam Bernbaum, D-Port Angeles, has three challengers.

Teenager Aiden Hamilton, a Republican, cites the pandemic shutdown of in-person public schooling that he experienced as animating his run. He has said he’s aiming to be the youngest state lawmaker in Washington history. Hamilton has the support of the Clallam County Republican Party. 

Eric Pratt, a Republican from Quilcene who often testified against Democrat-backed bills moving through the Legislature this year, is also trying to unseat Bernbaum. 

Ted Bowen, who highlights his experience in various security-related jobs, is running as an Independent. He isn’t accepting campaign contributions and is instead asking supporters to give to their local church or community outreach organizations.

Bernbaum won the 2024 election with nearly 55% of the vote. 

35th District

Three Republican incumbents in this district, which covers Mason County and parts of Thurston and Kitsap counties, all face Democratic challengers. 

Only one is heading into a contested primary: Rep. Dan Griffey, R-Allyn, who has been in office since 2015 and ran unopposed in 2024. He’s up against two Democratic opponents.

Jim Pierson, a retiree, worked in the software industry, including for Microsoft. Shaena Garberich ran unsuccessfully for Shelton City Council last year. She recently won an award from the Washington Low Income Housing Alliance for emerging as an advocate this session. 

Griffey’s seatmate, Rep. Travis Couture, R-Allyn, faces Maria Littlesun, a lifelong Shelton resident who has worked as a social worker, peer counselor and crisis responder. 

And the district’s Sen. Drew MacEwen, R-Shelton, is running against Thurston County Commissioner Carolina Mejia. MacEwen ran for Congress in 2024 and lost. He won his 2022 state Senate campaign handily.

39th District

The retirement of Rep. Carolyn Eslick, R-Sultan, has attracted multiple Republican hopefuls and a Democrat trying to flip the seat. The district covers parts of Snohomish and Skagit counties.

Former lawmaker Robert Sutherland is mounting a return bid to the Legislature. He represented the district for two terms but didn’t get a third, losing reelection in 2022 to Rep. Sam Low, R-Lake Stevens. Low won reelection by decisively beating Sutherland in a 2024 rematch.

Sutherland also ran for Snohomish County auditor unsuccessfully in 2023. He has been an avid supporter of President Donald Trump and spread conspiracy theories blaming voter fraud for Trump’s loss in 2020.

Former Lake Stevens City Councilmember Steve Ewing is also going for Eslick’s seat. He has the backing of Eslick, Low and the district’s senator, Keith Wagoner, R-Sedro-Woolley, as well as local mayors.

Lacey Sauvageau is also running for the seat as a Republican. She previously ran for the state House as a Democrat in 2020 in the 38th Legislative District. She ran for Everett City Council the next year. At the time, she was a 911 dispatcher. 

Sutherland has the endorsement from the 39th Legislative District Republicans. 

Ida Keeley, of Lake Stevens, is the Democrat in the race. Her campaign website specifically calls her “an independent Democrat.” Keeley has held administrative positions with the state Department of Children, Youth and Families and Snohomish County Juvenile Court, and served as chair of the Children’s Campaign Fund Action Board.

Boeing engineer and union leader David Garrett, a Democrat, explored a run but opted against it.

Low, who is also on the Snohomish County Council, will also need to fend off multiple candidates to retain his seat. 

Democrat Kathryn Lewandowsky previously ran as an Independent in 2024, but didn’t advance past the primary. A nurse from Arlington, she supports single-payer health care and expanding affordable housing options.

Dusty Wisniew, of Granite Falls, is also campaigning for the seat as a Republican.

43rd District

And finally, another Democrat-on-Democrat clash is brewing in Seattle’s 43rd District. Longtime lawmaker and Senate Majority Leader Jamie Pedersen faces opposition from Hannah Sabio-Howell, a young progressive activist with a background in communications. 

Most recently, Sabio-Howell was the communications director for Working Washington, a labor rights advocacy group. As a queer Filipina woman, she backs policies like taxing the ultra-wealthy, reducing housing costs and universal childcare. Sabio-Howell was previously an intern for Sen. Rebecca Saldaña, D-Seattle, who endorsed her campaign last week. 

Pedersen has served in the Legislature for two decades. In 2006, he was elected to the state House. He was appointed to the Senate in 2013 and has won three elections since. The incumbent senator has served as the majority leader since 2024 and was the prime sponsor of this year’s legislation to tax millionaire earners.

Heather Marie-Wilson, who has no party affiliation, is also in the race.

The United States Bureau of Land Management on Monday formally cancelled the so-called “Public Land Rule,” which required the agency to consider conservation and development equally in land-use decisions for millions of acres across the West.

The BLM published a notice Monday in the Federal Register finalizing its elimination of the 2024 rule, officially known as the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule. The agency first announced it was considering eliminating the rule in September.

The Biden-era rule provided guidance for ensuring conservation received due consideration along with mining, timber, grazing, recreation or other uses on public lands. It also allowed the BLM to issue leases specifically for conservation, though the agency never issued any.

The BLM’s notice Monday said officials had received and responded to nearly 140,000 public comments in response to the proposal. Ultimately, officials said eliminating the 2024 rule was necessary because it “threatened to restrict productive use of the public lands and introduced uncertainty and unnecessary burdens in planning and permitting.” The rule’s elimination comes alongside executive orders and other actions by the Trump administration to expand drilling, mineral production and other commercial uses of public lands.

Michael Carroll, a campaign director for environmentalist group The Wilderness Society, said Monday that the rule’s rescission, which officially goes into effect in 30 days, will leave millions of acres across the West newly vulnerable to oil and gas extraction and mining.

“They’re effectively saying, ‘We’re just going to prioritize extraction across BLM lands,’ Carroll said. “They’re going to be prioritizing industrial-scale development on those public lands. I think we’ll see that right away.”

He also noted that the BLM determined it did not need to consult with Indigenous tribes in its decision to rescind the rule, which he called “shocking in terms of its disrespect to tribal nations,” many of which sit adjacent to federal lands.

The Wilderness Society was among many environmental groups that denounced the end of the “Public Lands Rule” on Wednesday. Several public statements from the groups mentioned the pending U.S. Senate confirmation of Steve Pearce, a former New Mexico Republican congressman, as BLM director.

If the Senate confirms him, Pearce, who has deep ties to the oil and gas industry, will oversee an agency that is no longer required to consider conservation as an acceptable use of public land, Carroll said.

“Today is a bad day for those people who care about public lands and care about the Bureau of Land Management,” he said. “But we’ll keep fighting and keep pushing back.”

This article was first published by Source New Mexico, part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Source New Mexico maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Julia Goldberg for questions: info@sourcenm.com.

State Supreme Court races often pass by without much attention as incumbent justices sail to reelection.

It’ll be different this year, as retirements promise to shake up the high court. Five seats are on the ballot.

And the fate of the Democratic-backed income tax on millionaire earners is expected to rest in the justices’ hands.

The primary is set for Aug. 4 and the general election for Nov. 3.

Justices Colleen Melody and Theo Angelis, both appointed by Gov. Bob Ferguson, will face multiple challenges to retain their seats. Melody replaced Justice Mary Yu, while Angelis took over for Justice Barbara Madsen.

Angelis, a Seattle litigator, will face Dave Larson, a conservative who narrowly lost a campaign for the high court in 2024. Larson, a retired Federal Way Municipal Court judge, said he was inspired to run by watching the direction of the Supreme Court in recent years and disagreeing with it. 

Sharonda Amamilo, a family and juvenile court judge in Thurston County, is also running for Angelis’ spot. Amamilo serves on the Department of Children, Youth and Families oversight board. Greg Miller has filed to run for this position, as well. 

Melody, formerly the head of the civil rights division at the state attorney general’s office, will face Scott Edwards, a partner at a Seattle law firm, and Laura Christensen Colberg, a family law attorney from Kenmore.

Edwards has taught classes on state and local taxes at the University of Washington law school, writing on his campaign website that he is “running to bring that same rigor and analytical approach” to the Supreme Court.

Anne Bremner, best known as Amanda Knox’s legal counsel, had filed to run but withdrew her candidacy Monday. Bremner, a former deputy prosecutor, gained prominence after representing Knox in her Italian murder trial. 

There are also two open seats, with the departures of Charles Johnson and Raquel Montoya-Lewis. 

State appeals court Judge Mike Diaz, King County Superior Court Judge Jaime Hawk and Mason County Superior Court Judge David Stevens are vying for Montoya-Lewis’ spot.

Hawk boasts endorsements from Ferguson, Yu and current Justice G. Helen Whitener. Diaz has support from Montoya-Lewis, Attorney General Nick Brown and former Govs. Jay Inslee, Christine Gregoire and Gary Locke.

Stevens, a former prosecutor, has the backing of the state GOP, and has expressed concern that gubernatorial appointments dominating the court could lead to “ideological rulings and judicial overreach.”

Just two candidates are looking to replace Johnson, with appeals court Judge Ian Birk and King County Superior Court Judge Sean O’Donnell having filed. 

The race is already expensive, with Birk raising $200,000 to O’Donnell’s $162,000, per campaign finance filings. Both automatically advance to the general election in November.

Chief Justice Debra Stephens has also drawn three opponents: Todd Bloom, who ran for justice in 2024; King County defense attorney Karim Merchant; and attorney David Shelvey. Bloom has also mounted failed runs for Congress as a Republican.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday extended a highly anticipated stay blocking an appellate court’s pause on telehealth abortion access until May 14.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s approved medication-abortion regimen remains available via telehealth until then, following a week of uncertainty among abortion patients and providers.

“With this critical temporary administrative stay extended, we hope that some of the chaos and confusion inflicted on patients and providers last weekend will be abated,” said Evan Masingill, CEO of abortion-pill manufacturer GenBioPro, one of the defendants in the case, in a statement.

On May 4, the Supreme Court temporarily stayed the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling to reinstate the FDA’s in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone that the Biden administration officially lifted in 2023. Over the past week, several doctors groups submitted friend-of-the-court briefs arguing that cutting off access to mifepristone could harm many women seeking abortions and miscarriage management. Republican attorneys general from 23 states, meanwhile, urged the Supreme Court not to allow providers to send mifepristone through the mail. 

People in states with abortion bans or diminished abortion access continue to depend on abortion providers prescribing FDA’s approved mifepristone-misoprostol regimen through telemedicine and sending it to patients by mail.

According to new preliminary findings from the Society of Family Planning, telehealth abortion comprised 28% of all abortions at the end of 2025, an increase from 25% at the end of 2024.

Attorneys representing Louisiana have argued that in addition to undermining a state abortion ban, the federal rulemaking process allowing telehealth prescriptions of medication abortion was flawed.  

University of Michigan law professor Samuel Bagenstos, who served as general counsel of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services at the time the Biden-era rule was implemented, said the policy was well considered and based on evidence. 

“The 2023 update was the result of an incredibly careful, deliberate, time-consuming, painstaking process to make sure that they were following what the evidence was,” Bagenstos said. If, the plaintiffs were to prevail, he added, ending telehealth access to mifepristone nationwide would have “really harmful effects on women across the country, as well as really destabilizing effects on the drug approval system.” 

Louisiana’s lawsuit against mifepristone has nationwide implications and could threaten residents in states with abortion access and so-called abortion shield laws, such as Maryland. 

Regardless of what happens in this case, abortion providers told Stateline they are determined to continue providing telehealth abortions, though potentially without mifepristone. Dr. Angel Foster, a telehealth provider in Massachusetts, a shield law state, said in the past week, about 100 patients have requested pills for future use, compared with 34 in the entire month of April. She said constantly changing rules around abortion access followed by sensational news headlines continue to create confusion for people seeking termination or miscarriage management.

“I live and breathe abortion at this point, and I find it can be hard to keep up with the ever-changing legal environment and the way that things are getting framed and phrased,” Foster said. “When you’re a patient and what you see are just the headlines, and you’ve got to figure out what it means for you, it’s really complicated.”

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to correct the number of Republican attorneys general who asked the Supreme Court to keep mifepristone from being prescribed via telehealth visits. It should be 23. 

Stateline reporter Sofia Resnick can be reached at sresnick@stateline.org.

This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Washington State Standard, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

Editor’s note: This is the second article in The 50 vs. The One, an occasional series examining the current fraught moment and what evolving — and often deteriorating — state-federal ties mean for the country. Read the first article here.

President Donald Trump is wielding power in unprecedented ways to bring states to heel, marking a dark new chapter in the relationship between the federal government and the states.

Since taking office last year, Trump has punished Democratic-led states that anger him by withholding federal funding and slow-walking assistance. His administration has denied disaster aid to states whose governors are most critical of him, cut childcare and social services funding, launched investigations into blue states and poured immigration officers and military members into liberal cities.

Presidents and Congress have long leveraged federal power to influence the states, funding everything from welfare to highways. And presidents have long faced legal challenges from political adversaries.

But the Trump administration has begun wielding federal resources as a weapon against states, using dollars to cajole and threaten them into complying with its political agenda. Instead of working with Congress to nudge states, Trump is moving unilaterally, bypassing lawmakers and speaking plainly about punishing political rivals — defining an era in American history that scholars call “punitive federalism.”

“These guys are acting like autocrats and trying to destroy our democracy,” said Illinois House Speaker Emanuel “Chris” Welch, a Democrat. “And you have to understand the role that states play in this. There was a reason why our structure was set up the way it’s set up.”

Ahead of the 250th anniversary of the country’s founding on July 4, Stateline is exploring how the Trump era is transforming the relationship between the states and the federal government. This article is the second in an occasional series examining the fraught moment and what evolving — and often deteriorating — state-federal ties mean for the country, now and in the future.

“States have rights, and thank God we have those rights and the ability to push back, because this Trump agenda is just destructive for our country,” Welch told Stateline. “And I believe we’re going to survive because of our federalism system.”

The tense political moment has underscored the role of states as Democratic leaders across the country file scores of lawsuits and introduce state legislation in attempts to check the president’s actions. State lawmakers have proposed hundreds of new measures that would limit law enforcement and immigration activities to push back against the White House. But Democratic states have had the most success in the courts, where dozens of federal policies have been challenged.

Since Trump took office last year, Illinois alone has led or joined more than 60 lawsuits against the administration. Those suits run the gamut, challenging deployment of the National Guard, immigration enforcement and the withholding of disaster funding. Democratic attorneys general say they are winning in most of the cases that have reached court decisions.

While some GOP members of Congress have balked at Trump’s targeting of blue states, many Republicans have stayed silent or defended Trump’s actions.

The White House did not respond to detailed questions for this story. In a statement, spokesperson Davis Ingle told Stateline that the administration “faithfully upholds our Constitution and the immortalized American principles of federalism, the rule of law, and the separation of powers.”

But Trump’s punitive federalism strategy has left real people and communities scrambling to respond to White House moves.

Wendy Bobadilla worries she and other California childcare providers will be forced to close their doors if the Trump administration succeeds in blocking childcare funds to a handful of Democratic-led states.

“I don’t think he understands what he’s doing and how he’s affecting our children,” she told Stateline.

A more powerful executive branch

Federalism is a uniquely American system created by the framers of the Constitution that provides for power sharing between Washington, D.C., and the states.

Since World War II, the federal government under Democratic and Republican presidents has grown in size and scope. But the White House itself has also accumulated more power, said Nicholas Jacobs, a professor of American government at Colby College in Maine.

“It’s not just that power has shifted from states to the federal government,” he said. “Power has shifted to the executive branch specifically and has become more raw in its overt partisan nature.”

Trump has embraced partisanship in new ways, moving beyond policy differences and into raw retaliation, Jacobs said.

“(President Barack) Obama had blue states and red states, and you can see that clearly, but he didn’t seem to openly celebrate the idea that he was penalizing red states and advancing the causes of blue states,” Jacobs said. “Donald Trump actually uses those terms.”

This increasing partisanship and Trump’s deep cuts to federal agencies has strained relationships between the federal government and states, which administer many federal policies and programs.

State and local governments need certainty to create, pay for and staff programs, said Marcia Howard, executive director of Federal Funds Information for States, which analyzes how federal policymaking affects states. But the Trump administration has injected uncertainty and tested the power of the executive by targeting funds that were explicitly appropriated by Congress, she said.

“They are unprecedented,” she said of the administration’s moves. “In general, an administration takes an appropriations bill at its word, and adheres to it.”

Court challenges

In California, Bobadilla worries about how the president’s actions may harm the hardworking families who rely on her for childcare.

In January, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced it was withholding $10 billion in childcare and other social services from California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota and New York. The agency suggested fraud played a role in the decision, though the administration hasn’t offered evidence.

With part-time help, Bobadilla cares for about 14 children out of her home in Palmdale, north of Los Angeles. About a dozen of those kids’ families pay with the help of subsidy programs. The local poverty rate there exceeds regional, state and national averages.

With families commuting up to 90 minutes per day, Bobadilla sometimes opens as early as 4 a.m. and closes as late as 9:30 p.m. to accommodate working-class parents with fluctuating schedules.

Asked what she would tell the president, Bobadilla said, “I would tell him that I’m working very hard, that I’m not committing any fraud, that I wake up earlier than anybody that I know.”

States have rights, and thank God we have those rights and the ability to push back.

– Illinois House Speaker Emanuel ‘Chris’ Welch, a Democrat

A federal judge in late March ordered the Trump administration not to withhold the funds. A lawsuit over funding is ongoing.

It’s among more than 700 court cases challenging the administration.

“He has decided to break the law. He has decided to be blatant and brazen about it. He has decided to be consistent and frequent in his violations,” California’s Democratic Attorney General Rob Bonta told Stateline. “He did some of this in Trump 1.0, but the speed and volume of unlawful actions, particularly vis-à-vis the states, is unprecedented.”

Bonta acknowledged the decisions of past presidents have been challenged in courts.

“But it wasn’t every week, time after time,” he said. “This is a different thing entirely, like this is the plan. The plan is to break the law.”

Trump has maintained his strategy of holding hostage congressionally approved funding despite court losses, according to a New York Times analysis of nearly 200 legal cases. Bonta said more than half of the 60-plus cases his office has filed against the administration aim to retrieve funding that was already appropriated by Congress.

“It’s like he’s a repeat offender,” Bonta said. “He’s incorrigible.”

Democratic and Republican state attorneys general do work across party lines on some bipartisan issues, including consumer protection and artificial intelligence. But the resistance to Trump’s expansion of federal power has almost entirely come from the left.

“Honestly, what I think they think is that they’re secretly cheering for us,” Bonta said of his Republican colleagues.

He said Republican states still benefit when Democratic attorneys general win constitutional challenges or get courts to reverse the administration’s funding cuts to states.

“And they get the benefit without having to dare to challenge their dear leader,” Bonta said.

The Republican Attorneys General Association says its members have remained focused on reducing crime in their states during Trump’s second term.

“Tax paying, law abiding citizens in blue states across America are flooding into red states because people care about their safety and their children’s future,” Adam Piper, executive director of the association, said in a written statement. “Republican Attorneys General have always been both freedom’s front line and America’s last line of defense against radicals seeking to upend the rule of law and the American way.”

Disaster assistance

Last May, floods damaged hundreds of homes in Western Maryland, leaving behind more than $30 million in damages to roads, homes, businesses and utility systems in a swath of Republican-leaning counties that voted overwhelmingly for Trump.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency denied assistance for the floods, which hit a conservative region of a solidly liberal state.

Democratic Gov. Wes Moore — a Trump antagonist and potential presidential contender — noted that an aid request from neighboring West Virginia was approved, despite that conservative state submitting a lower amount of flood damages to the feds. He called Maryland’s denial “petty,” “partisan” and “deeply unfair” to the affected communities.

FEMA has said the law requires the agency to closely examine each disaster and the ability of local governments to respond. The agency told The Hill that Maryland’s flood “was not of such severity and magnitude as to be beyond the capabilities of the state and affected local governments to recover.”

It’s not just that power has shifted from states to the federal government. Power has shifted to the executive branch specifically and has become more raw in its overt partisan nature.

– Nicholas Jacobs, American government professor at Colby College

Chas Eby, deputy secretary at the Maryland Department of Emergency Management, said the state’s application to FEMA substantiated more than three times the amount of damages needed to qualify for the federal agency’s assistance.

“We were surprised,” he said, noting that a federal disaster declaration could have made funds available to directly aid in the repair of private property.

Trump has rejected disaster aid for Democratic-led states at the highest rate in FEMA’s history, according to Politico, whose March analysis determined that it was three times harder for blue states to receive disaster aid than Republican-led states.

The Maryland denial not only affected those who suffered property damage, but it also has left the state uncertain about the future of disaster aid at large.

“Where we’ve relied on federal support in the past, this is a clear indicator that it may not be available in the future,” Eby said. “And therefore, how do we as state and local emergency managers meet the need? Because the expectations that I have to support disaster survivors and that Marylanders have in their government haven’t really changed.”

In the absence of federal support, Maryland awarded state disaster relief funding for the first time ever. But the initial funds — less than $500,000 — covered just a fraction of the tens of millions in documented needs, Eby said.

Allegany County, Maryland, which has an annual budget of about $150 million, has spent about $8 million so far to repair public infrastructure damaged in the floods, said county spokesperson Kati Kenney. None of that money has gone to individual households or businesses.

“That money was spent just to make it usable, not to make it back to par,” she said. “It was just like a Band-Aid.”

‘It’s not worse, it’s not better’

Many conservatives see the opposition from blue states as the latest pendulum swing of American politics rather than a more significant evolution in federal-state relationships.

“It’s not worse, it’s not better, it’s largely the same,” said Washington state Rep. Jim Walsh, a Republican.

Walsh said he viewed as more egregious the actions from the administration of President Joe Biden, who he said weaponized the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in efforts to push coronavirus vaccinations.

The chair of the Washington State Republican Party, Walsh said many of the elected officials in his liberal state were “deep in the throes of Trump Derangement Syndrome,” a frequent pejorative description of the president’s opponents. He said Democratic politicians were wasting millions in the courts to challenge Trump, who he said has not encroached on state authorities.

“The problem in Washington state is not that the Trump administration punishes blue cities or blue states,” he said. “The problem in Washington state is we’ve got people just burning taxpayer dollars so they can get a press release out and a headline.”

Still, Democratic-led states continue to push back on the administration.

State legislators have proposed more than 250 bills in response to federal policies, according to State Futures, a nonprofit coordinating hundreds of Democratic lawmakers across the states. Some of those bills seek to limit federal immigration enforcement in sensitive places such as schools and hospitals, and to allow individuals to sue federal law enforcement for possible constitutional violations.

Democratic state leaders are also emulating some of Trump’s own tactics.

“We have to play their game. And I think the people in my state are beginning to understand this,” said Maryland state Del. David Moon, the Democratic majority leader.

Moon pushed for legislation allowing the state to retaliate against the federal government for withholding funds. The new law, signed by Moore last month, allows the state to place liens on federal property in Maryland or withhold revenue payments to Washington if officials determine the feds are withholding congressionally approved funds in defiance of court decisions.

“It’s going to be weeks of discussion and monitoring with our lawyers and whatever before we do something drastic like that,” he said, noting the ultimate decisions will be left up to the governor. “But we have to be ready.”

Moon acknowledged that the law is “constitutionally dubious” as it’s unclear whether it will be upheld in the courts.

“And I think folks have to admit that,” he said. “But the way this bill works, really, is you take the Trump approach: that you do whatever the F you want within your layer of government.”

Moon said his concerns about the Trump era reach far beyond the usual state-federal spats.

“I think we’re in big trouble, and it’s part of why I am resorting to more unusual thinking and tactics,” he said. “We’re at the 250 mark in the republic. This is when empires fail, and we are having a vast empire decline moment.”

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org. States Newsroom reporter Jonathan Shorman can be reached at jshorman@statesnewsroom.com.

This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Washington State Standard, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

A regional timber industry group warns that Washington’s Department of Natural Resources is headed for deep budget trouble that will result in state worker layoffs and force taxpayers to foot more of the bill to keep the agency running.

Counties that rely on logging revenue from land the agency manages could be at financial risk, too, argues the American Forest Resource Council. 

While it’s become common for the group to clash with the department, they’re not the only ones complaining. 

Foresters inside the agency are pointing to Public Lands Commissioner Dave Upthegrove’s decision to pause some timber sales for eight months as a reason for the looming deficit in a key operating account, which covers many of the department’s expenses for managing timberland. 

The account is on track to go negative by mid-summer.  

Upthegrove and other agency leadership say recent management decisions are not to blame for the low balance. They say it has less to do with recent timber sale activity on state land and more to do with the timing of when logging revenue reaches the agency.  

That’s because the Department of Natural Resources is only paid 10% of the auction price at the time of a timber sale. Loggers then have three years to harvest trees and often wait until lumber prices are higher to cut. 

“We have more than $20 million in sales that we haven’t gotten the money from yet because the trees haven’t been removed,” Upthegrove told the Standard. 

He rejected the idea that his policy decision to move older tracts of trees — which some call “legacy forests” — out of the logging rotation has anything to do with the budget difficulties. Upthegrove ordered last year’s pause on sales to identify which forests to set aside.

“It’s darn near nothing to do with this conversation about older forests,” Upthegrove said.  

Timber harvesting hit a 22-year low last year, but it’s on the rise now, according to Heath Heikkila, director of government affairs with the American Forest Resource Council. 

“It’s a cash receipts business,” Heikkila said. He argues that if Upthegrove continues his policy of foregoing logging of some older forests, there will be “inevitable layoffs” at the agency. 

He also made a case that the issues around timber prices are more nuanced than what the department’s leadership is presenting.

“While it is true that some commodity wood products have seen reduced markets in recent months, many of the sales that were paused or pulled by the agency contained wood types that go into products for which very strong markets remain,” he said.

Amanda Hacker, president of the Washington Public Employees Association, one of the unions that represents Department of Natural Resources employees, believes agency leadership is at fault for the low account balance.

“DNR leadership has attempted to attribute this situation to market conditions and external factors, without acknowledging the role of its own decisions,” Hacker said. 

“When you stop generating revenue for the better part of a year, the outcome is entirely predictable,” Hacker added. “The current shortfall is the direct result of those choices.”

The timber sale pause, she said, will have consequences that extend beyond this fiscal year because it creates a gap in the revenue pipeline that will eventually hit. 

Hacker also emphasized that if the agency falls behind managing forest land due to its budget problems, it could bog down sales and hurt revenue for schools and counties.

“This is not just about agency operations,” she said. “It affects trust beneficiaries, rural economies, and the public at large.”

Five of the nearly 30 paused timber sales were added to 77,000 acres of “structurally complex” older forests that will remain out of the logging rotations. 

Five others in the Elwha River watershed are still on pause due to action the Legislature took last year, according to Michael Kelly, communications director for the agency. All others were eventually sold. 

Sales that were paused or canceled under Upthegrove’s directive were a “double whammy” on the agency budget because it had already spent money to do prep work but never received the revenue, said Heikkila.

Monthly timber sale revenue hit a four-year high, at over $38 million, in December 2024, just before Upthegrove’s inauguration. In September last year, the same month that most paused timber sales went back online, the monthly sale value was just $1.4 million. 

The latest available data from April shows the agency sold $13.8 million worth of timber for the month. 

The Department of Natural Resources receives 25% of timber sale revenue. The rest goes to counties and junior taxing districts, including schools and fire districts. 

Now, an account funded entirely by state timber sales is projected to be in the red by June, and it’s not expected to bounce back in the next fiscal year, the agency’s revenue forecast shows.

The Forest Development Account funds land management, timber sale prep and at least partial salaries for hundreds of employees. 

The account balance has fallen from nearly $19 million to just over $1 million in the span of two years, balance sheet records obtained by the Standard show.

“Whatever challenges may face the agency, our union scientists and field staff can’t work toward addressing them if they aren’t getting paid,” said Ava Clarridge, president of Washington Federation of State Employees Local 443, which represents more than 500 department employees. 

“DNR management needs to meet the state’s sustainable timber harvest level to support that account and the state workers who depend on it,” Clarridge added.

In February, Duane Emmons, assistant deputy supervisor of state uplands, directed employees to stop certain work on state logging lands, including some thinning and surveying, until further notice.   

“Expenditures have been exceeding revenues the last four quarters. We’re in this situation largely because of factors outside the agency’s control,” Emmons wrote, citing the timing of when logging revenue comes in, tariff uncertainty and the fluctuating timber prices. 

If timber harvests continue increasing as they did in March and April, the Forest Development Account could start ticking back up, Emmons said in an interview, but with fuel prices high, purchasers could choose to delay harvesting and the revenue could keep falling. 

“It’s really a wait-and-see game right now,” Emmons said. 

As for the possibility of layoffs, “we haven’t even considered it,” he added. 

“We’re nowhere near the 2009 recession, where we had to lay off a number of staff. The economy is not at that level. This is, you know, a short-term blip.”

In former Public Lands Commissioner Hilary Franz’s first term, the agency faced a similar decline in the account, Emmons said. In response, it deployed the same strategy of limiting management practices until the deficit passed. 

But the problem may be bigger than just the timing of logging and revenue collections. Upthegrove suggested there could be a more structural issue, as timber prices have not kept pace with inflation, which is driving up the agency’s costs. 

“As our cost goes up and the revenue stays the same, I’m beginning to question whether or not we’re selling timber at a loss,” he said. “We have to be incredibly, incredibly efficient in order to make this all balance out.” 

From the Rockies to the Cascades to the Sierra Nevada, mountainsides across the West are sparsely covered by the snow that usually blankets the high country well into the summer.

That snowpack is like a savings account that the West draws on when the hot, dry months arrive. It moistens the landscape as it melts, lessening the risk of severe wildfire. The runoff feeds into river basins, and the swelling waterways provide power to hydroelectric dams, irrigation to farmers and drinking water to cities.

This year, Western states are heading into the summer with a desperately low balance — threatening wildfires, drinking water, crops, electricity and more.

“This has been an extremely poor year,” said Sharon Megdal, director of the Water Resources Research Center, a research unit at the University of Arizona. “This has gotten a lot of people concerned and alarmed.”

While a late-season storm brought heavy snow to parts of the Rockies this month, the region remains in a deep snowpack deficit.

As warmer weather arrives, states are preparing for a dangerous wildfire season across the drought-stricken West. Farmers and cities are bracing for potential cutbacks in their water allocations from rivers that have less to give. Fisheries managers are watching for low river flows that could threaten vital salmon runs. And worsening conditions could threaten the supply of hydropower that provides cheap, clean electricity to many Western states.

A hot, dry winter

Across nearly the entire West, states spent the winter waiting for snow that rarely arrived. Ski resorts lost millions of visitors as they struggled to stay open. Then in March, a record-breaking heat wave settled across the region, shrinking the already paltry snowpack.

“It’s unheard of,” Megdal said. “Things were already looking bad in January, but if you follow the projections, they had to keep revising the numbers downward because the snow just never came and we had this hugely hot period in March.”

Snow_Water_Equivalent_Percent_NRCS_1991-2020_Median_May_6_2026

 

The federal National Water and Climate Center produces a real-time map showing the snow water equivalent in river basins across the country — a measurement of how much moisture is being held in those mountaintop savings accounts.

The majority of the West is bright red, indicating that snowpack is at less than 50% of the median level for this time of year. Yellow and orange cover most of the remaining areas, showing regions that are still well below the median.

The most recent U.S. Drought Monitor map shows most of the country in abnormally dry or drought conditions, aside from the Great Lakes region and some other parts of the Midwest.

Wildfire

For many Western states, the most imminent threat from the dry winter is the prospect of a dangerous wildfire season.

Already, wildfires in Nebraska have burned hundreds of thousands of acres, shattering records and setting the stage for a record wildfire year.

The wildland fire outlook maps produced by the National Interagency Fire Center show above-normal fire risk spreading across much of the West by June and July.

“There’s a lot of red on the map,” said Matthew Dehr, wildland fire meteorologist with the Washington state Department of Natural Resources.

What we’re likely to see are wildfires moving more quickly through forests. When we do have a large fire event, it’s likely to move faster, be more significant.

– Washington public lands commissioner Dave Upthegrove

Dave Upthegrove, Washington’s public lands commissioner, said his agency is preparing for fire season as normal but with a heightened awareness that this summer could be demanding. He’s focused on educating residents about the risks, noting that 90% of wildfires in Washington are caused by humans.

“What we’re likely to see are wildfires moving more quickly through forests,” he said. “When we do have a large fire event, it’s likely to move faster, be more significant.”

He also noted that this year is Washington’s fourth consecutive year of drought conditions, making trees more susceptible to diseases and pests and compounding wildfire risk.

Dehr said spring rains could provide a bit of a buffer before the heat of July and August, but a recent stretch of sunny weeks has yet to provide relief.

Upthegrove noted that the challenging conditions across much of the West could make it more difficult for states to send wildfire crews to each other’s aid, if many states are battling big blazes simultaneously.

“As the climate crisis pushes a forest health crisis pushes a wildfire crisis, it’s going to stress the whole system, not just in our state,” he said.

Low water supplies

Many Western states also rely on snowpack to feed rivers that provide irrigation for farming and the water supply for cities. In particular, the Colorado River provides water for tens of millions of people across seven states, a region that has grown even as the river’s supply has dwindled in recent decades. Reservoirs that were full at the turn of the century are now nearing critically low levels.

“There hasn’t been enough flow in the river to meet all these expected demands, even in the good years,” said Megdal, the water researcher. “We’ve used up our savings and storage, so now what do we do?”

Water allocations for states, tribes and farmers in the region are governed by a complicated and fiercely contested system known as the Colorado River Compact. In recent years, cutbacks due to the low supply reduced the water allocation for central Arizona, including all of the water for agricultural users.

Now, states are fighting over even less water and struggling to negotiate who should bear the cost. Last week, Arizona, California and Nevada submitted a proposal to federal officials that would impose further cutbacks over the next two years in order to buy time for a longer-term deal.

“It’s turning out to be very hard to get the states to agree on how to slice up a much smaller pie,” Megdal said. “There are scenarios that are not zero probability that are catastrophic to the region.”

If the states are unable to reach an agreement, allocation for the river’s diminished water will be determined by federal regulators under the “law of the river.” Cutbacks imposed by the feds could fall heavily on central Arizona, Megdal said, cutting the supply for Phoenix, Tucson and some tribal nations.

Such uncertainty in the Colorado River basin and elsewhere “leaves farmers making planting decisions now without knowing whether sufficient water will be available to carry crops through harvest,” the American Farm Bureau Federation wrote in an April report.

The lack of water could force farmers to remove trees or vineyards, the Farm Bureau noted, or reduce cattle herds if the parched landscape does not supply enough forage.

Meanwhile, rivers running at a slow trickle could reduce the hydroelectric power produced by dams across the West. Across 13 Western states, hydropower accounts for nearly a quarter of electrical generation.

The Glen Canyon Dam in Arizona, which forms Lake Powell, produces about 5 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity each year, enough to power nearly half a million homes. But the lake level may soon fall below a threshold from which the dam can no longer generate power.

“Hydropower is so incredibly important because it has been the lowest-cost power for many in the West,” Megdal said. “There are big implications for the energy grid and the cost of electricity.”

Stateline reporter Alex Brown can be reached at abrown@stateline.org.

This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Washington State Standard, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

This is the first of two installments providing an initial look at this year’s legislative races.

With Friday’s 5 p.m. candidate filing deadline, the field is coming into focus for the 2026 Washington state primaries. 

This year’s midterms are significant for state government, as all 98 seats in the state House and 24 of 49 state Senate seats are up for grabs. Progressives are trying to unseat more moderate Democrats. Other Democrats are trying to wrest positions from Republican hands to increase their majorities. And Republicans are trying to claw back any seats that they can.

Meanwhile, many new faces will arrive in Olympia next January with a slew of retirements.

Democrats currently hold a 59-39 majority in the state House and 30-19 in the Senate.

Across the state, over 1,000 candidates are running for 600-plus federal, state and local offices.

This year’s primary is Aug. 4, with the top two candidates advancing to the general election. Election Day is Nov. 3. Here’s a look at some of the notable legislative races taking shape.

3rd District

The retirement of Rep. Timm Ormsby, the chief budget writer in the state House, opens up a vacancy to represent Spokane in Olympia. The district is reliably Democratic. Ormsby won in 2024 unopposed. 

Three Democrats are running to replace him. Luc Jasmin III, who has done regional outreach in eastern Washington for Govs. Bob Ferguson and Jay Inslee, has the support of Ormsby’s seatmate, Rep. Natasha Hill, D-Spokane, and former Senate Majority Leader Andy Billig. Jasmin created a statewide organization advocating for early learning centers and chaired Spokane’s police oversight office.

Physician Pam Kohlmeier brings a focus on expanding access to healthcare, specifically behavioral health and addiction services. 

Donovan Arnold DeLeon also filed to run as a Democrat.

Natalie Poulson is the Republican candidate. She ran against Ormsby in 2022.

5th District

State Rep. Zach Hall, D-Issaquah, was appointed to a 5th District House seat last June. The district, which includes parts of Issaquah, Black Diamond, Covington, and part of Snoqualmie, is one that Republicans have eyed as territory where they might make gains in recent years, but Democrats currently hold all three legislative seats there.

Hall replaced now-Sen. Victoria Hunt, who moved to represent the district in the Senate after Sen. Bill Ramos died unexpectedly at the end of the 2025 session. Because Hall was appointed after last year’s candidate filing deadline, he didn’t have to run in 2025. He served six years on the Issaquah City Council and also chaired the Eastside Fire and Rescue Board of Directors. 

He faces competition from Michelle Bennett, a Republican with a long career in law enforcement. Bennett is currently Mercer Island’s police chief and has worked in various law enforcement roles in western Washington dating back to 1990. Bennett is highlighting opposition to an income tax as one of her top priorities. (Hall voted this year for the new income tax on millionaire earners.)

There’s also a progressive challenger in the race. Aimee Warmerdam, a Democrat, backs policies such as universal health care, a $26 minimum wage, reducing the standard workweek to 32 hours and imposing a new payroll tax on large companies.

A fourth candidate, Topher Leritz, who does not have any party affiliation, also filed Friday to run for the seat.

11th District

Rep. David Hackney, D-Renton, was first elected to represent the 11th District in 2020. This year, he’s drawn a challenger from within his own party.

Democrat Ashley Fedan is a nurse and Navy veteran who started a business as a certified registered nurse anesthetist. She’s also active in the Democratic Party’s grassroots, serving as a precinct committee officer in the 11th District and previously as chair of the 28th District Democrats. The 11th covers Tukwila, Renton and parts of Kent.

Hackney, an attorney, is vice chair of the Consumer Protection and Business Committee and sits on the Environment and Energy, Transportation, and Legislative Ethics Committees.

A Republican, Christian Rombough, has also filed to run for Hackney’s seat.

26th District

It’s one of the few legislative districts in the state still considered a battleground and it’s seeing some action this year. In 2025, the 26th, which spans parts of Pierce and Kitsap counties, was the site of a hotly contested race between Sen. Deb Krishnadasan, D-Gig Harbor, and state Rep. Michelle Valdez, R-Gig Harbor.

Krishnadasan won and is on the ballot again because she secured a partial term in a special election. She was appointed to the seat after it was vacated when Emily Randall was elected to Congress. Gary Parker, a restaurant owner and philanthropist, is running against Krishnadasan.

Meanwhile, Valdez, whose last name was previously Caldier, isn’t seeking reelection in the House after six terms. Into that void have stepped four contenders — two Democrats, a Republican and a candidate without a party affiliation.

One Democrat is Renee Hernandez Greenfield, who is a speech and language trainer working with children and families. She’s also worked as a child protective services investigator for the Suquamish Tribe. Randall and the Kitsap County Democrats have endorsed Greenfield.

The other Democrat is Tedd Wetherbee, an entrepreneur who highlights his experience in international development. Local officials like Pierce County Executive Ryan Mello and Tacoma Mayor Anders Ibsen have lined up behind him.

The Republican is Katy Cornell, a pastor who co-leads a nonprofit that has focused on projects involving clean water, healthcare and other development issues in West Africa.

Another candidate, Randy Phillips, who lists an address in Gig Harbor, is also running, but without a party affiliation.

But wait, there’s more.

Rep. Adison Richards, D-Gig Harbor, an attorney who has worked on housing law issues and one of the handful of Democrats who voted against the income tax on millionaire earners this year, is facing primary competition from a fellow Democrat. Natalie Bornfleth is an Air Force veteran who is now a public school teacher involved in union leadership. 

Also in the mix for Richards’ seat: Republican David Olson, vice president of the Peninsula School District, who ran unsuccessfully to be state superintendent of public instruction in 2024.

29th District

Rep. Sharlett Mena, D-Tacoma, is running to replace longtime Sen. Steve Conway, who is retiring. That opens up a spot in the House that has attracted four Democratic hopefuls and two Republicans. 

The Democrats include: Patrick Stickney, a senior policy and legislative affairs advisor at the state’s Office of Equity; Joe Bushnell, who’s deputy mayor of Tacoma; Erin Chapman-Smith, the executive director of ROOTS Young Adult Shelter in Seattle; and Natasha Laitila, who has worked as a legislative assistant for Rep. Jamila Taylor and Sen. Bob Hasegawa and took part in in efforts to unionize legislative staff.

Darek Blum and Sheri Hayes are the Republicans in the race. 

The district votes reliably Democratic and Mena ran for the House seat last time unopposed.

Meanwhile, Rep. Melanie Morgan, D-Spanaway, faces a Democratic challenger as she seeks reelection. Krista Perez has been involved in a number of business and nonprofit ventures and is an author of a book on how marginalized groups can implement transformative and healing practices in their communities. 

Morgan, is an Army veteran, former school board director and has worked in various housing-related roles. She serves as vice chair of the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee.

Brett Johnson, a Republican who lost to Morgan in 2022, is running again.

32nd District

A crowded race of Democrats has formed in this deep blue district representing north King County and south Snohomish County, with state Rep. Cindy Ryu, D-Shoreline, choosing to challenge fellow Democrat Jesse Salomon for his Senate seat.

Five Democrats and one Republican have filed for Ryu’s seat. They are Edmonds City Councilmembers Jenna Nand and Will Chen, Shoreline City Councilmember Keith Scully, consumer protection attorney Danica Noble and Chris Bloomquist, who runs an environmental- and technology-focused recruiting firm. Noble leads the early fundraising race. Republican Lisa Rezac, who lost to Ryu in 2024, is running again.

Rep. Lauren Davis, D-Seattle, also faces a Democrat-on-Democrat clash, against Imraan Siddiqi, the executive director of the Washington chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. They’re the only two candidates running. 

Ryu and Salomon are joined by Republican Ira McBee in the Senate race.

42nd District 

This Whatcom County district features one of the few open Senate seats, and a rare opportunity for Republicans, as they held this seat as recently as 2021. Four candidates are seeking the position vacated by Sen. Sharon Shewmake, D-Bellingham.

Shewmake is supporting Bellingham port commissioner Michael Shepard to replace her. He also has Senate Majority Leader Jamie Pedersen’s backing. Republican Erika Creydt, a psychologist, hopes to turn the district red, cutting into the Democrats’ 29-20 majority in the Senate.

Eamonn Collins, a teacher and former U.S. Senate adviser who leads a community land trust, is also running as a Democrat. Ryan Bowman filed to run without listing a party preference.

WASHINGTON — The federal student loan system is set to see a dramatic overhaul beginning this summer, and critics warn it likely will make loans more expensive and difficult to obtain for borrowers — driving them to private lenders or altering their plans for higher education.

Among the major changes are new loan limits for graduate and professional students, a restructured repayment system where new borrowers will have only two plans to choose from and the elimination of a key loan program for graduate and professional students that allowed for unlimited borrowing.

The provisions — most of which will take effect July 1 — stem from congressional Republicans’ mega tax and spending cut bill that President Donald Trump signed into law last year. 

The U.S. Department of Education finalized regulations, published May 1, that implement sweeping changes outlined in the GOP’s “big, beautiful” law. The department received more than 80,000 public comments before the rule was finalized. 

Under Secretary of Education Nicholas Kent said that “at a high level,” the reforms center on “lowering the cost of college, simplifying student loan repayment and restoring accountability to the federal student lending system,” during an April 30 call with reporters regarding the new regulations. 

The average federal student loan debt balance stands at $39,547, according to the Education Data Initiative.

As July 1 approaches, here’s a closer look at some of the biggest changes coming to the federal student loan system: 

Elimination of Grad PLUS 

The Grad PLUS program, which allowed for graduate and professional students to borrow up to the full cost of attendance, will soon be eliminated under the package and unavailable for new borrowers.

“If you are currently borrowing Grad PLUS loans, so you borrowed Grad PLUS loans before July 1, you will be allowed to continue using Grad PLUS until you finish your program, or until three years have expired, basically whichever is sooner,” said Preston Cooper, senior fellow in higher education policy at the American Enterprise Institute, a right-leaning think tank.

“Current students are grandfathered in — it will only be new graduate students, as of this fall, after July 1, who will be subject to the new loan limits,” Cooper said. 

New borrowing caps 

The package also sets forth new annual and aggregate loan limits for graduate and professional students, along with parents who take out federal student loans for dependent undergraduate students. 

Graduate student loans will be capped at $20,500 annually, with a $100,000 aggregate limit. 

Parent PLUS borrowers will have an annual cap of $20,000 and an aggregate cap of $65,000 per dependent. 

Professional student loans will have a $50,000 annual limit and an aggregate cap of $200,000. 

The programs that fall within the department’s “professional” category and are subject to that larger loan cap include: pharmacy, dentistry, veterinary medicine, chiropractic, law, medicine, optometry, osteopathic medicine, podiatry, theology and clinical psychology. 

The department clarified in a fact sheet on the finalized regulations that the “professional” student classifications “do not express a value judgment about the importance of any occupation or field” but instead serve a “loan-administration function.” 

The agency has received immense pushback from groups representing people in fields that do not fall under the department’s definition and will thus be subject to lower annual and lifetime borrowing caps. 

Incoming repayment options 

In another major shift, the regulations replace prior repayment options with two new plans — the Repayment Assistance Plan, or RAP, and the Tiered Standard plan — both of which will launch July 1.

RAP is an income-based repayment plan that “waives unpaid interest for borrowers who make on-time payments that do not fully cover accruing interest,” per the department’s fact sheet. 

Balances under the plan will also “decline with each on-time payment, as unpaid interest is fully waived and the Department then reduces principal by an amount equal to the borrower’s payment, up to $50,” per the agency. 

The Tiered Standard plan offers fixed monthly payments, ranging from a 10-year to 25-year period, depending on the outstanding principal balance of the borrower. 

‘A lot more expensive’

“The upshot is that loan repayment is going to get a lot more expensive for almost everyone, and for some people, it’s going to get significantly more expensive, and the transition is also going to be difficult for a lot of people to manage,” Michele Zampini, associate vice president for federal policy and advocacy at the Institute for College Access & Success, told States Newsroom.

Zampini, whose organization aims to advance affordability, accountability and equity in higher education, said she thinks “there will be a lot of students who will have to turn to the private loan market, who otherwise would have been able to cover their costs through the (Grad PLUS) program.”

Victoria Jackson, assistant director of higher education policy at the nonprofit policy and advocacy group EdTrust, said that with the new loan limits and “drastic cuts to aid availability” in the regulations, “you would really hope that it would come with other, more affordable and better forms of financial aid.” 

“And what they’ve done is just created this vacuum that right now can really only be filled with private loans, which are costlier and riskier for students, or students are just not going to go,” Jackson said.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration continues its efforts to eliminate the Department of Education, including through a series of interagency agreements that transfer several of its responsibilities to other departments. 

Under the most recent agreement, the Treasury Department will take over Education’s responsibility for collecting on defaulted federal student loan debt — the first step in a multiphase process toward Treasury taking on Education’s entire, roughly $1.7 trillion federal student loan portfolio.

Transition to new system

Zampini noted that, when it comes to the incoming student loan regulations, she does not have confidence in the Education Department’s “ability at this moment to successfully manage the transition without a lot of issues, as far as servicing and as far as account tracking and plan enrollment and things like that.” 

Jackson, of EdTrust, said that “by weakening the federal financial aid system, I think there’s a weakening of our higher education system and making it more difficult for low-income students, students of color and other marginalized students to access graduate education.”

She added that “people who complete those degrees tend to have more financial security in the future — they earn more over their lifetimes and, on markers of financial success and opportunity, do better.” 

“I think this is one prong of a plan of undermining our overall higher education system.” 

The conservative political committee Let’s Go Washington plans to soon begin gathering signatures as part of its push to overturn the state’s new income tax on high earners.

But the group said it remains undecided on whether it will pursue a ballot measure this fall, or an initiative to the Legislature, which would be likely to end up on the ballot in 2027. A spokesperson for the group initially confirmed to the Standard on Friday morning that the group would go for the ballot initiative this year, but then backtracked. 

Let’s Go Washington has pushed numerous ballot measures in recent years. Earlier this week, the state Supreme Court this week declined the group’s attempt to put the tax before voters via referendum, which requires half as many signatures to qualify.

Time would be tight for the group to gather the required signatures to qualify an initiative for the fall ballot. An initiative will need 308,911 signatures turned in by July 2 to get before voters in November. State election officials suggest submitting at least 390,000 signatures to account for invalid ones.

Let’s Go Washington announced Friday morning they’d received ballot titles from the attorney general’s office. These can be challenged for five days.

There has been disagreement among the tax’s opponents about whether to put the question to voters this year or next. 

On Tuesday, the committee’s leader, Brian Heywood, said the decision would be based on when the language that’ll appear on ballots was ironed out. He expected this to take a couple weeks. 

The longer it takes, the more likely Let’s Go Washington will go the route of an initiative to the Legislature, with signatures not due until the end of the year. The assumption is that the Democratic-controlled Legislature will not approve the initiative, sending it to the ballot in 2027. 

Heywood sees 2027 as the “second option,” as he fears residents frustrated with the state’s new tax environment will flee Washington and cost him votes. He also thinks timing it with this year’s state Supreme Court elections is a “very poignant link,” given the justices will get the final say on the law’s constitutionality. Five positions are up for election.

“Your income tax is on the ballot six times, not once,” Heywood said.

Opponents last month filed a lawsuit over the tax’s constitutionality, citing precedent in a 1933 state Supreme Court ruling.

The tax imposes a 9.9% levy on household wage income above $1 million starting in 2028. Collections would begin in 2029, and potentially raise a few billion dollars per year.

“We feel confident that we can defend this tax reform in court and at the ballot,” House Majority Leader Joe Fitzgibbon, D-Seattle, said this week. 

Backers have painted it as a way to rebalance Washington’s regressive tax code. The legislation that created the tax also includes various credits and tax cuts for lower-income residents and small businesses.

Most Democrats in the Legislature approved Senate Bill 6346, though some moderates sided with Republicans who uniformly opposed it. 

Heywood expects supporters of the income tax to spend $50 million to $80 million against a Let’s Go Washington initiative on the tax, while he expects it’ll cost the political committee more than $10 million to win the campaign.

Let’s Go Washington will also be sponsoring initiatives on parental rights for public school students and the participation of transgender girls competing in girls’ school sports.

Editor’s note: This story was updated after Let’s Go Washington said it remained undecided about whether to pursue a ballot initiative in 2026. A spokesperson for the group initially confirmed Friday morning that it would pursue this option, as opposed to an initiative the Legislature, but then walked back that statement, citing a miscommunication.

The U.S. Housing and Urban Development’s annual one-night count of those experiencing sheltered and unsheltered homelessness is projected to show a decline after a record-high surge in 2024, according to a new report.

Conducted during January, the Point-in-Time count is HUD’s annual one-night census of people staying in shelters and unsheltered locations; the latest official national Point-in-Time report found 771,480 people experiencing homelessness in January 2024, an 18% surge from 2023. 

Preliminary 2025 estimates, though, indicate homelessness has stabilized. A review by the nonprofit advocacy group Community Solutions, based on local counts available from 170 communities, projects that the total may fall to about 755,300 — a roughly 2% decline — though HUD has not yet released the official 2025 count.

“The shift from sustained increases to a small net decline suggests that the rapid expansion of homelessness seen in recent years has slowed,” the report said. “At a national level, this pattern is consistent with a period of stabilization, in which the number of people entering homelessness is more closely balanced with the number exiting.” 

HUD’s 2020-2024 national summary shows 912,807 people experienced homelessness for the first time in 2024, which was a slight decline from 967,134 in 2023 but still far above the 2020 and 2021 levels. 

The Point-in-Time numbers from this past January aren’t expected to be released until late this year or early next year. 

Stateline reporter Robbie Sequeira can be reached at rsequeira@stateline.org.

This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Washington State Standard, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

Starting in June, Washingtonians on Premera Blue Cross insurance may no longer pay in-network rates at MultiCare hospitals and clinics, if the insurer and healthcare organization can’t agree on reimbursements.

The situation is the latest symptom of fragility in the healthcare system, as hospitals grapple with federal spending cuts while insurers and their customers struggle to keep up with rapidly increasing costs.

With no agreement on how much Premera will reimburse MultiCare providers, the Mountlake Terrace-based insurer had to send notice to about 100,000 households that MultiCare services may result in out-of-network costs for patients. About 163,000 people on Premera have had claims in the MultiCare system in the past two years, said Bill Akers, executive vice president of sales and marketing for the insurer. 

Those on employer-sponsored and individual plans are covered under the contract subject to ongoing talks. For example, over 16,000 people who get insurance through the School Employee Benefits Board, or SEBB, received the notice from Premera, according to the state Health Care Authority.

Based in Tacoma, MultiCare operates 13 hospitals and many other primary care and urgent care clinics. This includes Yakima Memorial Hospital, Tacoma General Hospital and Capital Medical Center in Olympia. While Overlake Medical Center in Bellevue is part of that system, it isn’t subject to the agreement currently under negotiations, so patients there will still be covered. 

There are also exceptions. Emergency care is covered in-network under federal law. Previously scheduled nonelective surgeries, as well as pregnancy-related or inpatient care already in progress, may be covered as well. Premera customers with Medicare Supplement plans won’t be affected.

Hospitals across Washington are bracing for massive federal cuts to Medicaid that are expected to cost thousands of people their health coverage, and thousands more are no longer getting insurance through the state’s exchange under the Affordable Care Act after the loss of federal subsidies.

Hospitals, especially those in rural areas or serving low-income patients, could be forced to close. A recent report from Public Citizen, a progressive think tank, found three MultiCare facilities are potentially at risk of shuttering. 

Meanwhile, the cost of hospital services has gone up over 270% since 2000, well outpacing inflation, according to federal data.

The negotiations

These negotiations with providers usually come every two or three years to hash out a new agreement, mostly on how much the insurers will pay hospitals for caring for policyholders. 

Akers noted getting this close to the deadline without a deal is “very rare.” And with less than a month to negotiate, the two sides are still “double-digit points apart,” he said Monday.

“These deals usually get done,” Akers said. “This one feels a little different to me, so I wouldn’t bet on it. But I do know this, I think at the end of the day, whenever it happens, MultiCare and Premera have done a lot of things together, and I think both sides do want to have an agreement.”

Both Premera and MultiCare are nonprofits.

MultiCare declined an interview request, but noted in a statement that Premera’s reimbursement rates are “among the lowest” compared to other insurers.

“Those rates have not kept pace with rising costs driven by inflation, workforce needs, and investments necessary to preserve services and ensure long-term stability for the communities we serve,” MultiCare said.

Premera sees it as an affordability issue, as increased reimbursements would trickle down to higher premiums for enrollees, Akers said. 

“We appreciate and understand that running a hospital these days is not an easy task,” Akers said. “But it’s time for us to all take accountability for our portion of affordability on the customer’s behalf, and we need them to pay attention to that, too. It’s not just an endless supply of more money.”

MultiCare said its “priority is to secure terms that allow us to continue caring for Premera members while also supporting the doctors, nurses, and teams who provide that care every day.”

“MultiCare remains committed to ensuring our patients have access to high-quality, affordable care close to home,” MultiCare said. “That commitment is what guides our ongoing negotiations with Premera for a new agreement that would cover our entire health system.”

The contract talks have been going since November.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s trade agenda faced another major setback Thursday when the U.S. Court of International Trade handed a win to two small businesses and the state of Washington after they challenged the president’s 10% global tariffs, imposed after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down his previous emergency tariff regime.

In a 2-1 decision, the court granted a permanent injunction to a Florida-based toy manufacturer and a New York-based spice importer that sued the Trump administration in March, alleging the new tariffs would harm their businesses.

The court also granted relief to Washington state, which was among nearly two dozen states that sued over the tariffs. 

Tariff ‘bazooka’

Jay Foreman, CEO of toy company Basic Fun!, said he was “extremely excited” upon learning the decision.

“It takes a lot of guts and chutzpah for small companies like us and Burlap and Barrel to put ourselves out on the line to fight what we feel is injustice and unfair,” he said during a virtual press conference, referring to the other company named in the lawsuit, an online spice retailer.

“Certainly, there’s a place for tariffs on strategic products that make sense to protect in this country …  but in cases across the board, to approach this situation with a bazooka instead of a fine-tooth comb makes no sense, and it hurts companies like ours, hurts companies like Burlap and Barrel, hurts the consumer,” Foreman said Thursday evening. 

Basic Fun! is behind popular toys, including Tonka Trucks and Care Bears.

Foreman said he expects imports that were subject to the tariffs to arrive as soon as tomorrow.

“I’m already emailing my customs broker to make sure they’re on it,” he said.

The ruling only applies to the plaintiffs Basic Fun! and the online spice retailer Burlap and Barrel, and does not give universal relief to all businesses that must pay the blanket 10% tax on imports. 

Jeffrey Schwab, who argued the case on behalf of the clients for the Liberty Justice Center, said the nonprofit advocacy law firm has been “wrestling” with what the decision means for other businesses that are paying the import tax.

“It’s not entirely clear, and probably will depend on what happens now if the government appeals. If the government seeks a stay that could have an effect. Certainly, I think companies will probably want to file (legal challenges), being concerned about making sure that the tariffs stop for them, and possibly ensuring that they get a refund too,” Schwab said.

Win for Washington state

The ruling also applies to Washington state as an importer subject to the tariffs, according to the ruling. 

Washington Attorney General Nick Brown called the ruling “a win for both affordability and the rule of law.”

“It’s American consumers and businesses that have ultimately paid for the president’s illegal tariff campaign,” he said in a statement. “The court’s order will encourage more parties to challenge this illegal executive overreach.”

The judges ruled other states that sued did not have standing because they were “non-importers.” Among them were Arizona, Colorado, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, New Jersey, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Trump ordered the fresh round of tariffs on Feb. 20, the same day the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in a 6-3 opinion, that his initial global tariffs under the 1977 International Economic Emergency Powers Act, or IEEPA, exceeded his presidential authority.

Following the Supreme Court loss, Trump’s alternative tariffs, imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, went into effect on Feb. 24.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection is now in the legally mandated process of refunding businesses and importers who paid a collective $166 billion in IEEPA tariffs. 

The White House did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.

The Trump administration sued Colorado over its law restricting large-capacity magazines for rifles a day after it sued Denver over its assault weapons ban.

The lawsuit, filed by the U.S. Department of Justice Wednesday in the Denver-based U.S. district court, says the state’s restrictions on magazines capable of holding more than 15 rounds violate the Second Amendment rights of Coloradans. 

“Colorado’s ban on certain magazines is political virtue signaling at the expense of Americans’ constitutional right to keep and bear arms,” Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, who leads the Civil Rights Division, said in a statement. “Under my direction, the Division’s Second Amendment Section will continue to defend law-abiding Americans’ rights against unconstitutional restrictions on their right to possess arms which are owned by tens of millions of their fellow citizens.”

Last week, Dhillon wrote to Denver and Colorado officials saying the department would file lawsuits if they did not voluntarily comply with demands to cease enforcement of bans on semiautomatic rifles and large-capacity magazines by 5 p.m. Eastern time Tuesday. Denver City Attorney Miko Brown responded, calling the request “baseless, irresponsible, and a clear overreach of the federal government’s power.” The department filed a lawsuit against the city ahead of the 5 p.m. deadline.  

Both lawsuits say enforcement of the state and city policies deprive citizens of their Second Amendment rights. The lawsuits make identical requests of the court to prohibit Denver and Colorado from enforcing their bans and order that they adopt new policies and procedures.

Large-capacity magazine laws are responsible policies that satisfy Second Amendment protections, decrease the deadly impacts of mass shootings, and save lives.

– Phil Weiser, Colorado attorney general

Colorado has restricted the sale and possession of magazines carrying more than 15 rounds since 2013, when the Colorado Legislature passed a law following the deadly 2012 mass shooting at a movie theater in Aurora. Last year, the state Legislature passed a law to require anyone who purchases a semiautomatic firearm to pass certain training requirements. Efforts to prohibit the making, buying and selling of assault weapons, but not the possession of them, failed in 2023 and 2024.

The Colorado Supreme Court unanimously upheld the 2013 state law in 2020, when Rocky Mountain Gun Owners brought a lawsuit against it in state court.

Denver law has restricted the sale and possession of assault weapons since 1989.

Attorney general defiant

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, a Democrat who is running for governor, said the lawsuit against the state is a “dangerous overreach” by the Department of Justice and “turns the mission of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division on its head.”

“Large-capacity magazine laws are responsible policies that satisfy Second Amendment protections, decrease the deadly impacts of mass shootings, and save lives,” Weiser said in a statement. “The state has a duty to protect Colorado residents from gun violence, and I will vigorously defend our state large-capacity magazine limit law from this attack by the Trump Justice Department.”  

Ian Escalante, executive director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, said Colorado “has shown nothing but disdain for our God-given rights for the last decade.” 

“They have been brazenly torching the Constitution and until now, have faced little to no repercussions,” Escalante said in a statement. “I pray this is the beginning of a recurring trend from the DOJ: systematically undoing all the damage inflicted on Coloradans by the tyrants in Denver, and the beginning of the end of the gun control apparatus here in Colorado.”

Janet Carter, managing director of Second Amendment litigation at Everytown Law, said the lawsuit is a “dangerous threat to public safety” and an attack on Colorado’s “life-saving magazine capacity limit.”

“Mass shooters using those magazines can fire dozens of rounds in seconds, and Colorado’s common sense measure has protected its residents for over a decade,” Carter said in a statement. “Coming just a day after their suit against Denver, it is clear that the DOJ is working to strip communities of the tools they need to keep people safe. We stand with Colorado and will fight to defend these constitutional, vital, and life-saving laws.”

This story was originally produced by Colorado Newsline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Washington State Standard, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

Interim U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche said Wednesday that federal prosecutors intend to pursue terrorism charges against members of American street gangs as an extension of President Donald Trump’s move last year to designate foreign drug cartels as terrorist organizations. 

Blanche told attendees at the 2026 Border Security Expo in Phoenix that federal prosecutors intend to use the foreign terrorist organization designation against more than just transnational criminal organizations. Specifically, he said DOJ is planning to use it against street gangs based in the United States and “lump them in” with international drug cartels. 

The targets of that new designation will be “local street gangs that are either around a housing project or a city block” that are only loosely affiliated with larger street gangs like the Bloods, the Crips or the Latin Kings. Those local gangs, Blanche said, are “doing just as much damage” as the interstate gangs but aren’t facing harsh enough criminal penalties for violence and drug dealing.

“So, what we are trying to do is lump them in with the FTOs, the foreign terrorist organization,” he said. “If a (local) Blood sect is getting its cocaine one step removed from an FTO, we can charge them with being part of a foreign terrorist organization with just a little bit of investigative work.”

That designation allows for further cooperation between local and federal law enforcement agencies, as well as the military. And it comes with enhanced criminal penalties and sentencing.

“So, if you wanna be a member of a gang or an individual selling cocaine in Charlotte, North Carolina, enjoy yourself. But if we catch you and you have a gun, then you’re probably going to disappear to Ohio for the next 20 years,” Blanche said. “And that is the message I hope these clowns hear… It is a goal to also link those gangs to FTOs or declare them (domestic terror organizations).” 

Blanche, who previously worked as a private attorney for Trump, has taken on the role of attorney general after the resignation of Pam Bondi. Before that, he was one of Bondi’s top deputies; during his time at DOJ, he has been aggressive on issues surrounding immigration, including ordering the arrest of Newark Mayor Ras Baraka after he and three Democrats attempted to conduct an unscheduled oversight visit at a detention facility. 

He applauded the administration for designating cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, which he said has allowed the Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security and other agencies more leeway and tools when going after drug traffickers. He also celebrated the deadly military strikes against boats in the Caribbean Sea.

“We were treating these guys like ordinary criminals and not like the terrorists they are,” Blanche said of the designation. 

“For the first time in our history, we are treating them like terrorists and we are blowing them up,” Blanche added. The arguably illegal boat strikes conducted by the Trump administration have resulted in the deaths of at least 170 people. 

He also boasted about the work DOJ has done to enact Trump’s mass deportation agenda. 

“We had every agent available working on illegal immigration and Title 8 authorities,” Blanche said of the past year, adding that agents from the FBI, Drug Enforcement Agency and U.S. Marshals have been working on immigration efforts. 

According to reporting by The Intercept, a quarter of the FBI’s staff has been redirected from pursuing criminals to helping enforce civil violations of federal immigration law. 

Blanche said that DOJ has been prosecuting a large number of immigration-related cases, claiming that a “district in Texas” has seen more than 20,000 in the past year. 

And he said that prosecutors will pursue cases against “rioters” who “touch” law enforcement. Likewise, he said, any undocumented immigrants who do will face prosecution, adding that DOJ will make sure that “no one can touch you without the full wrath of the federal government.” 

Much like Trump’s “border czar” Tom Homan on Tuesday, Blanche also shot sharp criticism at so-called “sanctuary cities” that seek to be zones where federal immigration authorities are disallowed from conducting their work. 

“Sanctuary cities are the most disgusting thing that has happened in this country,” Blanche said, adding that DOJ has been looking into pulling federal funding but worries about how it would adversely impact local law enforcement. “Lawsuits take time, and we don’t have time, so that is frustrating.” 

Meanwhile, on the expo floor, vendors on Wednesday continued to hawk their wares to local law enforcement, members of the military and federal law enforcement. 

One booth in particular attracted a number of bystanders. 

The VirTra law enforcement simulator allowed any attendee to participate in a number of real world scenarios in order to train law enforcement on how to respond. Gunshot sound effects from the simulator could be heard all across the expo floor. 

On Wednesday, the Mirror watched as one man participated in a training of Customs and Border Protection agents on a city street as protesters yelled at them. The man held a modified pepper ball gun that he shot at the screen. 

CBP and ICE agents have been documented using pepper ball guns against protesters in cities where immigration crackdowns have occurred, in one case shooting a Chicago pastor in the head.

This story was originally produced by Arizona Mirror, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Washington State Standard, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

Advocates and opponents of abortion access say they’re wondering what happens next in a critical telehealth medication case that created chaos and confusion over the past week after an appeals court blocked nationwide access to the drug and, days later, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito issued a temporary stay.

Alito’s stay preserves telehealth access until May 11. But it’s unclear what happens next for patients and providers.

The Supreme Court on Monday temporarily blocked the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ Friday ruling to suspend a federal rule allowing telehealth prescriptions of the drug mifepristone while the lawsuit Louisiana v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration unfolds. Abortion providers are determined to continue providing the service, though potentially without mifepristone, the drug at the center for the case, which has had a high record of safety and efficacy since 2000.

Anti-abortion advocates have pushed to reverse the 2023 policy, enacted under former Democratic President Joe Biden, that allowed the FDA to drop its requirement that a patient see a provider in person before the medication can be prescribed. One similar national case already failed unanimously before the Supreme Court, but anti-abortion advocates are hoping this time around, with a more tailored approach, they will be successful.

Abortion-rights advocates say they’re prepared for whatever might happen in the courts, with contingency plans and a message that abortion will still be available even if the particular medication — mifepristone — is not.

Has the abortion pill been banned?

No. Mifepristone is still a legally approved FDA drug commonly used to terminate a pregnancy before 10 weeks’ gestation and is used off-label to treat miscarriages.

Is telehealth abortion still legal?

Yes, for now. Under the U.S. Supreme Court’s administrative stay that expires on May 11, it is still legal to obtain abortion medication through telemedicine under the FDA’s regulations. Mifepristone is commonly used with a second drug, misoprostol, in medication abortions. The case doesn’t include misoprostol.

Who would be affected if telehealth access is struck down?

According to the Society of Family Planning’s #WeCount report, 27% of all abortions in the first six months of 2025 were obtained through telehealth, adding up to more than 162,000 cases.

Mifepristone is also used for patients experiencing a miscarriage; those patients also would have to visit a provider in person.

The ruling would apply nationwide, meaning that health providers couldn’t prescribe mifepristone without an in-person visit with the patient, even in states with abortion access.

What are the arguments on each side in Louisiana v. FDA?

Louisiana says the Biden-era policy undermines a state law banning abortion, and that the federal rulemaking process allowing telehealth prescriptions was flawed.

The Food and Drug Administration says the state doesn’t have standing to sue, but also notes that it’s taking more time to review the drug’s safety.

Two mifepristone drugmakers, meanwhile, have intervened on the FDA’s side.

What could happen next?

The Supreme Court has many options available moving forward, but a few options are most likely, said Katie Keith, founding director of the Center for Health Policy and the Law at the Georgetown University Law Center. The justices could extend the stay when it expires May 11, or the court could make a longer-term ruling.

That could mean sending it back to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, with or without upholding the initial ruling blocking the 2023 provision while the appeals case proceeds. Or justices could decide to take up the case and bypass the rest of the 5th Circuit appeal.

If it did that, the manufacturer defendants Danco Laboratories and GenBioPro have asked for an expedited process with a decision by June. That seems unlikely, Keith said, but the court has conducted expedited cases related to abortion before, such as the Moyle v. United States case in 2024 related to the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act.

What will providers do if they can’t use the combination of mifepristone and misoprostol?

Brittany Fonteno, president and CEO of the National Abortion Federation, said providers have been preparing since 2023 for the possibility of losing access to mifepristone. There have long been plans to switch to a misoprostol-only protocol, which is the main method of pregnancy termination across much of the world, she said.

“A lot of providers had created these policies and just needed to dust them off,” Fonteno said.

Dr. Angel Foster, co-founder of the Massachusetts Medication Abortion Access Project, which provides telehealth abortions to patients in all 50 states, said she and her team spent the weekend scrambling to contact patients waiting on medication abortion pills they had ordered before the ruling, and implementing a contingency plan that many abortion providers have been planning for since the lawsuits against mifepristone began in 2023.

That contingency involves pivoting from the FDA-approved mifepristone-misoprostol regimen to a misoprostol-only regimen.

Early Monday, Foster said her team was getting ready to ship misoprostol-only packages to patients at 2 p.m., but after the Supreme Court stayed the appeals court’s ruling on Monday morning, she said they were able to switch back to the mifepristone-misoprostol regimen.

Foster also said her organization was inundated with requests for pills that people could stockpile — people who didn’t need an abortion but were worried about losing access to the pills. Normally that’s a small fraction of the requests they receive, she said, but on Tuesday, they sent out more than had been sent in the entire month of April.

“Over the last two days, we’ve had a huge increase in the number of people from Louisiana requesting pills, especially pills for future use,” Foster said.

What are the pros and cons of the misoprostol-only regimen?

Dr. Maya Bass, a family physician in New Jersey who also provides abortions in Delaware, said misoprostol-only regimens are still safe and highly effective, but that the regimen has a lower efficacy rate than the combination of the two drugs and comes with potentially more side effects and risks.

Misoprostol-only regimens vary between 85% and 90% effective, while the combination is between 93% and 99% effective. The effective rates are lower as the gestational age increases.

The combination works well, Bass said, because mifepristone stops the hormone that allows the pregnancy to continue and signals to the body that the pregnancy is over. The misoprostol then helps soften the cervix and prompts the uterus to contract and expel the pregnancy tissue.

Without that hormonal signal, Bass said, a higher dose of misoprostol is needed to empty the uterus. The usual side effects of nausea, diarrhea, chills and sometimes fevers can be more severe because of the higher dosage. And it may lead to more people needing to seek in-person follow-up care to fully remove all of the pregnancy tissue, which can cause infection if it stays in the uterus.

“A lot of the people who are using telehealth for their medication abortion are not necessarily in places where they can safely access that care,” Bass said. “So it is concerning that we might be relying more on a regimen that means that many more people needing to seek care.”

What are the details of the legal arguments?

Louisiana officials, including Republican Attorney General Liz Murrill, argue that the state is harmed by the 2023 telehealth policy because it undermines a state law banning abortion at all stages of pregnancy, with few exceptions that don’t include rape or incest. The state also challenged the Food and Drug Administration’s process in deciding to eliminate the in-person dispensing requirement, saying it was based on flawed or nonexistent data.

The state also said the rule has resulted in $92,000 in Medicaid bills from two women who went to the emergency room because of complications related to mifepristone in 2025. And the state says the rule harmed the other plaintiff in the case, Louisiana resident Rosalie Markezich, who said her ex-boyfriend ordered the medication online and pressured her into taking it. That wouldn’t have been possible if the medication had to be dispensed through an in-person visit, the state argues.

“The priority of safety supersedes the priority of access, and that is what ultimately, I believe, needs to be looked at directly,” Sarah Zagorski, senior director of public relations at Americans United for Life, told Stateline on Wednesday. The anti-abortion organization submitted a brief supporting Louisiana’s case to the U.S. Supreme Court this week.

The FDA’s response has been to try to dismiss the claims in part on the grounds that Louisiana doesn’t have standing to sue, but agency officials have also said they are in the middle of conducting a safety review of mifepristone and need more time.

GenBioPro and Danco Laboratories, two of the manufacturers of mifepristone, intervened as defendants in the case, which can happen when the party that is sued may not be willing to fully defend the case for various reasons.

The two companies argue that Louisiana does not have proper standing to sue because the state does not prescribe or use mifepristone and is an “unregulated party” as it relates to the 2023 telehealth provision. They also noted that the FDA reviewed 15 studies evaluating medication abortion outcomes for more than 55,000 patients before approving the rule, “all of which supported the safety and effectiveness of dispensing mifepristone by mail, courier, or through pharmacies.”

How does this compare to the 2023 case Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA?

Both lawsuits were designed to restrict access to mifepristone. The plaintiffs in the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine case included a group of anti-abortion doctors who said they would be harmed by having to care for people who took mifepristone. They also argued that the FDA’s approval of the drug was improper.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was involved in that case as well, and determined that the FDA should roll back its decision to ease restrictions on the drug, including the 2023 telehealth rule. But the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously decided in June 2024 that the Alliance plaintiffs didn’t have proper standing and sent it back to the lower court.

After that ruling, the attorneys general of Missouri, Idaho and Kansas stepped in as plaintiffs, and the case was transferred to Missouri’s U.S. district court, where it’s still pending.

The Louisiana case is more limited because it would strike down one provision of mifepristone regulation, noted Jenna Hudson, senior counsel at the Center for Reproductive Rights. The Alliance plaintiffs sought to revoke the drug’s approval altogether.

Stateline reporters Kelcie Moseley-Morris can be reached at kmoseley@stateline.org and Sofia Resnick can be reached at sresnick@stateline.org.  

This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Washington State Standard, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

The day after the U.S. Supreme Court crippled the federal Voting Rights Act, NAACP President and CEO Derrick Johnson addressed a virtual gathering for the group’s members and supporters where he ranked the landmark decision alongside the court’s most infamous cases.

Dred Scott excluded Black people from American citizenship ahead of the Civil War. Plessy blessed policies of racial segregation in 1896. And now there was Callais. 

The opinion will “probably go down in the history book as one of three of the worst Supreme Court decisions in the history of this nation,” Johnson said.

The Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling in Louisiana vs. Callais on April 29 cleared states to split apart, for political gain, congressional districts where a majority of residents belong to minority groups. The court’s conservative majority said Louisiana lawmakers acted unconstitutionally when they intentionally created the state’s second majority-Black district, which the justices found unnecessary.

A week after its release, the decision is roiling politics across the South as states move at a rapid pace to recast the political landscape that has taken progressives by surprise. 

Republicans, triumphant over their victory at the court, are rushing fresh gerrymanders through Southern statehouses in time for the November midterm elections in an effort to strengthen their party’s control over the region’s U.S. House delegations. They’re acting at lightning speed, over loud protests, and have nullified votes by suspending ongoing elections.

Democrats, especially Black residents, are furious with both the court and GOP politicians, who they believe are poised to wipe away decades of Black political progress in the region. The new maps that seek to oust Black members of Congress and prevent the election of Democrats in the future recall a Jim Crow past of literacy tests and poll taxes, they say.

“We refuse to let you kill us by killing our vote,” Eliza Jane Franklin, a resident of rural Barbour County, Alabama, told a state House hearing Tuesday.

Decision kicked off legislative efforts

The Alabama Legislature is moving to authorize a special primary election using a congressional map currently blocked in federal court, if a district court or, ultimately, the Supreme Court allows the state to move forward. At least one of the state’s two Black members of the U.S. House would be vulnerable.

In Louisiana, the governor has suspended the state’s primary elections for the U.S. House, setting aside some 42,000 votes that were already cast. Republican lawmakers will begin advancing a new gerrymander in a matter of days, aiming to force out at least one of the state’s two Black House members.

Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a new map into law Monday that aims to hand his party up to four additional U.S. House seats. State lawmakers approved the map hours after the Supreme Court’s decision. The map has already drawn multiple legal challenges.

The South Carolina Legislature is weighing whether to redraw maps. And Tennessee lawmakers want to gerrymander a Memphis district currently held by U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen, a white Democrat who represents the state’s only majority-Black district. 

“The Supreme Court has opined that redistricting, like the judicial system, should be color-blind,” Tennessee House Speaker Cameron Sexton, a Republican, said in a statement Thursday unveiling a plan to divide the Memphis area among three congressional seats.

More states, in the South and elsewhere, are expected to pursue new maps over the next two years. Georgia Republican Gov. Brian Kemp ruled out a special session this year, for example, but supports redistricting before the 2028 election. 

The current moment represents an extraordinary time in America, said Rebekah Caruthers, president and CEO of Fair Elections Center, a nonpartisan voting rights group. But she also called it a reversion “back to America.”

Many thought the presence of Black, Hispanic and Asian American elected officials somehow meant racial discrimination no longer existed, she said.

“And unfortunately, that is a misread of American history,” Caruthers said. “And perhaps it is a retelling of American history for those who want to gloss over America’s very sordid past, especially when it comes to voting rights.”

Midterms impact

The scramble by a handful of Southern states to redraw districts comes as Republicans grasp for any scintilla of advantage ahead of the midterm elections in November. 

A U.S. House under Democratic control would spell the end of much of President Donald Trump’s legislative agenda, produce a wave of investigations into his administration and potentially lead to a vote to impeach him in the House, though the Senate would almost certainly acquit him.

“This is all about Donald Trump wanting to avoid hard questions and oversight hearings about his actions,” Cohen said at a news conference in Memphis.

Seth McKee, a political science professor at Oklahoma State University who has studied Southern politics, said Republicans are attempting to “staunch the bleeding” ahead of unfavorable midterm elections.

“The desperation of this Republican Party, it’s off the charts,” McKee said.

Redistricting push supercharged

Prior to Callais, Trump had already urged Republicans to redraw congressional maps for partisan advantage — a process that typically occurs once a decade after the census. 

Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio and Texas enacted more GOP-friendly maps, while Democrats struck back in California and Virginia. In Utah, Republicans want to block a court-ordered map that’s more favorable to Democrats.

Republican primary voters have given their approval to that approach. On Tuesday, five Trump-endorsed state legislative candidates in Indiana defeated GOP incumbents who had defied the president to block a gerrymander in the state last year.

But until now the Voting Rights Act limited how far that gerrymandering push could extend.

For decades, Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act helped protect majority-minority districts from gerrymandering and ensured voters could elect Black candidates to Congress in Southern states following the end of state laws that blocked Black citizens from voting. The Callais opinion guts Section 2 by curtailing the consideration of race when drawing legislative maps.

Republicans have praised the decision and many have been clear that they believe the opinion opens up a path to securing additional GOP seats. Trump has endorsed disregarding primary elections that have already been held so that states can pass new maps — which he predicts can net Republicans an additional 20 seats this fall.

“We cannot allow there to be an Election that is conducted unconstitutionally simply for the ‘convenience’ of State Legislatures,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “If they have to vote twice, so be it.”

Calls for GOP seats

Over the past week, some Republicans have cast majority-minority districts previously protected by the Voting Rights Act as racist because they were drawn with attention paid to the racial makeup of the map. U.S. Sen. Eric Schmitt, a Missouri Republican, wrote on X that there are “no more excuses for keeping racist maps,” for example, and called for their immediate removal.

Other GOP leaders have centered their case for quick action on political power. Like Trump, they have explicitly invoked control of the U.S. House as a reason to gerrymander. While Republicans have the House, their margin of control is razor thin: 217 to 212, with one independent and five vacancies. Even a modest Democratic wave in November will likely sweep away GOP control.

Alabama Senate President Pro Tem Garlan Gudger Jr. and House Speaker Nathaniel Ledbetter said in a joint statement that the state’s lawmakers have a responsibility to offer Alabama a “fighting chance” to elect seven Republican U.S. representatives. Two of the state’s seven districts are held by Democrats.

“Control of the U.S. House of Representatives could come down to just a handful of seats, and when the dust settles, the people of Alabama will know that their Legislature stood firm, acted decisively, and did everything within its power to fight for fair representation,” Gudger and Ledbetter said.

Alabama Republicans want to use a map passed by lawmakers in 2023 that federal courts blocked from taking effect. Alabama’s current map was drawn by a court-appointed special master.

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, a Republican, asked a federal district court Tuesday for an order that would let the state move forward with the gerrymander.

In Louisiana, Republicans obtained special permission from the Supreme Court to quickly move forward on a new gerrymander after the justices struck down its current map in the Callais decision.

Absentee voting was already underway in Louisiana before Republican Gov. Jeff Landry suspended congressional primary elections set for May 16. Votes already cast for U.S. House candidates won’t count, Republican Secretary of State Nancy Landry, no relation, has said.

Louisiana state lawmakers are set to begin work on a new map this month that will likely break apart a New Orleans district held by U.S. Rep. Troy Carter, a Black Democrat who has fought with the governor.

“The Court’s decision in these cases has spawned chaos in the State of Louisiana,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, one of the Supreme Court’s three liberal justices, wrote in a dissent of the decision to quickly finalize Callais.

Court challenges

Still, Democrats and other opponents of the gerrymandering effort across the South are turning to the courts. Lawsuits have also been filed challenging the suspension of Louisiana’s congressional primaries and Florida’s new map also faces court challenges.

A petition filed in Louisiana state court by Elias Law Group, a major Democrat-aligned voting rights litigation firm, alleges the governor’s decision to halt the congressional primary is unlawful and unprecedented. Only the state legislature has the power to set the state’s election schedule, the petition argues.

“Governors do not get to cancel elections by executive fiat, least of all elections that are already underway, with ballots in voters’ hands and votes already cast,” Lali Madduri, a partner at Elias Law Group, said in a statement.

Regardless of how the legal challenges play out, Democrats say the Callais decision and the ongoing fallout from the decision underscore the need for massive voter turnout in the November election. A large Democratic turnout that results in a significant Democratic majority in the U.S. House would serve as a rebuke to Trump’s gerrymandering campaign, they say.

Blue state gerrymanders

U.S. Rep. James Clyburn, South Carolina’s sole congressional Democrat, said during the NAACP virtual meeting that a Democratic House could pass voting rights legislation. 

“I would hope we could do that because I really think that’s our only hope legislatively,” Clyburn said.

Democrats have long called for the passage of a bill to restore preclearance, a major element of the Voting Rights Act that the Supreme Court paused in 2013, which required states and local governments with a history of racial discrimination to obtain federal permission before making voting changes. 

But the measure would face a certain filibuster in the U.S. Senate. Even if Democrats broke a filibuster, Trump would likely veto it. 

In effect, Democrats’ most realistic opportunity to enact major voting rights legislation relies on regaining control of the White House and Congress and ending the filibuster — a set of conditions that’s out of reach until at least 2029.

In the meantime, more Democrats are calling for aggressive gerrymandering of blue states as a way to punch back. U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Rep. Joseph Morelle, both New York Democrats, on Monday announced an initiative to encourage their state to redraw congressional districts ahead of the 2028 election.

Gerrymandering New York would be an intensive effort, likely requiring voters to repeal or suspend anti-gerrymandering provisions in the state constitution. But voters in California and Virginia have previously endorsed Democratic gerrymanders.

“This is just the beginning,” Jeffries said in a statement. “Across the nation, we will sue, we will redraw and we will win.”

Washington state Democrats are wrestling with whether to join the redistricting battles unfolding across the country.

There’s no immediate push to redraw the state’s congressional map. But Democratic leaders are not ruling out the idea if they win supermajorities in the Legislature.

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court sharply limited the consideration of race when drawing legislative boundaries, allowing Louisiana to redraw its congressional map in time for this year’s midterm elections.

The ruling follows other mid-decade redistricting efforts in predominantly red states, such as Texas, Missouri and North Carolina. Democratic-led states including California and more recently Virginia have also taken action to change boundaries.

For over two decades, Washington has relied on an independent redistricting commission — as opposed to state legislators — to draw district lines.

Last week, Washington State Democratic Party Chair Shasti Conrad suggested to the New York Times that if her party secures a legislative supermajority, lawmakers may undo this system, a change that would require voter approval.

In an interview with the Standard this week, Conrad clarified that she doesn’t want to end Washington’s Redistricting Commission, and blamed Republicans for igniting the current redistricting war.

“I am not pushing for us to undo the independent redistricting system,” Conrad said. “But there’s a national discussion that is happening around how to meet the moment … The Republican-controlled Supreme Court just gutted the Voting Rights Act.” 

”We’re having to fight fire with fire,” Conrad added.

Rep. Jim Walsh, who is also chair of the Washington State Republican Party, doesn’t buy it that Democrats will attempt to meddle with district boundaries.

“She’s bluffing,” Walsh said of Conrad’s comments to the Times.

Walsh also argued that redoing Washington’s map to comply with the Supreme Court ruling in the Louisiana case “would make Washington congressional districts more fair and cut against Washington Democrats’ partisan schemes.”

‘This is that moment’

Reconvening the state’s bipartisan Redistricting Commission mid-decade would require a two-thirds majority vote in the Legislature. 

Democrats would need to flip seven seats in the House and three in the Senate this election season to gain enough votes for the next session in January, while retaining every seat they have now. 

The other option, scrapping or revamping the redistricting commission, doesn’t seem likely to happen anytime soon. That, too, would require a two-thirds majority vote in the Legislature to approve a constitutional amendment and it would also need to go before voters.

If Democrats pick up enough seats in both chambers this election year, “it might be possible for us to present the voters with the question around whether Washington should join California and Virginia in fighting back against the rigging of maps for the Republicans,” said House Majority Leader Joe Fitzgibbon, D-West Seattle.

“We’ve had elections where Democrats picked up that many seats before, but that is a pretty steep hill to climb,” Fitzgibbon added. 

Fitzgibbon sponsored legislation this year that would’ve changed the state constitution to allow lawmakers to redraw district maps with a simple majority vote, but only if other states engage in mid-cycle redistricting, like what’s going on now. It didn’t advance out of committee.

“If there’s ever a moment for us to revisit how we draw these congressional lines in Washington, this is that moment,” Fitzgibbon added. “We have some significant barriers to clear before we can engage in that.” 

The last round of redistricting was in 2021 and the redistricting commission is not scheduled to convene again until 2031.

Democrats now hold eight of Washington’s 10 seats in the U.S. House. Only one of those districts, the 3rd, in southwest Washington, has been a consistent battleground for Democrats and Republicans in recent years.

Fitzgibbon said it’s possible to redraw lines so there’s a district in central and eastern Washington that would be competitive for Democrats if it included Spokane, Pullman, Walla Walla and parts of Yakima and Tri-Cities. 

Senate Majority Leader Jamie Pedersen, D-Seattle, called the idea of redistricting mid-decade “a little far-fetched” and “definitely not a solution for the short term.” He also explained Democrats are unlikely to win the needed seats this year.

“There is no reasonable possibility that we could wind up with that many seats in the Senate in this election cycle,” Pedersen said.

But with the recent ruling, he did point out there could be a wave of redistricting in the South that would benefit Republicans. 

“Washington has become more and more solidly a blue state,” Pedersen said. “If the future is one in which every state that is not a swing state is going to be monochromatic in its congressional delegation, then we should think about how we want to show up.”

Legislative district do over?

The Supreme Court ruling also raises questions about whether Washington’s legislative district map will remain as is.

Two years after the four voting members of Washington’s Redistricting Commission updated the state’s district maps, U.S. District Court Judge Robert Lasnik ordered districts for the state Legislature to be redrawn.

In Palmer v. Hobbs, Lasnik ruled that a Yakima Valley district did not allow equal access for Latino voter participation.

In early 2024, Lasnik approved the district’s new boundaries with Latinos comprising 73% of the total population. Shortly after, another appeal was filed.

Walsh suggested that with the Supreme Court decision, the revised map could be unconstitutional. 

Walsh said if the Republican party had more time, it would go to court to challenge the map that the Palmer v. Hobbs case created, but he said the party is busy as candidate filing started this week for the midterms.

He said the party may do something in support of an existing appeal pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, such as file a friend of the court brief. “We just want to make sure it doesn’t mess up the existing litigation,” he said.

For now, Conrad said Democrats are focused on getting out the vote.

“I don’t know if we will get to a supermajority this year. I think it’s very likely that we could get there by 2028,” she added.

WOODINVILLE — For four straight years, at least parts of Washington have been in a drought, as snowpack has failed to meet historical norms amid climate change. 

This year, all of Washington is experiencing drought, after a wet winter scuttled by warmer temperatures, according to state officials.

Washington state leaders are looking for ways to deal with the ongoing water challenges, which state Ecology Director Casey Sixkiller calls “our new normal.” 

A new initiative, called Washington’s Water Future, will lead roundtable discussions across the state this summer, with recommendations delivered to Gov. Bob Ferguson before the 2027 legislative session begins in January. Local and tribal governments, utilities, industry leaders, environmental groups and community organizations will be at the table.

Officials announced the effort Wednesday at King County’s Brightwater Treatment Plant near Woodinville.

“It’s clear we need to take steps to protect our water supply,” Ferguson said in a pre-recorded video. “We need secure water supplies so we can grow our economy, support our agriculture industry, protect healthy fish runs and preserve tribal resources.”

Sixkiller said the work is about whether Washington will shape the future of water in the state, or just react to it. 

“Washington is a water state,” Sixkiller said. “Water shapes our landscapes, our communities, our economy, and for many a way of life passed down through generations. We all know that where there’s water, there’s life, but these days, we don’t have to look very hard to see that our relationship with water is changing.”

Climate change is causing precipitation in the winter to fall more as rain than snow, with less stored naturally in the mountains for the summer, when farms and fish are competing for the dwindling resource. This system, dependent on snowpack, is becoming less reliable, Sixkiller said.

By 2080, the Puget Sound region is expected to get less than half of its normal snowpack, with wintertime stream flows increasing by half and a corresponding drop in the summertime, the agency director said.

“The cost of inaction is already showing up in drought emergencies, flood damage, stressed salmon runs and uncertainty for communities trying to plan their future,” Sixkiller said.

Last year, the Department of Ecology took the unprecedented step to curtail surface water usage in the Yakima River Basin, where the effects of drought are more severe. The move has drawn accusations of mismanagement against the state. 

In an interview, Sixkiller said it’s too soon to say whether his agency will need to do the same this year, but noted the state declared a drought earlier than usual to give water managers in the area more time to prepare.

The statewide drought declaration last month unlocked $3 million in grants to respond to the effects.

The harms already

The Yakima-Tieton Irrigation District, which serves 28,000 acres, is bracing for its canal system to “blow out” after a wildfire burned it in 2024, and subsequent flooding and debris slides further damaged it, said Jon DeVaney, president of the Washington State Tree Fruit Association.

“This is a clear example of the need to, not only plan long term, but be prepared to see that hole that we’re already in get a little bit deeper,” DeVaney said.

The low flows and higher temperatures are treacherous for Washington’s salmon. And fish hatcheries are grappling with dwindling water. The Suquamish Tribe, for example, hasn’t been able to expand a hatchery because of the lack of water, Chairman Leonard Forsman said.

Forsman, also president of the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, acknowledged the priorities when thinking about the future of water availability are “people and farms, and then fish habitat comes in later.”

“And we need to try to balance that,” he said. 

Meanwhile, data centers the tech sector is building to support artificial intelligence and other technologies are also driving demand for water.

Some of the ideas

In responding to the state’s water needs, Sixkiller said “all solutions and all ideas are on the table.”

He was responding to a question about desalination, a process turning salt water into potable water that communities in more arid climates have turned to in addressing water shortages. Arizona, for one, is pursuing the idea. Sixkiller called the water scarcity in the American southwest a “very big red flag of what could happen here.”

The city of Lynden in Whatcom County has grown rapidly over the past 15 years, Mayor Scott Korthuis said. So the city, located along the Nooksack River, has had to find innovative approaches to securing water.

For one, the city now recycles discharged water from the local Darigold dairy plant into the river, as a source of drinking water.

The city is also working on an aquifer recharge project to take water from the river during high flows and store it underground until it’s needed later. Sixkiller cited this type of work as an idea to be explored in the Washington’s Water Future roundtable discussions.

“There are a range of untapped solutions from different areas, from different ways to store water and to recycling,” Korthuis said, noting financial, legal and regulatory obstacles.

Aging water infrastructure that will need to be replaced or upgraded provides an opportunity for innovative solutions, Sixkiller said.

King County Councilmember Claudia Balducci noted the new initiative’s acronym matches that of the World Wrestling Federation, saying there will be some “smackdowns” in these discussions. The tongue-in-cheek comment worried state Rep. Davina Duerr, D-Bothell.

“I’m afraid it’ll be a smackdown on the Legislature for funding, and whatever else,” she said.

YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.

SUPPORT

REPUBLIC, Wash. – Rep. Michael Baumgartner held his first town hall on Monday in Republic as he campaigns for re-election.

Baumgartner held the meeting at Republic Elementary School on Monday evening as part of a “12 counties in 12 days” tour across the 5th Congressional District. This was his first town hall of three he plans to do for his tour. He planned to hold a town hall Tuesday in Davenport.

Nearly 30 constituents were in attendance.

“I do worry about the political polarization in America,” Baumgartner said. “Just try to keep as friendly conversation as we can.”

Earlier in the afternoon, Baumgartner held a private fundraising event at Colville Pour House.

A mix of cheers and boos welcomed Baumgartner as he quickly entered the building.

Among those in attendance was Rep. Andrew Engell, R-Colville; Rep. Hunter Abell, R-Inchelium; Sen. Shelly Short; and Stevens County Commissioner Mark Burrows.

“Liar!” shouted multiple protestors.

The town hall at the school did not have protestors.

“Out of all the town halls I’ve done, this is has been the most civil,” Baumgartner said.

The town hall brought questions of agriculture, border issues and healthcare.

Ferry County Health CEO Brian Lady and Chief Nursing Officer Zane Gibbons, who both were in attendance, asked how the state will navigate distribution of the Rural Health Transformation Program.

The federal program, which is part of the Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill, is expected to alleviate projected Medicaid funding declines from 2026 to 2030. Washington state received $181 million to help rural healthcare.

However, Gibbons said he’s heard more rural hospitals are applying for funding, making it likely they will receive less funds than what they need, adding they were “close to going under” not long ago. They still haven’t been notified by state officials on how much they will be receiving.

“Large healthcare providers have lots of lawyers and lobbyists, and they’re pretty good at reading the laws and then qualifying for themselves. So I don’t have a great specific answer for you on how we can control Olympia doing that,” Baumgartner said.

He said at the state level, staffing and certain mandates have increased healthcare provider costs. He added Washington allowing people from surrounding states to get healthcare access is also part of it.

“We have tried to disincentivize states from putting illegal immigrants on health care. But in our state, you know, they budgeted $150 million of your taxes for illegal immigrant health care,” Baumgartner said.

“It’s a complicated system, and one that we continue to work on, but we will do what we can to support you guys in rural healthcare,” he said.

For border issues, a local resident asked about the trade war and the impact it has on border town businesses.

She said areas up north have lost many consumers.

Baumgartner acknowledged the importance of cross-border businesses and tourism. He said there’s a possibility he will be meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney in Ottawa, in mid-June.

“It’s fine to battle over hockey and all those sorts of things. We both have our national pride. But you know, America needs more allies, not less and I think the 51st state stuff was, was some stuff that didn’t really accomplish a lot,” Baumgartner said. “We’ve made a couple trips to the border, and I was really pleased our border security and our border personnel seem to have really good working relationship with Canadians.”

He added there’s been added effort on the southern border and crackdown on immigration and fentanyl trafficking under the Trump Administration.

“But we are very worried about some of that stuff that come in through the northern border and coming through the area,” Baumgartner said.

Dan O’Brien, a Ferry County resident, said his family owns ranches throughout Washington. He asked about the impact of trade deals in the industry in relation to the 2026 Farm Bill draft, asking why Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (MCOOL) for meat products wasn’t part of it.

Congress repealed origin labelling rule for beef and pork in 2015 due to retaliatory threats from Mexico and Canada.  The farm bill passed the House and is now heading to the Senate and is the first to do so since 2018.

“I’m not opposed to foreign beef coming in, but I know that Americans will pay a premium for a USA made product, just like we did when we were kids,” he said.

Baumgartner said that since this was the first time a farm bill has made progress in eight years, he anticipates it could be a positive impact for agriculture across the country.

“We can work on that together,” he said.

Monica Carrillo-Casas, reporting on northeastern rural communities for the Spokesman-Review, is with the Washington State Murrow Fellowships, a local news program supported by state legislators.

WASHINGTON — Voters, including those within the Make America Healthy Again movement, say the rising cost of healthcare is a significant concern that will have an impact on whom they support in November’s midterm elections, according to a poll released Wednesday by KFF. 

Sixty-one percent of respondents to the survey, which asked how important several health-related issues were, said the price of healthcare will have a major impact on which party they support as control of Congress hangs in the balance.

Among MAHA voters, who are predominantly Republicans but also include independents and some Democrats, 42% said cost is their top issue heading into the elections. 

“While the issue of health costs is more salient for Democratic voters than for Republicans, larger shares across partisans say health costs will have a major impact on their voting decisions than say the same about vaccine policy or food safety,” the survey said. 

Seventy-two percent of Democrats, 63% of independents and 47% of Republicans said the cost of healthcare will have a major impact on which party’s candidate they vote for. 

Vaccine policy came in next, with 57% of Democrats, 46% of independents and 32% of Republicans surveyed saying it will have a major impact on their choice. 

Issues related to food safety came in third after 43% of Democrats, 40% of independents and 38% of Republicans responded that it will have a major impact on their choice of candidate.  

MAHA issues 

For MAHA voters, twice as many listed health costs as their first priority than the next issue: restricting the use of certain chemical additives in food, which was a key concern for 21%.

Ten percent were interested in politicians who will reevaluate vaccine approvals, 8% want lawmakers to limit corporate interest in food and 8% want Congress to limit the use of pesticides in agriculture. Eleven percent said none of those or had no answer. 

The survey showed that a significant majority of Americans across the political spectrum believe the government hasn’t done enough to address chemical additives in food or pesticide use in agriculture, two core demands of MAHA supporters.  

“The public perception that there is not enough regulation may be rooted in broader skepticism toward the industries themselves,” the survey said. “Most U.S. adults do not trust pharmaceutical companies, food and beverage companies, or agricultural companies to act in the public’s best interest.”

Doctors and healthcare providers were the most trusted source of information at 70%, followed by agriculture companies at 40%, food and beverage companies at 25% and pharmaceutical companies at 21%. 

Seventy-five percent of those polled said the government hasn’t done enough to regulate chemicals in food, while 65% said it should do more to regulate pesticides in agriculture. 

The poll of 1,343 U.S. adults took place from April 14 to April 19. It has a margin of error of 3 percentage points for the full sample and 6 percentage points for MAHA supporters.

If you or someone you know is struggling or in crisis, help is available. For the youth helpline, call or text 888-537-1634 or make a report online at HearMeWa.org. For the Suicide & Crisis Lifeline, call or text 988 or chat 988lifeline.org.

Anthony Blankenship went into solitary confinement at the Pierce County Jail on suicide watch, despite not feeling suicidal. 

That changed by the time he got out, just days later. 

While in solitary confinement, he could hear people “breaking” in other rooms, and had nothing in his cell other than a smock and a mattress.

“Anytime someone is put into a solitary condition and left there without any sort of resources, any sort of opportunity for communication, we have to start asking ourselves, what is that going to do?” Blankenship said. “For me, what it did was it broke me.”

A new report from Washington’s prison watchdog lays out policy changes the Department of Corrections should make to improve and reduce solitary confinement in its prisons. The agency says it agrees with many of those recommendations.

Still, advocates are frustrated by what they see as slow progress. Corrections pledged in 2023 to reduce solitary confinement by 90% in five years, but whether it’s on track to meet that goal is in doubt. 

“I think DOC has no shortage of ideas about how to address solitary and how to make things better,” said Rachael Seevers, who focuses on criminal justice reform at Disability Rights Washington. “I think they just haven’t done them.”

Meanwhile, the Office of the Corrections Ombuds, which issued the report, is in a turbulent moment. 

Gov. Bob Ferguson fired its director, Jeremiah Bourgeois, last month amid allegations of ethical misconduct and fostering a hostile work environment that had led several employees to resign or take medical leave. The watchdog agency’s work has played a key part in driving discussions about the state’s solitary confinement practices in recent years.

Bourgeois, who spent decades in prison on a murder conviction and went to law school after his release, declined to comment on his ouster. His firing came after just six months on the job. He suggested on LinkedIn that his efforts to eradicate the ombuds’ reputation as “beholden to the Department of Corrections” had “apparently displeased some officials” in the governor’s office. The governor’s office declined to comment.

Defining solitary

As of last month, there were 346 prisoners in what the state considers solitary confinement, less than two hours out of cell per day, according to the Department of Corrections. 

A department spokesperson called that a “substantial drop from just a few years ago.” It was over 600 in mid-2024, for example. That said, the state Office of the Corrections Ombuds said last month it “has ongoing concerns about the reality” of the prison system’s plan to dramatically reduce solitary confinement.

“DOC intends to continue to expand out-of-cell time for individuals in restrictive housing and continued solitary confinement reform remains a priority for DOC,” Corrections spokesperson Rachel Ericson said. “It is part of our commitment to keeping staff, the incarcerated and the public safe.”

However, the agency’s data on those held in restrictive housing shows over 800 prisoners in the first quarter of 2026 were held in maximum custody solitary confinement and what’s known as administrative segregation. This marks a significant increase over years past.

With administrative segregation, people are temporarily housed separately from the general population. Critics have argued it is on par with traditional solitary confinement.

The ombuds is also concerned that increased out-of-cell time is really just an alternative cell considered a “yard” where prisoners remain isolated from others.

“Current practices in Washington State do not fulfill access to meaningful human contact for people in solitary confinement,” the report says.

The ombuds in past years has found frequent suicide attempts among those held in solitary and inadequate care to meet basic needs like eating and showering. Seevers said those conditions remain largely unchanged.

“I have not seen a lot of change in any intercept point in terms of closing the front door of solitary or opening that back door faster,” she said. “It really seems to be focused in on adding some guards so people can be in an empty room by themselves more time.”

Addressing the issue

The report offers recommendations that wouldn’t require legislative action. The ideas aren’t new. 

One would develop a comprehensive policy for residential treatment units, which are meant to provide more intensive mental health services. These units, at the prisons in Monroe and Walla Walla and the women’s prison in Gig Harbor, serve varying custody levels. The ones in Monroe and Gig Harbor have dedicated solitary units.

In the ombuds’ vision, this policy would include objective criteria for being admitted and discharged, as well as mandate specialized staff training on mental health issues.

Ericson, from the Department of Corrections, said the agency is finalizing a residential treatment unit policy.

A proposal in the state Legislature would establish guidelines for segregating state prisoners from the general population and raise the standard of proof for discipline. That bill hasn’t made it far in the legislative process the past two years.

Another idea from the ombuds looks to expand the “severely underutilized” Washington Way program that focuses on rehabilitation and reintegration into society after prison. It’s based on a model out of Norway. 

The office also suggests speeding up the timeline for finding alternative housing for transgender prisoners, who report safety concerns or a need for gender-affirming housing and are held in the meantime in restrictive units, sometimes for weeks or months.

“Trans people are disproportionately impacted by the criminal legal system, and so it is something that we do need to continue to address,” said Blankenship, now a community organizer at Civil Survival.

The report also recommends improving pathways to privileges in solitary confinement, like access to tablets. The ombuds office argues this would allow isolated prisoners to occupy their time more productively. 

Corrections is “continuously looking for ways to further expand Washington Way into prisons and restrictive housing and address the level system for people placed in solitary confinement,” Ericson said.

She noted state prisons haven’t received additional funding for revamping solitary confinement  beyond the millions of dollars per year the agency gets to address the issue.

YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.

SUPPORT

“DOC intends to continue to expand out-of-cell time for individuals in restrictive housing and continued solitary confinement reform remains a priority for DOC,” Ericson said. “It is part of our commitment to keeping staff, the incarcerated and the public safe.”

The ombuds office also reports that the Department of Corrections hasn’t been publishing planned updates about its progress on reducing solitary confinement. The agency reportedly blamed this on a lack of funding.

“We would love to see an update,” said Madison Vinson, of the ombuds office. “I’m not sure when they plan on doing that, but we would love to see it.”

Northwest electricity customers are again being told not to worry.

In litigation over Columbia Basin salmon, federal agencies began spilling more water last month to comply with a federal court order, sending more water over spillways rather than through power-generating turbines. According to court filings, the order will cost Bonneville Power Administration customers over $100 million a year and cut hydropower output by 1,000 megawatts in August and 500 in September.

That’s enough clean energy to power a sizable city. That’s on top of the hundreds of millions BPA customers fund each year for salmon and wildlife. Despite all this, spill supporters share a familiar message: the system can absorb it, costs are manageable, and reliability will hold.

The organizations responsible for keeping the lights on tell a much different story.

Last October, North American Electric Reliability Corporation President Jim Robb described grid risks as a “five-alarm fire,” citing dwindling reliable power supply, extreme weather, and permitting delays outpacing demand growth.

The Western Electricity Coordinating Council’s 2025 assessment, released this January, found that even in a best-case scenario, blackout risk appears across the decade, with the Northwest among the highest-risk regions.

Historically, only about two-thirds of planned resources come online on schedule, meaning hours at risk could climb into the thousands.

In January 2024, an Arctic blast drove the Northwest into a reliability emergency. Wind and solar output fell, dams boosted their output, and blackouts were narrowly averted. The next step would have been to shed load by cutting power to homes, schools, and businesses.

Against that backdrop, it defies logic to claim that reducing hydropower even further will have only minor consequences. The case largely rests on a 2018 Northwest Energy Coalition study arguing the four lower Snake River dams could be replaced for a dollar a month per household, a figure that quietly depended on continued natural-gas generation to stabilize the grid.

Northwest Energy Coalition later championed Washington’s Clean Energy Transformation Act and Oregon’s House Bill 2021. These laws phased out the very fossil generation its earlier replacement math depended on. The dollar-a-month figure kept circulating as if nothing had changed.

The laws and the grid changed, but the talking point did not.

Every megawatt of hydropower lost, whether to dam removal or spill, must be replaced by something else at a time the region is already facing shortages.

E3’s new two-phase study of the Northwest grid projects a shortfall in dependable electricity of 9 gigawatts by 2030. 

Commissioned by the Public Generating Pool and fourteen utility and power-sector sponsors, the study finds that gap is larger than Oregon’s entire average electricity demand, driven by data centers, building electrification, and electric vehicles. The shortfall widens to 14 to 18 gigawatts by 2035.

The Phase 2 analysis, released this month, quantifies the costs. 

Even before adding clean energy policy, retail rates are projected to exceed inflation by 36% to 47% from rising demand and insufficient supply. Meeting Washington’s 2045 mandate without emerging technologies, such as small modular nuclear reactors, nuclear fusion, hydrogen, or carbon capture, would nearly triple today’s retail rate.

E3 calls the pathway infeasible without at least one clean, firm, and dispatchable technology at commercial scale. To weather a cold snap, it must be one capable of sustained output over many hours.

Only one such resource exists in the region today. It’s hydropower, and the court just ordered us to use less of it.

Meanwhile, E3’s own least-cost pathway depends on new natural gas peaking plants — the very resources Washington’s climate law phases out.

Citing the same findings, The Seattle Times editorial board warned the study “should alarm every Washingtonian,” and urged Gov. Bob Ferguson and state lawmakers to build reliability backstops into the clean energy transition. They are right, and if Washington policymakers don’t want natural gas, we’ll need every megawatt of hydropower we’ve got.

None of this makes salmon less important. They are woven into Northwest identity and are profoundly important to Native American tribes’ heritage, culture, and economy. But we can’t have an honest discussion about tradeoffs if we aren’t honest about what the tradeoffs are.

The evidence is clear. The region is running out of dependable electricity, and the dollar-a-month story cannot survive modern scrutiny.

Customers of Seattle City Light, Snohomish PUD, Tacoma Power, and utilities across the Northwest—especially low-income households stretched by utility bills — deserve policy grounded in that evidence, not fairytales the region has since outgrown.

Tory Starr is worried about the people who get medical care at Open Door Community Health Centers along California’s North Coast.

“They’re the folks that work at restaurants. They’re the teacher’s aides,” said Starr, a registered nurse who became Open Door’s chief executive more than six years ago. Those patients, he said, are “really the heart and soul of rural America.”

He said if his remote health centers don’t get a share of the billions of dollars Congress earmarked to transform health care in rural America, patients may soon lose services. About 50% of Open Door’s 60,000 patients are on Medicaid, the joint state and federal insurance program that, together with the related Children’s Health Insurance Program, covers about 76 million people with low incomes or disabilities.

When Congress approved the One Big Beautiful Bill Act last summer, it cut nearly $1 trillion from Medicaid over the next decade. Now, Starr hopes the $50 billion Rural Health Transformation Program, which was part of the same bill, will help keep his patients covered.

Yet, small community health care providers, such as Open Door, may find they are sharing the billions with an army of corporate giants before it reaches their patients.

Months after federal leaders announced that all 50 states won first-year awards, ranging from $147 million for New Jersey to $281 million for Texas, state plans reveal that a heavy dose of prescribed spending will go to companies that can increase the use of electronic health records, strengthen cybersecurity, and improve state and health system technology platforms.

And at least four large-scale coalitions of companies are now pitching multipronged services to the states. Many of the companies already work with regional health systems and states through Medicaid contracting or mobile and telehealth operations.

How those services will help improve the health care of rural Americans at places such as Open Door remains an open question.

States stare down reporting deadlines

Federal regulators were “really interested in seeing digital health investments” when they crafted the five-year rural health program rules last year, said Maya Sandalow, an associate director at the Bipartisan Policy Center, a think tank based in Washington, D.C. She co-authored a recent report on how the 50 states plan to invest in technology, including modernizing health care infrastructure and expanding virtual care options such as telehealth and remote patient monitoring.

“The rural health fund isn’t really designed to directly replace or offset the lost Medicaid funding,” Sandalow said, noting that the federal staffers in charge of the program capped provider payments — money that could help rural hospitals and clinics pay for patient care — at 15% of the total funding awarded to a state.

Federal regulators also established tight reporting deadlines, forcing states to move quickly.

States must file progress reports by the end of August and obligate all first-year funding by Oct. 30, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the federal agency overseeing the program. States could see their awards decreased or terminated at any time if they fail to follow federal requirements, according to the CMS notice of funding opportunity.

As of early April, CMS had not approved or had only partially approved some state budgets, including those of Wyoming, Colorado, and Vermont, according to state officials. CMS spokesperson Catherine Howden, who declined to say which states still needed revised budgets approved, said the agency does not provide “state-by-state updates.”

In Alaska, the budget is approved but the state has not announced when it will release full grant proposals and awards, said Tricia Franklin, program coordinator for Alaska’s rural health transformation.

“Early summer was the target,” Franklin said. But the response from vendors and applicants has been “much greater than expected, so it may take us a little longer.”

Working with consulting companies is an established way for states to “quickly and effectively” meet federal deadlines and roll out grant money, said Morgan McDonald, national director for population health at the Milbank Memorial Fund, a nonprofit focused on state health policy work.

Upgrading technology, modernizing rural health

Science Applications International Corp., a Fortune 500 government contractor, pulled together the Alliance for Advancing Rural Healthcare. SAIC does a variety of technology work such as cybersecurity and engineering support. The alliance also includes Walgreens and Mission Mobile Medical, which turns RVs into primary care clinics. A data analytics company, a telemedicine and software company, and a company that helps place medical graduates in health systems are also part of the coalition.

The SAIC alliance offers “an ecosystem” of companies that can coordinate the work states have promised, said Suresh Soundararajan, SAIC’s Rural Health Transformation Program lead and a former chief information officer for the Virginia Department of Health. Each of the companies has representatives focused on the rural program, he said.

A lack of digital infrastructure — such as electronic health records at different clinics and hospitals that can talk to one another — has been a consistent barrier for rural medical care teams, said the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Sandalow.

“The funding hasn’t always been there in order for rural areas to create the infrastructure that’s needed to fully adopt remote patient monitoring, telehealth, artificial intelligence in ways that will really be supportive,” Sandalow said. “It takes things like updating infrastructure, changing workflows.”

Sandalow’s recent report found that Maine and Utah are investing in cybersecurity; Indiana, Missouri, and New Mexico plan to modernize their electronic health records; Oklahoma plans to buy hardware and software, subsidize subscriptions, and give technical support to rural providers; and states such as Arizona and South Carolina will use funds to create telehealth hubs or buy remote patient monitoring equipment.

Federal regulators, when creating the rural program’s spending rules, also said no more than 5% of a state’s total funding awarded could be used to replace electronic medical records systems that already meet federal standards. Sandalow said that means states will focus on enhancements and upgrades to their current systems.

Gainwell Technologies, which operates the systems for dozens of state Medicaid programs, is spearheading another coalition. Rushil Desai, a Gainwell senior vice president, said states’ detailed spending plans are “changing in real time.”

Maine’s Medicaid plan contracts with Gainwell, and the state’s initial application listed four contracts worth more than $16 million over five years for the company. The state confirmed it has received federal approval for only its first year of spending, which includes a $250,000 contract to implement changes to the state’s Medicaid claims system.

James Lomastro, a senior-care advocate in rural Massachusetts with the nonprofit Dignity Alliance, said he worries that large vendors and health systems will get the state’s transformation dollars.

Clinics, home care agencies, and nursing homes that “actually provide day-to-day support in the community are mostly on the margins” of state discussions about how to spend the money, he said. A spokesperson for Massachusetts’ Executive Office of Health and Human Services, Olivia James, said state officials would “ensure that everyone has a seat at the table” with training, financial incentives, and direct investments.

Arizona’s rural fund budget, which is $167 million for the first year, allocates up to about $30 million for medical diagnostic equipment and technology upgrades, including to electronic health records, specifically for rural health care facilities.

But it also prioritizes grants for county public health departments, said Pima County Public Health Director Theresa Cullen. The approved budget includes up to $4 million for grants to support community health workers.

“In these rural communities, you need to be present,” Cullen said.

Alina Czekai, director of the CMS rural health transformation office, said her team plans to visit all 50 states. She spoke at the National Rural Health Association’s policy conference in Washington, D.C., in February and told the audience that her team wants “the money to go to rural communities, rural providers, rural patients.” The association’s members include rural hospitals and clinics, which are expected to suffer big losses under the Medicaid cuts.

In California, Open Door’s Starr said he provided input on his state’s initial application, which won $234 million in first-year funding, but he is not clear on what the next steps will be for getting money from the program.

For his patients, Starr said, money is needed for technology upgrades. After all, he said, updated electronic health systems could operate seamlessly and store the documentation needed to keep a patient enrolled in Medicaid.

Updated technology could be exactly what Open Door and other area clinics need to “help keep people covered,” Starr said.

---

KFF Health News senior correspondent Phil Galewitz and rural health care correspondent Arielle Zionts contributed to this report.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Republicans released a roughly $70 billion spending package Monday night that will keep Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol operating for the rest of President Donald Trump’s term without any of the new constraints Democrats have demanded.

The legislation also includes $1 billion “to support enhancements by the United States Secret Service relating to the East Wing Modernization Project, including above-ground and below-ground security features.”

Trump, who had the East Wing of the White House bulldozed to make way for his $300 or $400 million ballroom project, had said it would be funded by private donors and not taxpayers. White House officials have said the ballroom is critical for national security when top officials are gathered, following an April 25 incident in which a gunman opened fire at a dinner at the Washington Hilton attended by Trump.

Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said in a statement the panel “is taking action to help provide certainty for federal law enforcement and safer streets for American families.” 

“We will work to ensure this critical funding gets signed into law without unnecessary delay,” he added. 

Senate Budget Committee ranking member Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., said in a statement the package shows “Republicans are ignoring the needs of middle-class America and instead funneling money into Trump’s ballroom and throwing billions at two lawless agencies.”

He noted the Department of Homeland Security has more than $100 billion from Republicans’ signature tax and spending cuts package it hasn’t spent. 

“Throughout this process, Democrats will continue to show the American people that we are for bringing down costs, making it easier to get ahead, and building an economy where families thrive and billionaires pay their fair share,” Merkley said. “It is clear that the country has had enough of the Republican ‘families lose, billionaires win’ agenda.”

Billions for immigration enforcement

The package’s release follows a record-setting shutdown at the Department of Homeland Security that began after the two parties were unable to reach a compromise on new guardrails for immigration operations after federal agents shot and killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis in January.  

The Judiciary Committee’s bill includes $30.725 billion for ICE, $3.47 billion for Customs and Border Protection and $1.457 billion for the Department of Justice.

The bill from the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs allocates $19.1 billion for CBP to hire Border Patrol staff and $7.45 billion for ICE to hire Homeland Security Investigations agents.

CPB will receive an additional $3.45 billion to purchase new technology “to combat the entry or exit of illicit narcotics at ports of entry,” to upgrade border surveillance technology and to conduct initial screenings of unaccompanied children. 

Another $2.5 billion would go to the Homeland Security secretary for any additional border security needs. 

All of the funding would last through Sept. 30, 2029.

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Rand Paul, R-Ky., said in a statement the panel plans to vote later this month to advance the bill. 

“Senate Democrats refuse to vote for a single dollar to secure our borders or enforce our immigration laws, even against the most violent illegal aliens,” Paul said. 

60 votes not needed in Senate

Republicans plan to pass the bill using the same complex budget reconciliation process they used last year to enact their “big, beautiful” law that provided DHS with $170 billion. 

GOP lawmakers voted last month to approve the budget resolution that unlocks the process that comes with many rules and restrictions but avoids the need to get 60 votes in the Senate to end debate. 

Senate Republican leaders chose to separate funding for ICE and Border Patrol from the annual Homeland Security appropriations bill after the two political parties made little progress toward restrictions on immigration agents. 

The stalemate led to a 76-day shutdown for the Department of Homeland Security, which ended in late April after the House sent Trump the annual funding bill the Senate had approved a month earlier.

Ty Wooten didn’t realize the weight of answering his first 911 call — until more than a decade later.

A woman had dialed 911 to report that her husband had shot himself in front of her and their 7-year-old son, on the family’s living room couch. It was Wooten’s first call as a dispatcher.

“I wasn’t prepared for that, and I didn’t quite realize how difficult that call was for me for several years,” said Wooten, who has worked in the 911 industry for more than 30 years, both taking calls and managing dispatch centers.

He is now director of government affairs for the International Academies of Emergency Dispatch, an industry group that helps set standards for emergency dispatch centers.

Wooten pushed the experience aside. It wasn’t until about 15 years later, while swapping stories with colleagues, that the details came rushing back — triggering a spiral of anxiety, panic attacks and depression that would take time to fully confront.

“I had taken that experience and kind of put it in the corner of my mind, and built a wall around it so I wouldn’t think about it again,” Wooten said.

Wooten’s experience reflects a broader reality for first responders, who are routinely exposed to traumatic events but often lack the space — or support — to process them.

Across the country, state and local officials are increasingly looking for ways to change that, expanding mental health resources and testing new approaches aimed at reducing stigma and improving access to care for 911 dispatchers, police officers, firefighters, paramedics and emergency medical technicians.

Research suggests that first responders face higher rates of trauma-related mental health challenges than the general public, with repeated exposure increasing the risk of post-traumatic stress, depression and anxiety. That strain has also been linked to burnout, and to higher rates of substance use and suicidal ideation.

Some policing experts say untreated trauma and stigma around mental health don’t just harm police officers — they can also ripple outward, influencing split-second decisions on the street and the quality of encounters with the public.

“It’s not just a personal and individual tragedy. It’s also potentially going to have a direct consequence for how officers treat those they encounter on duty,” said Heidi Bonner, a criminal justice and criminology professor at East Carolina University.

At the same time, rising health care costs and concerns about affordability have made access to mental health services more difficult for many nationwide. Some communities are already experimenting with new approaches for first responders.

In Brevard County, Florida, some first responders now have access to therapy dogs, peer-to-peer counseling and confidential hotlines. Florida state officials last year also announced they were developing a more coordinated, statewide mental health program for first responders.

In Virginia, Henrico County firefighters gained access to a new app that allows them to seek mental health support anonymously. They are one of the first departments in the country to use the platform. Some experts say anonymity can help reduce barriers tied to stigma and fear of professional consequences.

Expanding options

Even as awareness grows, many first responders still don’t seek help — a gap that policymakers and local agencies are increasingly trying to address.

“You’re going to see something horrible, and the expectation is, ‘Yeah, that’s what we do — you just got to deal with it,’” said Alanna Badgley, a paramedic in New York. Badgley also is the EMS external affairs coordinator for the International Association of EMTs and Paramedics.

“Bringing up if you were feeling some kind of way might have been seen as a sign of weakness, or that you weren’t cut out for the job, so a lot of people would kind of hide it,” she said, describing what the culture was like when she started in emergency medicine in 2010.

She added that there’s now a growing recognition that first responders need to be honest about their mental health and seek support early and often.

You’re going to see something horrible, and the expectation is, ‘Yeah, that’s what we do — you just got to deal with it.’

– Alanna Badgley, paramedic in New York state

Many agencies or departments offer employee assistance programs, or EAPs, which provide confidential counseling and support services for employees dealing with personal or work-related stress, but some first responders may hesitate to use them.

“A lot of first responders worry about the potential for their employer to know what’s going on if they go through their EAP,” Badgley said.

A 2025 survey by the National Emergency Number Association found that nearly 70% of telecommunicators reported feeling stress before every shift, with fatigue and anxiety among the most common symptoms.

In recent years, states and municipalities say they’re focusing on reducing barriers to care, including affordability.

“We will pay whatever it takes for someone to get help,” said Tom Synan, the police chief of the Newtown Police Department in Ohio. Synan also is a speaker with the nonprofit Law Enforcement Action Partnership.

“I think that’s what’s going to help first responders have long careers, better home life and better service to the community,” he added.

State efforts

In New York, state officials launched an online training program in March to help mental health professionals better understand and support first responders, with a focus on responder culture and barriers to care.

New Jersey Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy in January signed into law a measure that provides employment protections for first responders diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, barring retaliation and guaranteeing they can return to their jobs once cleared. The law is already in effect.

In Nebraska, Republican Gov. Jim Pillen in April signed into law a bill that shields peer support conversations from being used in court or disciplinary proceedings.

Minnesota legislators are considering a proposal to allow first responders to access donated mental health services, including counseling and peer support, without violating state gift laws.

And in Missouri, lawmakers have advanced legislation to study alternative therapies, including the psychoactive compounds psilocybin and ibogaine, for treating conditions such as depression, substance use and post-traumatic stress, with first responders and military veterans eligible to participate in supervised studies.

Other states have taken similar steps in recent years. Last year, Ohio lawmakers approved $40 million for a PTSD treatment fund, while Texas is developing a statewide peer support network for firefighters and EMS personnel.

Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Utah and Washington have enacted laws to protect the confidentiality of peer support counseling. Lawmakers in Vermont are considering similar legislation this year that would ensure conversations in peer support groups remain confidential for first responders.

Still, advocates say access alone does not guarantee use — particularly when providers may not fully understand the realities of the job.

“The trauma is so unique,” Badgley said. “It’s hard to feel comfortable confiding in somebody who just really isn’t trauma informed, or doesn’t understand the first responder mentality.”

Some first responders say the mental health strain of the job goes beyond exposure to traumatic calls. It’s often shaped just as much by internal and external pressures, including workplace dynamics, public expectations, staffing shortages and required overtime, and stressors from life outside the job.

The combination can leave first responders struggling to process their stress.

“When you feel helpless — and you’re the person who helps — who do you go to?” said Synan, the Newtown police chief.

Synan said his department has worked to create space for those conversations, holding debriefs after difficult calls and encouraging officers to talk through what they experienced without pressure or judgment.

A culture slow to change

When now-retired firefighter Frank Leto joined the New York City Fire Department in 1983, mental health support barely existed.

“The mental health support at that point was probably drinks after work,” he said.

The expectation was to absorb whatever you saw and move on — until, as Leto put it, “You just stuffed it down until it started taking things from you: your family, your relationships, your health, eventually your job.”

That code of silence began to break after the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001.

“There was really no option for the fire department to not address the mental health needs of our firefighters and their families,” Leto said.

He moved off the line to help expand the department’s counseling unit and its early peer support efforts, but their first major idea — embedding clinicians in the hardest-hit firehouses — “was an utter failure.” Firefighters rarely spoke to those experts, and the clinicians were overwhelmed by the scale and immediacy of the trauma.

The breakthrough came when the department stopped trying to import help from the outside and instead formalized what had long existed informally. Training firefighters to support one another created a trusted buffer between the rank-and-file and clinical care, and over time that model “became part of the fabric of the department,” he said.

The International Association of Fire Fighters, a labor union, recognized how powerful that shift was and helped fund the work in New York City.

Today, Leto, who is a member of the IAFF Disaster Response To-Go Team, estimated that roughly 15,000 IAFF members have been trained in peer support — a sign that, in a culture slow to change, attitudes around mental health are beginning to shift.

But that progress has been uneven, and many departments — across fire, law enforcement, emergency medical services and 911 dispatch — are still working to build systems in which seeking support is normalized and accessible.

“Looking at mental and physical and overall well-being is not one answer with one solution,” said Wooten, the former 911 dispatcher. “These are all things that have to be worked at collectively and multifaceted to make sure that we can hopefully create an opportunity to fix some of these larger systemic problems.”

Stateline reporter Amanda Watford can be reached at awatford@stateline.org.

This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Washington State Standard, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

A Washington Supreme Court commissioner on Tuesday declined to pause a judge’s ruling that blocked a new law setting stricter qualifications for sheriffs.

Deputy Commissioner Walter Burton agreed with sheriffs challenging the law that the status quo from past years should remain while litigation continues, even as candidates for sheriff file to run for election this week. 

“Denying a stay essentially means that the system that has long been in place will continue for the time being,” Burton added. “Petitioners do not show that immediate harm is likely to result from at least temporarily maintaining this status quo.”

Last week, in response to a lawsuit from four eastern Washington sheriffs, a Thurston County judge blocked parts of the law from taking effect.

“It is a fundamental right to run for elected office, and to vote for elected office, with very, very few exceptions,” Superior Court Judge Christine Schaller said, finding the Legislature “may have exceeded its constitutional authority.”

Burton’s decision amounts to keeping Schaller’s preliminary partial block on the law while litigation continues. It’s by no means the final word. The law faces multiple legal challenges.

Mike Faulk, spokesperson for the state attorney general, said the office will “continue to defend the constitutionality of the law.”

On the other side, the sheriffs’ attorney, Mark Lamb, said in an email he was “encouraged that the Constitution will continue to protect the rights of candidates during this filing week.”

“We now look forward to moving towards a final resolution to permanently establish that citizens have a right to choose their Sheriff in a free and fair election,” he added.

The arguments

The state attorney general’s office on Friday filed an emergency motion with the state Supreme Court to pause Schaller’s block and allow the law to go into effect, asking for a speedy ruling given the candidate filing period for this week’s election began Monday. The deadline to file to run is Friday. Sheriffs in 35 of Washington’s 39 counties are up for election.

In its motion, the state called Schaller’s ruling “indefensible,” arguing she blocked parts of state statute that had been on the books for decades and relied on legal arguments the sheriffs didn’t make and that attorneys for the state didn’t have an opportunity to rebut.

Burton noted sheriffs could still be ousted from office later under the law, if the courts eventually allow it to take effect. He pointed out that the law includes a process for replacing sheriffs removed from office.

“There is nothing to suggest that process cannot be carried out in an orderly and expeditious manner,” wrote Burton, a longtime deputy commissioner. “Further, if, somehow, the legislation were to be upheld by the time of the primary election, a remedy exists to exclude unqualified candidates from the general election ballot.”

In response to the state’s motion, the sheriffs countered Monday that the longstanding electoral standards should remain until a final say on the law.

“Once an election cycle proceeds under unconstitutional conditions, no appellate decision can restore what is lost,” Mark Lamb, the plaintiffs’ attorney, wrote in court filings. “Candidates forced to withdraw or self-censor cannot be made whole. Voters deprived of meaningful choice cannot be given that choice back.”

Burton agreed, writing that the sheriffs “having to currently comply with a statute in a way that (they argue) violates their constitutional rights or forego seeking reelection cannot be remedied by an ultimate decision invalidating the statute.”

Senate Bill 5974 establishes new, equal standards for county sheriffs, who are usually elected, and appointed police chiefs. Failing to meet the new requirements or getting state certification revoked is grounds for removal from office under the new law. The state’s Criminal Justice Training Commission would have the authority to deny or revoke sheriffs’ certifications.

The new criteria for sheriffs include at least five years of law enforcement experience, no felony or gross misdemeanor convictions, being at least 25 years old and no history of actions that would get state certification as a peace officer revoked. Candidates for sheriff have to attest they meet the requirements. If a sheriff is removed, county officials would appoint a replacement.

Sheriffs across the state argue the law undermines the will of voters by creating an administrative path to force elected officials from office. Its backers see it as holding police leaders accountable to the same standards as their subordinates.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Former Washington state lawmaker Eric Robertson, who served two stints in the Legislature decades apart, died April 24. He was 62. 

Robertson, a former House Republican caucus chair, represented the 31st Legislative District from 1995 to 1998 and again for two terms from 2021 to 2025. 

Former Rep. Kelly Chambers, a Republican from Puyallup and now regional head of the U.S. Small Business Administration, said on social media that Robertson died “far too soon after a stroke.” She called his death a “tremendous shock.” 

“Eric was a big man with an even bigger heart,” Chambers wrote. “He took care of the people around him in quiet, thoughtful ways like grabbing you a drink, making sure you got where you needed to go, always looking out for others. He was ‘steady Eddie,’ someone you could count on to be right there by your side.”

Robertson grew up in Buckley and attended White River public schools and Green River Community College, according to the House Republican Caucus. 

The Washington State Patrol hired Robertson in 1983. He rose through the ranks before then-President George W. Bush appointed him U.S. Marshal for western Washington in 2002. He held that position until 2007. He then became an administrator for the Valley Regional Fire Authority until retiring in 2018. 

Robertson put that retirement on hold to return to the Legislature via election in 2021. During that time, he helped lead a successful push to roll back Democratic-supported restrictions on vehicle pursuits by police.

Robertson’s former seatmate and current House Republican leader, Rep. Drew Stokesbary, said Robertson “devoted his life to serving others — with integrity, humility, and a deep sense of duty.”

Rep. April Connors, R-Kennewick, recalled Robertson taking her under his wing as the top Republican on the legislative committee handling labor relations. 

“He didn’t just teach policy, he taught us how to navigate the process, how to work with the majority, and how to be effective,” Connors wrote on Facebook.

Rep. Travis Couture, R-Allyn, similarly felt welcomed by Robertson as a new lawmaker, saying that he was “was so kind, generous, funny, collaborative, and caring.”

Democratic Rep. Alicia Rule noted she and Robertson often disagreed politically, but that they “moved mountains together” when they found common ground.

“Eventually we landed with the kind of friendship that is all too rare these days,” she said.

Robertson’s passing comes after the deaths of other former state lawmakers in recent weeks.

Former Democratic Sen. Phil Rockefeller, who represented the 23rd Legislative District from 2005 to 2011, died April 15 at age 87. He left the Legislature upon appointment by then-Gov. Christine Gregoire to the Northwest Power and Conservation Council. He also served on the state’s Salmon Recovery Funding Board until 2020, according to an obituary.

Rockefeller’s obituary argues his time in the Legislature “added years to his life, so deep was his joy in the legislative process, where he was able to shepherd bills through the process to become laws that improved the health of Puget Sound, protected and restored salmon runs statewide, improved the environment (including phasing out a coal-fired power plant), and strengthened public education.”

Longtime lawmaker Sam Hunt, who represented Olympia in the House and Senate for over two decades, died last month, as well.

WASHINGTON — The State Department must spend the $600 million Congress approved for an international vaccine program, according to a letter sent Monday by a bipartisan group of U.S. senators.

The six senior members of the Appropriations Committee, three Republicans and three Democrats, called on Secretary of State Marco Rubio to fulfill the government’s “pledge” to GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance.

“GAVI plays a critical role in averting the spread of preventable diseases around the globe and helps protect public health in our country by stopping outbreaks before they reach our borders,” the senators wrote. “Congressional support for GAVI endures because of its proven success as a public-private partnership, immunizing more than 1.1 billion children – and in turn preventing 20.6 million deaths – since its inception in 2000.”

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine; ranking member Patty Murray, D-Wash.; State-Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee ranking member Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii; Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.; Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska; and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., all signed the letter.

South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, chairman of the State-Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, didn’t sign the letter. 

A State Department spokesperson wrote in an email the department doesn’t “comment on congressional correspondence.” 

Senators wrote in the letter that GAVI “supports U.S. industry and jobs, purchasing more than $12.5 billion in U.S.-manufactured goods and vaccines.”

“It is the world’s leading purchaser of U.S.-produced vaccines and hosts the U.S.-founded global vaccine stockpile,” the senators wrote. “Additionally, vaccines funded through GAVI are approved through the same standards as used by the Food and Drug Administration.”

Federal agencies say they have yet to take steps to implement President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting voting by mail, as the Department of Justice fights a Democrat-led lawsuit against it.

The Justice Department late Friday filed documents asking a federal judge to dismiss the lawsuit and to not block the executive order on a preliminary basis because the order hasn’t been implemented. The filings marked the Trump administration’s first effort to defend the order in court.

The March 31 order directs the creation of state citizenship lists and restricts how ballots can be sent through the mail, instructions that Democrats and election experts have called unconstitutional and illegal. It comes as Trump has seized on the specter of noncitizen voting, an extremely rare phenomenon, to demand sweeping voting restrictions.

In its Friday filing, the Justice Department sought to persuade Judge Carl J. Nichols in U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia that a legal challenge is premature.

“If and when the Executive Branch takes some action to implement the Executive Order” then a lawsuit can be brought, Stephen Pezzi, a senior trial counsel in the Justice Department’s Civil Division, wrote in a court filing.

Nichols has scheduled a hearing for May 14.

No action taken, officials tell court

The DOJ’s argument relies on statements by key federal officials that the agencies affected by the order — the Department of Homeland Security, the Social Security Administration and the U.S. Postal Service — are still deliberating over how to carry out Trump’s directive. In declarations filed in court on Friday, officials at all three agencies say final decisions haven’t been made.

“As the Postal Service is still in the deliberation phase of determining how to implement the Executive Order, we have not yet published a proposed rule, nor have we reached any final decisions about the substance of a proposed rule,” Steven Monteith, the Postal Service’s chief customer and marketing officer, wrote.

The executive order directs the postmaster general, who leads the Postal Service, to propose a rule that would block states from sending ballots through the mail except to voters on lists provided by the state to the Postal Service. 

The order also instructs Homeland Security to compile lists of voting-age U.S. citizens in each state with the help of the Social Security Administration. Democrats allege the Trump administration is building an unauthorized national voter list, despite the U.S. Constitution giving states the responsibility of running federal elections.

Michael Mayhew, deputy associate director of the Immigration Records and Identity Services Directorate within U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, wrote in a declaration that the agency “has not yet begun preparation” of state citizenship lists. USCIS is a subsidiary of Homeland Security.

At the Social Security Administration, Jessica Burns MacBride, head of program policy and data exchange, wrote that the agency hasn’t made any final decisions “about its role” in implementing the executive order.

Focus on Postal Service

The order’s opponents are especially watching the Postal Service’s response, since it is an independent corporation overseen by its Board of Governors — not the White House.

Democrats and experts on postal law say Trump has no authority to order the postmaster general to take any action. The Board of Governors hires and fires the postmaster general, and board members serve seven-year terms, helping insulate them from political pressure.

Last month, 37 Democratic U.S. senators signed a letter to Postmaster General David Steiner and the Board of Governors urging the Postal Service to not implement the executive order. The senators pointed out the president has no authority to regulate federal elections or the Postal Service.

“Like the President, the Postal Service has no authority to regulate the manner of voting in federal elections, nor who is eligible to vote by mail in such elections,” the letter says.

The Postal Service is a named defendant in the lawsuit filed by Democratic groups and leaders in Congress. 

The Justice Department, which is representing the Postal Service, sidestepped questions about the president’s authority in Friday’s court filing. It called arguments about Trump’s authority over the Postal Service an “abstract legal question” that can’t be resolved before the agency takes action.

Still, Monteith appeared to nod to concerns within the Postal Service over the order’s legality while avoiding specifics.

“I am aware that deliberations are currently ongoing within the Postal Service regarding the implementation of the Executive Order,” Monteith wrote, adding that the deliberations include “legal considerations” regarding the order.

Unitary executive theory

The executive order faces at least five lawsuits, including a challenge brought by a coalition of Democratic state attorneys general led by California’s Rob Bonta. The Justice Department has not yet filed court documents defending the order in that case.

For their part, Republican attorneys general — led by Catherine Hanaway of Missouri — are defending the executive order. Their position, if adopted by courts, would give Trump sweeping control over the Postal Service.

In a May 1 court filing, the GOP attorneys general argue those challenging the executive order are unlikely to succeed in showing that Trump cannot direct the Postal Service to propose a rule. They say that federal law doesn’t specifically prohibit the president from ordering the postmaster general to put forward rules on mail ballots — and it’s unconstitutional if it does.

“The Constitution vests the entirety of the executive power in the President,” The Republican coalition says, articulating a view commonly called the unitary executive theory: the idea that Congress cannot constitutionally create agencies that exist outside of White House control.

The Republican states involved also include Alabama, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and Texas.

Democrats and many constitutional law experts reject the unitary executive theory, though it has gained support among Trump-aligned Republicans as the White House seeks greater control over independent agencies.

If the U.S. Supreme Court eventually greenlights Trump’s efforts to control the Postal Service and other independent agencies, it would mark a “tremendous” change in how the federal government operates, James Campbell Jr., an attorney in the Washington, D.C., area who consults on postal law, said in an interview last month.

“What you’re basically talking about is redesigning the U.S. government,” Campbell said.

Washington’s Supreme Court on Monday denied a conservative political committee’s request to pursue an attempt to repeal the state’s new income tax law with a referendum this fall.

The opposition can still move forward with an initiative to overturn the tax on millionaire earners. But that path to challenging the law will require twice as many signatures to advance.

In the ruling, justices said the income tax’s so-called “necessity clause,” which shields it from a referendum, is valid. 

The law “undisputedly generates revenue for the state’s existing institutions and hence is similarly subject to the ‘support of state government’ exception to the referendum power,” reads the decision signed by Chief Justice Debra Stephens.

Stephens notes the order is “consistent with the words of the constitution and our unbroken line of precedent.” The decision doesn’t provide a tally of the vote among the justices.

Brian Heywood, whose Let’s Go Washington group filed the challenge, said he disagrees with the decision, arguing it gives Democratic leaders “a blank check to spend beyond their means and raise taxes later, and the people don’t get to weigh in.”

“This ruling states that the people cannot challenge via referendum any tax imposed by the legislature, removing any guardrails from the people on runaway spending,” Heywood said in a statement.

On the other side, House Majority Leader Joe Fitzgibbon, D-Seattle, said the ruling wasn’t a surprise. 

“But it’s still good news for what we did this session and tax reform in Washington,” said Fitzgibbon, who spearheaded the income tax legislation with Senate Majority Leader Jamie Pedersen.

Tax opponents would have needed to submit signatures of 154,455 registered voters by June 10 to qualify for the fall ballot. State election officials recommend submitting at least 195,000 to account for invalid signatures.

Opponents of the tax would need to turn in 308,911 signatures by July 2 to get an initiative on the ballot this year, or by Dec. 31 if they opt for an initiative to the Legislature.

Emergency petition

Heywood, the hedge fund manager and chief financier of Let’s Go Washington, filed a referendum soon after Gov. Bob Ferguson signed the so-called “millionaires’ tax” into law on March 30. It imposes a 9.9% levy on household wage income above $1 million starting in 2028. 

Secretary of State Steve Hobbs rejected the referendum, citing a provision toward the end of the 109-page legislation expressly prohibiting such a vote. 

That language says the tax “is necessary for the support of the state government and its existing public institutions.” By inserting this, Democratic lawmakers leave an initiative as the only option for opponents.

Heywood filed an emergency petition asking justices to direct Hobbs to process the referendum paperwork. Justices considered the request during their conference Thursday.

Attorney Joel Ard, representing Heywood and the committee, argued in court filings that with tax collections not starting until 2029, it negated “any honest claim” that the bill is necessary for the support of state government. They viewed this as a ruse to block the referendum.

State attorneys argued the petition should be rejected because Heywood should have first sought relief from a lower court and, if rebuffed, appealed to the state’s high court. And they said that lawmakers, after much debate, retained the necessity clause. They urged the court to defer to the Legislature.

Email controversy

Since each side submitted their original briefs, the state attorney general’s office produced a trove of public records revealing the extent to which lawmakers sought state lawyers’ advice in drafting and honing language to achieve the bill authors’ goals.

Among them was a Dec. 11, 2025, email from Solicitor General Noah Purcell to Pedersen, prime sponsor of Senate Bill 6346. This email, first reported by The Center Square, points out that the version at that time lacked an emergency clause. 

“Without one, someone could try to subject the bill to a referendum. It should not be subject to referendum because it raises revenue, but under the Secretary of State’s long standing practice, they only reject proposed referenda if the bill has an emergency clause, so someone would have to sue to prevent a referendum on the bill as written. I just wanted to make sure you were aware of that,” Purcell wrote.

Ard submitted this email to try to bolster his argument that sponsors intentionally included the necessity clause to avoid a referendum.

Pedersen said Monday that he didn’t think the necessity clause was needed because tax measures aren’t subject to referendum. But adding that language to make it explicit sped up the legal process to get a ruling from the state Supreme Court, as opposed to more protracted litigation, he said. 

“That’s all the solicitor general was advising me on in those emails,” Pedersen said.

Attorney General Nick Brown has said these sorts of conversations are common as lawmakers seek legal advice on legislation. After Monday’s ruling, Brown spokesperson Mike Faulk said it “ought to further put to bed the brazen falsehood that a revenue bill was ever going to be subject to referendum if not for pesky AG staff dutifully and ethically advising legislators.”

This won’t be the state high court’s last word on the income tax, as it will need to weigh in on its constitutionality before collections can begin.

The Citizen Action Defense Fund filed a lawsuit April 9 challenging the constitutionality of the income tax. Rob McKenna, a former state attorney general and 2012 Republican candidate for Washington governor, and Phil Talmadge, a former state Supreme Court justice, are leading the litigation. 

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a temporary stay on an appeals court ruling from Friday that was blocking remote access to an abortion drug, restoring access until at least May 11.

The administrative stay, issued by Justice Samuel Alito, pauses Friday’s decision by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. That ruling blocked a 2023 rule adopted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration allowing mifepristone, one of two drugs used to terminate a pregnancy before 10 weeks and to treat miscarriages, to be prescribed without an in-person visit with a health care provider and also allowed it to be mailed to recipients in states with abortion bans.

“The administrative stay is temporary, and I am confident life and law will win in the end,” said Louisiana Republican Attorney General Liz Murrill in a statement. 

Thirteen states have near-total abortion bans, including Louisiana. Murrill sued the FDA in October, saying the rule undermines the state’s laws and causes financial harm because the state paid $92,000 in Medicaid bills for two women who needed emergency care in 2025 from complications related to mifepristone. 

In the years since the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing states to regulate abortion access, telehealth prescriptions of abortion medication have become increasingly popular, with more than 27% of all abortions provided that way in 2025, according to data from the Society of Family Planning.

“While this is a positive short-term development, no one can rest easy when our ability to get this safe, effective medication for abortion and miscarriage care still hangs in the balance,” said Julia Kaye, senior staff attorney for the Reproductive Freedom Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, in a statement. “The Supreme Court needs to put an end to this baseless attack on our reproductive freedom, once and for all.”

The case could follow a similar pattern to one that played out in 2023, after U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of Texas issued a ruling that would have revoked access to the abortion drug mifepristone altogether. 

The U.S. Supreme Court intervened shortly after that ruling and kept mifepristone available while the case proceeded in the 5th Circuit appeals court, which eventually decided that more restrictions were warranted, but not pulling the drug’s approval. The Supreme Court officially took the case several months later, and unanimously ruled in June 2024 that the plaintiffs suing the FDA did not have standing, keeping access to mifepristone intact.

Responses from the attorneys in the latest case are expected to be filed with the Supreme Court by Thursday, according to Alito’s order.

Stateline reporter Kelcie Moseley-Morris can be reached at kmoseley@stateline.org.

This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Washington State Standard, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

An unusual and potentially pivotal midterm election season gets formally underway in Washington on Monday when candidates can begin filing for legislative, congressional and judicial offices.

Washington’s new income tax on high-earners will be a hot topic among those battling for positions in the state Legislature. It is also likely to saturate conversations around who should fill openings on the state Supreme Court, the panel that will eventually decide the fate of the controversial law dubbed by backers as the “millionaires’ tax.”

To add further intrigue, some of the fiercest match-ups this year will involve candidates of the same party. Already, several incumbent Democratic state lawmakers face challenges from fellow Democrats who view them as too moderate.

Expect turnover in the state Legislature, where all 98 House seats and 24 of 49 Senate seats are up for election.

In the House, there are 14 open seats as representatives retire or run for other offices, such as the Senate, where five members are not returning.

In Congress, nine of the state’s 10 members in the U.S. House are seeking re-election. 

In the 4th Congressional District in central Washington, where Republican U.S. Rep. Dan Newhouse is retiring, three well-recognized Republicans top the stack of candidates fighting to advance through the primary.

Also, the 3rd Congressional District in southwest Washington will again be an electoral battleground as two-term Democratic U.S. Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez faces heat from Republican John Braun, the state Senate minority leader, and from fellow Democrat Brent Hennrich.

Statewide, the Supreme Court will be in the spotlight with five of the nine seats on ballots this year. Recent appointees Colleen Melody and Theo Angelis are vying to retain their positions. Chief Justice Debra Stephens is the lone incumbent running this year.

Candidates for federal, state, and judicial positions file with the Office of the Secretary of State. Online filing begins at 8 a.m. Monday and ends at  5 p.m. Friday, May 8. Candidates for a local office should check specific deadlines with their county auditor, as they may differ.

This year’s primary is Aug. 4 and the general election is Nov. 3. In each primary race, the two candidates with the most votes will advance regardless of their party affiliation.

This article was first published by FāVS News.

When Jim Hall and Bob Bruce, who have been best friends for over 50 years, heard about the Buddhist monks who walked for peace earlier this year, they had an idea: What if they did a walk of their own, one that focused on building bridges across faith and politics?

The plan quickly took shape, leading to the kindness walk that the duo have planned Aug. 12-20.

The nine-day walk will cross nearly 90 miles and several faith communities between Shoreline and Olympia.

“We discovered we both had a dream of doing something like that,” Bruce said, referring to the group of monks who traversed thousands of miles from Fort Worth, Texas, to Washington, D.C., with a message of peace.

Hall and Bruce invite anyone to join them, for one conversation, one mile, one day or even more.

If people don’t want to join on the walk, the duo also will have T-shirts and cookies to hand out.

“It’s a no brainer,” Hall said. “I get to walk almost 90 miles with my best friend, we get to hand out free T-shirts and cookies wherever we go.”

‘Be kind, do good’: A walk without signs or agendas

The walk isn’t political, the duo continually emphasized, and they’re asking people not to bring signs on the walk. Instead, it’s a chance to show up with a spirit of caring and love in a world full of anxiety and turmoil, Bruce said.

Both Bruce and Hall hope that everyone feels welcome to join, no matter their political leanings or opinions about religion and politics.

“Another way of thinking of it is it could probably be the most political thing you could do, in order to try and bridge and bring people together,” Hall, a 72-year-old retiree living on Whidbey Island, said. “We want this to be just one giant invitation for anybody.”

Bruce and Hall live out bridging the gap in their own lives, building a friendship that spans faith communities. Hall is a Quaker, while Bruce is a Catholic. Many of their friends have other faith backgrounds, like being members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

“It really doesn’t make any difference,” Bruce, a 71-year-old, half-retired substitute teacher living in Eugene,Oregon, said.

The walk is a way to put their life philosophies into action, expressing the universal love that they hold for each other.

“We want to share that love with them,” Bruce said. “That’s worth the 90 miles plus.”

There’s a simple mantra for the walk, which will be featured on the T-shirts: “Be kind, do good.”

The back of the T-shirts will read “Walk the talk.”

Stopping at a different faith community each day

While Bruce and Hall are still hammering out the details, they are hoping to stop in with a different faith community each day of their walk, to both celebrate differences and talk about what they have in common.

“We want to get beyond this thing where different religions, different faiths are claiming to be, you know, the one way,” Hall said.

Bruce agreed, adding that he wanted to help highlight the love that so many different faith communities are based in.

“The Bible, it says, ‘God is love,’” Bruce said. “You can stop there and just start living that.”

The walk will end on Aug. 20 on the steps of the state capitol in Olympia. Hall has written to Governor Bob Ferguson to ask if Aug. 20 can be designated “Do good day” for Washington state.

The duo is also inviting state representatives and senators to join for part of the walk, and have confirmation from one state representative that she will be joining them for a short portion.

Many people have heard about the idea and expressed enthusiasm, Hall said.

“We can’t help but think that other people are going to feel the same way,” Hall added.

Even if no one joins, the duo said it will be worth it. But, Hall said, they both agree that they believe you get back what you give back.

“We’re going to get out there and give out, and we have no doubt we’re going to get back,” he said.

FāVS News uses professional journalists and thoughtful commentary to explore faith, values and ethics. Support journalism like this by making a tax-deductible donation. FāVS is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. © FāVS News. All rights reserved. Reproduction permitted only to authorized media partners or with written permission.

A quarter of immigration arrests since August were labeled by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement as “collateral,” a type of arrest and detention that’s been challenged in court as an end run around civil rights.

Public outrage and lawsuits over the arrests may be tamping down the large-scale sweeps that foster them, but tens of thousands were arrested this way between August and early March.

Immigration arrests are usually based on warrants obtained ahead of time, showing either a removal order from immigration court or evidence of a crime or charge that makes the person subject to deportation.

But collateral arrests can result from street sweeps and raids in which a person is singled out for questioning based on appearance or proximity to someone wanted on a warrant. That person could be taken into custody if agents think they may be subject to deportation and also likely to flee if released.

Labeled for the first time ever, the collateral arrests are reported from August to early March in ICE arrest data obtained by the Deportation Data Project and analyzed by Stateline. In that time there were about 64,000 collateral arrests, a quarter of the 253,000 total arrests by ICE.

About 70% of the collateral arrests were for people with immigration-related crimes or violations alone, compared with 41% for arrests with warrants. Less than 2% of those with collateral arrests were convicted of a violent crime, one-third the rate of other arrests, and only 18% were convicted of any crime, compared with 33% for other arrests.

The collateral arrests contributed to an overall pattern of lower and lower shares of arrests for serious crimes, and more for immigration offenses alone.

Arrests climbed from about 12,000 in January 2025 to more than 40,000 in December, but fell back to 30,000 this February. The share of people with only immigration-related crimes and violations rose to more than half in December and January, the peak months for collateral arrests, and the share of violent criminals fell from 10% to 4% of arrests in that time.

window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}}); New policy

ICE announced a new policy in January to issue warrants in real time if agents think an immigrant is deportable and “likely to escape,” though that policy faces a court challenge.

Total arrests and collateral arrests have been falling since December, whether because of the new policy or because of cutbacks in the large-scale street sweeps that tend to produce them.

One factor is public outrage over raids sweeping up noncriminals in places like Minneapolis and Chicago, said Colleen Putzel-Kavanaugh, an associate policy analyst for the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute.

“The sort of large operations within big cities, as they were occurring, seems to have subsided somewhat,” Putzel-Kavanaugh said. “After the kind of public outcry following Minneapolis, it seems as though, at least for now, that tactic has kind of been paused.”

The Trump administration’s focus on mass deportation opened the way for more collateral street arrests with less investigation, she added.

“If it’s a more targeted arrest, they would take the time to sort of essentially have an investigation. It’s a pretty resource-intensive way that just would not yield the kind of numbers ICE was being told to produce,” she said.

The new policy was filed in court papers in February as a response to a lawsuit over ICE sweeps in the District of Columbia last year, alleging ICE agents “have flooded the streets of the nation’s capital, indiscriminately arresting without warrants and without probable cause District residents whom the agents perceive to be Latino.”

The case resulted in a preliminary injunction in December requiring a halt to warrantless arrests without establishing probable cause that the person is living here illegally and is a flight risk.

One plaintiff in the class-action case, José Escobar Molina, said in the lawsuit that agents in two cars pulled up to him as he approached his work truck on Aug. 21, grabbing him by the arms and legs and handcuffing him without asking any questions. Escobar, 47, said in the court papers that he’s lived in the district for 25 years and has had temporary protected status as a Salvadoran native the whole time. He was held overnight in Virginia before being released.

Other lawsuits are also challenging collateral arrests, such as an incident in Idaho in which agents with warrants for five people ended up arresting 105 immigrants at a Latino community event in October.

In North Carolina, four U.S. citizens and a visa holder sued in February, saying they were arrested in the Charlotte’s Web immigration crackdown in November without warrants, as is typical of collateral arrests.

I have a lot of fear that this will happen to me again. I was essentially kidnapped based only on the color of my skin. That really weighs on me.

– Yoshi Cuenca Villamar, a U.S. citizen arrested while landscaping

“I have a lot of fear that this will happen to me again. I was essentially kidnapped based only on the color of my skin. That really weighs on me,” said Yoshi Cuenca Villamar, one of the citizens and a North Carolina native, in a statement announcing the lawsuit. He said he was doing landscaping work Nov. 15 when agents pushed him to the ground and handcuffed him, then held him in a car before releasing him.

One Illinois case that started in the first Trump administration challenged warrantless arrests and traffic stops used as a pretext for immigration arrests. A 2022 settlement required ICE to document “reasonable suspicion” of illegal status before arresting somebody. The case continues since a judge found in February that the new ICE policy of issuing warrants in real time after a detention violates the consent decree.

Shares of collateral arrests

In the months since August where collateral arrests are now labeled, the District of Columbia and Illinois stand out with high shares of collateral arrests. More than half the arrests in the district were collateral, as were 41% of those in Illinois. There were eight states in which at least 30% of arrests were collateral: Alabama, Maryland, West Virginia, Arizona, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Maine and Minnesota.

West Virginia, where there was a “statewide surge” of immigration enforcement in January with state and local cooperation, stands out for its high rate of total arrests as well as a large share of collateral arrests.

ICE labeled 1,300 arrests during Operation Metro Surge as ‘collateral’

For the eight months between August and early March, West Virginia had 1,831 arrests, or 1 in 10 of the state’s noncitizen population as of 2024, the latest data available. That’s by far the largest share in the country, followed by 7% in Wyoming (where truck drivers were targeted for immigration arrests in February) and 4% in Mississippi.

West Virginia Republican Gov. Patrick Morrisey, in a statement, cited the cooperation of state and local agencies with ICE through the 287(g) program that assists with immigration enforcement. He praised ICE, saying “they have removed dangerous illegal immigrants from our communities and made our state safer for families and law-abiding citizens.”

Few of those arrested in the surge were violent criminals, however. More than half of those arrested during the surge were collateral arrests, and only 1% — nine immigrants — had a violent crime conviction, according to the Stateline analysis. More than three-quarters, about 500 people, had only an immigration-related violation or crime.

Judges didn’t always agree that collateral arrests and detentions in the West Virginia surge were legal under the U.S. Constitution. U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin, a Clinton appointee, ordered two detainees released in January. He noted that “similar seizures and detentions are occurring frequently across the country” without any evidence they’re necessary as required by the Constitution.

Stateline reporter Tim Henderson can be reached at thenderson@stateline.org.

This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Washington State Standard, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

A new effort to force states to affirm the Trump administration’s views on DEI, transgender athletes and immigration when signing contracts with the U.S. Forest Service is threatening millions of dollars in wildfire grant funding and fire reduction projects on federal lands.

Some liberal states can’t sign the documents because the policies clash with state law, forestry experts say.

Already, at least one state is reporting that the new rules have stalled work to reduce wildfire risk and assist with projects on national forest lands. Other states say the requirements are so vague that they don’t know how to follow them. And some timber industry leaders believe the standoff could cut into their revenues.

“We’re kind of at an impasse,” said Washington State Forester George Geissler. “It’s already starting to slow down or shut down work.”

The update to the requirements governing federal partnerships comes even as many Western states brace for a brutal wildfire season, following a winter that brought record high temperatures and a paltry snowpack.

On Dec. 31, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins with little fanfare issued new general terms and conditions governing partnerships for the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Spelled out in dozens of pages of fine print are new restrictions that require partner organizations to pledge compliance with President Donald Trump’s executive orders.

The new conditions apply to all USDA agencies, but the department hasn’t yet said whether it will enforce them for food assistance programs.

The agency, in a news release announcing the changes, framed the new terms as an effort to streamline regulations, protect national security and “eliminate radical left ideology.”

The Department of Agriculture and the Forest Service did not grant Stateline interview requests.

At the Forest Service, which is housed within USDA, the new policy applies to a wide range of grants and contracts aimed at reducing wildfire risk, restoring forest health and boosting timber production.

Forestry veterans say the new conditions have created an impasse with some Democratic-led states.

“It is significantly disruptive,” said Robert Bonnie, who served as undersecretary of agriculture for natural resources and environment during the Obama administration. “It’s clearly targeted at Democratic states and Democratic partners.”

A coalition of 20 states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit in March, claiming that the restrictions are unlawful. The lawsuit has largely focused on federal food assistance programs provided by the agency, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and the Women, Infants, and Children Nutrition Program.

In an April court filing, Rollins said the new conditions had not yet been applied to food assistance programs, and that the agency had not made a “final decision” to cut off nutrition funding for states that don’t comply.

Forest Service programs

But the policy is already having an impact on some programs managed by the Forest Service.

Washington state has been unable to issue the latest round of Community Wildfire Defense Grants, a federal program that helps neighborhoods and towns reduce fuels and fortify homes in wildfire-prone areas.

Geissler, the state forester, said roughly 10 communities in Washington were set to receive large grants under the program, but the federal funding has been held up by the state’s refusal to sign the new terms and conditions.

“This is another example of the federal administration cutting off its nose to spite its face,” said David Perk, coordinator of the Washington State Lands Working Group, a coalition that weighs in on state forestry policies. “To add the additional layer of denying wildfire funding, that’s insult to injury.”

The stalemate also threatens work that the U.S. Forest Service increasingly relies on states and other partners to do in national forests. The agency has leaned heavily on tools, such as the Good Neighbor Authority, that enable state agencies to carry out wildfire mitigation, restoration and timber projects on federal lands. Many observers believe the recently announced Forest Service reorganization signals that states will play an even bigger role in the years ahead.

But now those partnerships are in jeopardy. According to Geissler, Washington state can’t sign new Good Neighbor Authority agreements due to the new conditions.

“We’re trying to sign off on agreements for another chunk of work, and we can’t get it signed,” he said. “If you are looking for work to be done by the state on federal lands, we’re not doing it. If we’re not able to sign, both sides lose.”

Washington state has spent millions of dollars on projects to reduce wildfire risk and improve forest health on national forest lands. With the new ideology requirements, the feds are essentially turning away free help, said Bonnie, the former natural resources official. That’s especially damaging, he noted, because Trump’s cuts to the Forest Service’s workforce and budget have further diminished what the agency can accomplish on its own.

The Trump administration is “damaging their own constituents,” he said. “There are a lot of conservative voters in rural Washington who want to see partnerships that reduce the probability of extreme wildfire. This will stop that. It makes absolutely no sense.”

Washington state is still working on Forest Service projects signed under previous agreements. But without new agreements, work on the ground could stall in six to eight months, Geissler said.

State responses

Nearly 20 state forestry officials contacted by Stateline did not respond or declined interview requests, citing the ongoing litigation and the need to maintain a working relationship with the Forest Service.

But one timber industry leader said Oregon was facing similar disruptions that prevented the state from signing new agreements with the Forest Service.

“This will lead to reduced revenues for (state forestry agencies),” Nick Smith, public affairs director with the American Forest Resource Council, a timber industry group, said in an email to Stateline. “As partners, our industry will be impacted if it disrupts or cancels current or future timber sales under these contracts.”

While most state forestry officials have been unwilling to publicly comment about the situation, several have filed legal declarations in support of the multistate lawsuit challenging the new terms and conditions.

Scott Bowen, director of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, wrote in a declaration that his agency has more than $87 million from active grants with the Forest Service. Those grants cover wildfire response, forest health, invasive species, urban tree canopy and revegetation, among other issues.

“If these funds were withheld, DNR would have to shut down critical capabilities to assist rural communities with fire preparedness and response,” Bowen wrote.

Bowen added that the Forest Service has already said one program, a grant to protect environmentally important forests from being converted to a nonforest use, will be subject to the new terms and conditions.

In the lawsuit, many state officials said that the new compliance requirements are so vague that they’re nearly impossible to follow. Several of the legal declarations note that the new conditions do not explain what it means to “promote gender ideology,” a practice the Department of Agriculture now seeks to ban.

You’re going to see a bifurcation where you'll have red states getting grants and blue states won’t.

– Kevin Hood, executive director of Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics

Many states also objected to the agency’s requirement that no one in the country illegally obtain “taxpayer-funded benefits.” Josh Kurtz, secretary of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, noted in a declaration that it would be impossible to confirm that grants to reduce wildfire risk, expand urban tree canopy and improve forest health do not benefit Marylanders who lack legal immigration status.

Kevin Hood, executive director of Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, a nonprofit that advocates for public employees, said the new terms are aimed at directing a greater share of federal funding to Trump’s political allies.

“You’re going to see a bifurcation where you’ll have red states getting grants and blue states won’t,” he said.

‘More questions than answers’

In March, the National Association of State Foresters sent a letter to Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz expressing concerns about the new terms and conditions. Jason Hartman, the group’s president and the state forester of Kansas, described a chaotic situation.

“To date, the (Forest Service) has not provided adequate guidance or interpretation of the new (terms and conditions),” he wrote. “National-level meetings between State Foresters and the Forest Service have resulted in more questions than answers. State Foresters around the country have been given differing instructions and interpretations in different geographic locations.”

Hartman noted at least one instance in which a timber sale totaling 80 million board feet was held up by the new conditions. (That’s enough to build roughly 5,000 homes.) He asked the Forest Service to delay the effective date of the new conditions until the agency could provide more clarity.

He also outlined another set of issues causing problems for states. One major complication, he said, is the requirement that states receive federal approval before issuing any subawards or contracts. That has created a massive bureaucratic hassle, he wrote, in “direct conflict” with the Forest Service’s reliance on state partnerships to cut red tape.

The new terms also require environmental reviews for projects to be completed before partnership agreements can be signed. But Hartman noted that states often assist in those very environmental reviews, which they won’t be able to do if they can’t sign the agreements first.

Wyoming State Forester Kelly Norris also noted that issue in an email to Stateline, saying she expected the Forest Service to update the environmental review section soon.

Stateline reporter Alex Brown can be reached at abrown@stateline.org.

This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Washington State Standard, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

It’s unclear when a section of the North Cascades Highway will reopen following significant winter damage and a March rockslide on the road.

Around 26 miles of the highway between Diablo Lake and Porcupine Creek will remain closed as the Washington State Department of Transportation carries out repairs.  

The road closes on both sides of the Cascades each winter due to heavy snowfall and avalanche hazards and has been shut down through the mountains since December. But the roadwork needed to reopen the highway this year is substantial.  

“It isn’t just clearing debris,” said assistant region administrator Melissa Ambler. “In many places, we have to rebuild the roadway from the ground up.”

The highway, State Route 20, is the northernmost route in Washington across the North Cascades. Known for its mountain scenery, it connects Skagit and Whatcom counties to Okanogan and Chelan counties.

State Rep. Hunter Abell, R-Inchelium, is putting pressure on the Department of Transportation to provide a timeline for repairs. 

Communities like Winthrop and Twisp east of the Cascades have come to rely heavily on tourism, Abell said. Due to the closure, alternative routes extend driving time by hours from the west side of the mountains.

“I’m hearing from constituents left to right saying people are canceling on my motels,” said Abell. “If it’s not repaired by a certain point in the summer, the whole [tourist] season is gone.”

“Highway 20… is arguably the most important east-west arterial in northern Washington,” Abell said in a Facebook post this week.

During December’s atmospheric river, several sections of the road were washed out.

The damage spans miles. In several locations, flooding washed away material under the highway, leaving sections of pavement without structural support, according to the Department of Transportation. 

Repairs will take place in two projects, according to David Rasbach, a Department of Transportation spokesperson. 

The agency will begin clearing debris from the rockslide that occurred near Diablo Lake through a 30-day emergency contract. Work is expected to begin as early as Monday.

Due to the extent of damage and complexities of repairs between mileposts 142 and 148, work is expected to take several weeks. First, the agency must select a contractor. It’s also in the process of getting certain permits, but that can take considerable time due to the road’s location in the North Cascades National Park, said Rasbach.

The agency said Friday it does not currently have an estimated date of completion. 

Abell suggested his part of the state can get overlooked when it comes to critical roadwork.

“Part of the frustration is that when you’ve got comparable washouts on the west side, it seems like [repairs] happen much faster than on the east side,” he said. “People’s livelihoods are on the line.”

One of the main methods of obtaining abortion medication for those living in states with bans is now blocked nationwide, after a federal appeals court decision issued Friday afternoon.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals blocked a U.S. Food and Drug Administration rule from 2023 that allowed mifepristone, one of two drugs used to terminate a pregnancy before 10 weeks and to treat miscarriages, to be dispensed without an in-person visit with a health provider. 

In the years since, states with abortion access have increased their telemedicine offerings to prescribe the medication remotely and send it through the mail. Many of those states also enacted shield laws to prevent officials from states with abortion bans from prosecuting or investigating their providers — meaning many patients have been able to receive the medication across state lines.

Louisiana judge preserves telehealth abortion access provision for now, puts case on hold

The block will remain in effect as the lower court case proceeds, but the FDA could file an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in the coming weeks.

More than 27% of all abortions were provided through telehealth appointments in the first six months of 2025, according to the Society of Family Planning, a research and advocacy group that publishes a report called #WeCount. Nearly 15,000 abortions per month were provided under shield laws during that same time frame, according to the report.

Louisiana Republican Attorney General Liz Murrill sued the FDA in October, seeking to strike down the 2023 provision, and the lower court declined to do so in early April. U.S. District Judge David C. Joseph said then that the stay was premature while the FDA completed a safety review of mifepristone, but allowed state officials the opportunity to re-file the motion after that review was complete. The state appealed that decision to the 5th Circuit.

“Every abortion facilitated by FDA’s action cancels Louisiana’s ban on medical abortions and undermines its policy that ‘every unborn child is human being from the moment of conception and is, therefore, a legal person,’” Friday’s decision said.

There were no dissenting opinions among Judge Leslie Southwick, an appointee of former Republican President George H.W. Bush, and Judges Stuart Kyle Duncan and Kurt D. Engelhardt, both appointees of Republican President Donald Trump.

Without access to telemedicine and the opportunity to receive the medication through the mail, people in 13 states with near-total abortion bans may have to travel to another state to get an abortion.

There is a misoprostol-only abortion pill protocol that some providers can use, but it is slightly less effective and requires a higher dosage, which can increase side effects.

“Reinstating in-person dispensing requirements would force people to travel farther, take more time off work, and absorb costs that are simply too high. For people living in states already hostile to abortion access, many of which are home to Black women and families, this is not health care,” said Regina Davis-Moss, CEO of advocacy group In Our Own Voice: National Black Women’s Reproductive Justice Agenda, in a statement. 

Murrill said in a statement on Friday that former Democratic President Joe Biden’s administration facilitated “illegal mail-order abortion pills.”

Nearly 1 in 4 people seeking abortions out of state chose Illinois. Here’s why.

“Today, that nightmare is over, thanks to the hard work of my office and our friends at Alliance Defending Freedom. I look forward to continuing to defend women and babies as this case continues,” Murrill said, crediting the advocacy legal organization that helped in the case.

The court also found Friday that the 2023 rule injures Louisiana by causing it to spend Medicaid funds for emergency care for women harmed by using the drug. The state identified $92,000 paid by Medicaid for two women who needed emergency care in 2025 from complications “caused by out-of-state mifepristone.”

Numerous studies have shown mifepristone is safe to use, with very low complication rates. A combined review of 10 years’ worth of studies between 2005 and 2015 found that severe outcomes requiring blood transfusion and hospitalization occurred in less than 1% of cases.

“We are alarmed by this court’s decision to ignore the FDA’s rigorous science and decades of safe use of mifepristone in a case pursued by extremist abortion opponents. We are reviewing the court’s order in detail,” said Evan Masingill, CEO of GenBioPro, one of the main manufacturers of mifepristone, in a statement. “We remain committed to taking any actions necessary to make mifepristone available and accessible to as many people as possible in the country, regardless of anti-abortion special interests trying to undermine patients’ access.”

Stateline reporter Kelcie Moseley-Morris can be reached at kmoseley@stateline.org.

This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Washington State Standard, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

Homeless veterans are a common sight in Washington, which ranks fourth in the country for the number of veterans without housing relative to population. Unfortunately, this leads to stereotypes and — worse — inaction.

Take it from a veteran who’s been homeless: Just because you see me in the streets doesn’t mean I’m not working.

After their service, many veterans struggle with low-wage work, mental health issues, and challenges with their families. It’s something most people don’t want to talk about, but it’s all too real for veterans across the country — including me.

For years, I’ve oscillated between stable work and transitional housing. At different times, I’ve slept in shelters, outside the public library, or back in the woods. I’ve been a volunteer advocate for veterans experiencing homelessness because I’ve experienced it myself.

For me (like so many others), things came to a head during the pandemic. During those difficult years, I lost contracts at work, lost my transportation, and separated from my wife. And unfortunately, I wasn’t able to get the help I needed from the Veterans Administration.

My situation wasn’t due simply to poor choices or a lack of fortitude — I was in the military, so I know how to be strong and resourceful. It’s because our frayed social safety net isn’t working, turning temporary setbacks into more enduring problems.

I’m an independent contractor. Gigs evaporated during the pandemic, which started the spiral. I’ve gotten back into more steady employment since then, but it’s very difficult for gig workers to access government assistance programs like SNAP.

We don’t often have the rigorous documentation, fixed addresses, or steady work required to jump through the complex hoops to access assistance when we need it. The GOP’s new “work requirements” for SNAP benefits — which are more accurately described as burdensome paperwork requirements  — will make this even more difficult.

There’s also the problem of the “benefits cliff” — that is, the abrupt cancellation of all benefits if you earn even a little over a maximum allowable amount. So even when I’m able to qualify for SNAP and get some food on my table, I’m faced with a quandary the next time a gig comes in: Should I take that $400 job if it means losing my food stamp allowance?

Choices like these put working people in an impossible position. And don’t get me started on trying to access more benefits through the Veterans Administration — navigating the bureaucracy practically requires a doctorate.

But as difficult as it was, the pandemic did have its bright sides. Under the last administration’s American Rescue Plan, many programs were expanded, and a lot of red tape was cut. It was easier to apply for SNAP, Medicaid, unemployment, and other help.

It was a time when the government worked directly to lower unemployment rates, giving workers more power to bargain for higher wages. It kept me afloat long enough to find a temporary housing situation and to continue working.

Unfortunately, those expansions eventually expired — and under the new administration, more benefits are being cut and more red tape imposed. Unsurprisingly, poverty and homelessness have both increased. President Trump’s 2027 budget proposal proposes even more cuts to antipoverty programs.

As a veteran, I served my country. As a volunteer, I served my community. Yet the structural barriers to economic security lurk behind every closed door. I’m finally once again in a transitional housing situation and praying it lasts long enough for me to finally access the V.A. benefits I’m owed.

My story isn’t unique. Homeless veterans — and all people in this country — deserve access to higher-paying jobs and more affordable health care. We need robust safety net programs like Medicaid, SNAP, and public housing, with more stable benefits and less red tape. And we need to make sure there’s support for people without housing to navigate these programs and get help.

I want to see the country I fought for invest more in everyday people, families, and communities so we don’t have to suffer just to get by. I served my country — I’m still waiting for it to fulfill its promise to serve me back.

This op-ed was distributed by OtherWords.org.

After the U.S. Supreme Court severely weakened the federal Voting Rights Act in an April 29 decision, a furious U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries condemned what he called an “illegitimate” conservative majority on the court.

“This isn’t even the Roberts Court,” Jeffries said, referring to Chief Justice John Roberts. “It’s the Trump Court.”

Democrats are renewing their calls to overhaul the Supreme Court in the wake of the court’s decision, which empowers states to gerrymander congressional maps in ways that will break apart districts where a majority of residents are Black, Hispanic or belong to other minority groups. 

The momentous opinion overturned the reasoning behind decades of court cases that relied on the 1965 Voting Rights Act, a law born of efforts to stamp out Jim Crow voting laws in the South, to protect these majority-minority districts.

For years, critics of the court, where conservatives enjoy a 6-3 majority, have pushed for changes. Those efforts often center on expanding the size of the court to dilute the influence of the majority or imposing term limits on the justices, though other ideas, like narrowing the kinds of cases the court can consider, have also been discussed.

But the April 29 decision seems to be the last straw for some Democrats and progressives, though they are unlikely to be able to force any of the changes on their wishlist — at least for a long time. 

After rulings in recent years that ended the federal right to an abortion and handed President Donald Trump sweeping immunity from criminal prosecution while in office, they are fed up with a court they view as unmoored from the law and ruling based on politics.

“We cannot protect voting rights, civil rights or the environment as long as we have a Supreme Court majority that is captured by MAGA authoritarians,” Doug Lindner, senior director of judiciary and democracy at the League of Conservation Voters, an environmental advocacy group, told reporters on Thursday. “We need to take back our Supreme Court.”

Any effort to impose significant changes at the court will encounter stiff Republican opposition. GOP lawmakers have praised the court’s latest decision and some see long-serving Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito as conservative icons. Unless Democrats win 60 seats in the Senate or eliminate the filibuster, Congress is highly unlikely to pass a major overhaul.

Republicans have denounced past proposals to change the court. After President Joe Biden proposed 18-year terms for justices and other changes in July 2024, U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson said the plan “would tilt the balance of power and erode not only the rule of law, but the American people’s faith in our system of justice.”

No action under Biden

Supreme Court reform has long percolated as an issue among Democrats and progressives, but picked up steam during the 2020 presidential primary campaign. 

The court’s ideological makeup had already moved toward conservatives after Justice Anthony Kennedy, often a swing vote on key decisions, retired in 2018 and was replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a conservative. Republicans then cemented a firm 6-3 majority on the court in the fall of 2020 after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal, died and was replaced by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Campaigning for president, then-candidate Biden voiced support for a presidential commission that would study court reform. After winning election, Biden named a blue ribbon panel of law professors, former judges and other lawyers, which issued a final report in December 2021.

The commission’s report stopped short of endorsing structural changes. It took no position on expanding the size of the court from nine members, citing “profound disagreement” among commission members over the idea. The commission also adopted no stance on term limits for justices.

The report was essentially put on a shelf — Biden made no serious effort to advance a court overhaul, though he later proposed some reforms after ending his campaign for reelection.

Public opinion dropping

Americans’ view of the Supreme Court has been falling. An August 2025 Pew Research Center survey found 48% of Americans hold a favorable view of the court, a 22-percentage point drop from August 2020.

A survey released in September 2025 by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania found 69% support for term limits but only 31% support for expanding the size of the court.

Eric J. Segall, a law professor at Georgia State University and the executive director of the Emmet J. Bondurant Center for Constitutional Law, Practice and Democracy, said past courts would have been responsive to the prospect of legislation, but the current court isn’t swayed by public opinion.

In some cases the court tries to preserve its legitimacy by giving the other side a win, Segall said, but in general the court’s decisions since 2018, when Kennedy retired, can be explained by viewing the court as a subset of the Republican Party.

“This court is defined by the Republican Party,” he said.

Segall has called for dividing the court evenly between conservative and liberal appointees. An evenly-split court would encourage greater compromise among the justices, he contends. He also supports expanding the court and term limits if possible. But he bluntly predicted court reform wouldn’t happen in his lifetime.

“If Democrats have the power to do it, they won’t do it,” Segall said.

Action unlikely, at least in short term

Jeffries, who will likely become U.S. House speaker if Democrats retake the chamber in the November midterm elections, said this week that “everything was on the table” in terms of the Supreme Court.

“In the new Congress, we’re going to have to do something about this Supreme Court,” Jeffries told the MeidasTouch Network.

Rep. John Rose, a Tennessee Republican, said on social media that Jeffries’ comments show that Democrats are preparing to “nuke the filibuster and pack the Supreme Court the second they’re back in power.”

Trump and some Republicans in Congress, convinced Democrats will end the filibuster to pass priorities like Supreme Court reform, want Republicans to end the filibuster first and enact a host of conservative priorities before the party potentially loses control of the Senate following the November elections.

But even if Democrats end the filibuster, the party faces a steep climb to changing the court unless it retakes control of Congress and the White House. That means any major overhaul almost certainly wouldn’t become law until at least 2029.

Trump’s response

Trump has had a turbulent relationship with the court but would be virtually certain to veto legislation remaking it while he remains in office.

While the justices have protected Trump and future presidents from criminal prosecution for actions taken as part of their presidential duties, they struck down his sweeping worldwide tariffs as illegal, dealing a major blow to one of his signature policies. They also refused to hear legal challenges that sought to overturn Trump’s 2020 election loss.

Still, Trump scoffed on Thursday at Democratic hopes to remake the court in the future. He accused the party of wanting 21 justices on the court (Democratic-sponsored plans in recent years have called for 13 or 15 justices). He also called Jeffries’ comments a “dangerous statement.”

“Hakeem Jeffries said the Supreme Court is illegitimate,” Trump said Thursday. “That’s a rough statement.”

SPOKANE, Wash. — Former Spokane Mayor Nadine Woodward is seeking $10 million from the city after she was censured for appearing at a prayer service held by right-wing religious leaders in 2023.

Woodward, a long-time television news anchor here, was defeated in her reelection bid three months after the August 2023 censure by the City Council.

Her attorney filed an amended tort claim with the city in mid-April, raising the amount sought in the original claim from $1.5 million to $10 million.

Woodward contended the censure was a “scarlet letter” that continues to harm her.

City spokeswoman Erin Hut on Wednesday declined to comment on Woodward’s new claim.

The issue began when Woodward went on stage during a Let Us Worship event in Spokane, headlined by prominent right-wing pastor Sean Feucht. The event also featured former Washington state legislator Matt Shea, a religious conservative who was kicked out of the GOP caucus in the Washington House of Representatives in 2019 after it branded him a domestic terrorist who posed a threat of political violence.

During the Spokane event in 2023, Shea blessed Woodward and the two hugged as she walked off stage. Woodward’s attendance was captured on video and widely shown on newscasts.

Shortly after, the Spokane City Council passed a resolution denouncing Woodward’s attendance at the event. Woodward subsequently lost her November reelection bid to Democrat Lisa Brown, a former state legislative leader.

Woodward herself filed her initial tort claim for damages in 2024. In addition to the city, Woodward named the four City Council members who voted for the resolution as defendants.

After a lack of response from the city, Woodward, who now works as a real estate agent, hired attorney Mary Schultz to pursue her case. 

In the new claim, Woodward contended the city and the four council members violated her constitutional rights with an abuse of legislative power that “resulted in harassment by the media, estrangement from her social group, supporters and neighbors, and loss of business and professional opportunities.”

She contended she was a victim of “character assassination,” and continued to “suffer ongoing injury, including vitriol, backlash and threats,” the claim said.

Schultz said neither federal or state constitutions allow legislators to punish local officials for “listening to whatever political or religious views are being discussed in our community.”

In her claim, Woodward asked the court to declare the censure resolution unconstitutional, direct that it be vacated and award her damages.

“The legislative assault arose solely from Woodward’s having attended a disfavored public prayer/political event, and being ‘embraced’ by one of its leaders,” Schultz wrote in the amended claim.

Woodward joined Shea on stage in August 2023 during a stop on the Kingdom to the Capitol tour, a religious and political event organized by Feucht and his Let Us Worship group.

Shortly before introducing Woodward, Shea had compared same-sex marriage and transgender rights to wildfires that had just devastated some nearby communities.

After her attendance became widely publicized, Woodward denounced Shea as a threat to democracy and distanced herself from his political views. She maintained that she had not known that Shea would be present at the event and believed its purpose was to pray for the victims of the wildfires.

Shea disputed Woodward’s explanation.

“This is an annual event planned months ago to worship Jesus,” Shea wrote on social media after Woodward’s complaints. “It wasn’t for ‘fire victims.’ She was invited and she accepted BEFORE the fires started.”

Massachusetts and Rhode Island are considering dropping GLP-1 drugs for obesity treatment from their Medicaid programs, continuing a trend of states that have stopped coverage of these expensive medications. 

Thirteen state Medicaid programs are covering GLP-1 drugs for the treatment of obesity this year, down from 16 last year. 

Medicaid programs in California, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and South Carolina have eliminated coverage of the drugs for weight loss, because the expense strained state budgets. 

In Massachusetts, the governor’s proposed fiscal 2028 budget would not fund the state’s Medicaid program, MassHealth, to cover GLP-1 medications for weight loss alone, though the state would continue covering the drugs for diabetes and other conditions. The legislature is still debating the state budget. 

Rhode Island’s governor also has proposed removing GLP-1 coverage from the state’s Medicaid program for weight loss treatment. 

North Carolina reinstated such coverage in mid-December after having dropped it in October. 

Medicaid programs in Delaware, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin also cover the drugs for obesity treatment, according to KFF, a health policy research group. 

But some states, such as Michigan, have restricted eligibility for these medications to morbidly obesity patients rather than those who are overweight or obese. The move is expected to save the state an estimated $240 million. 

Meanwhile, lawmakers in Louisiana are debating whether to allow Medicaid to cover GLP-1s for obesity treatment if enrollees have another chronic condition, or comorbidity, such as prediabetes, hypertension or cardiovascular disease.  

The medications generally have been too expensive for people without insurance. In February, one of the largest producers of these drugs, Novo Nordisk, announced it would reduce their list prices to $675 per month in 2027. 

Gross spending on Medicaid prescriptions for GLP-1s — for diabetes as well as for weight loss — has increased from around $1 billion in 2019 to almost $9 billion in 2024 as demand for these drugs has risen, according to KFF. 

At the same time almost 40% of adults and a quarter of children with Medicaid have obesity and may benefit from having access to the drugs, according to KFF. 

Stateline reporter Shalina Chatlani can be reached at schatlani@stateline.org.

This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Washington State Standard, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

Single-family housing starts in March were at their highest since 2022, a fast start to the construction year that could bring more supply to home markets that are still painfully expensive.

The new data from surveys was released April 29 by the U.S. Census Bureau, with information from February and March delayed by issues with the federal government shutdown.  

Nationwide, there were 88,900 single-family housing starts in March, the most for that month since March 2022, when there were 100,100. At the same time, however, February numbers were revised down to 66,900, the lowest for that month since 2019.

window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}});

A slow February followed by a busy March for housing starts could mean that weather warmed up later than usual in much of the United States, and also that optimism about interest rates led builders to break ground in March — before the Iran war started another round of rate increases, according to an analysis by the Shovel to Keys home construction trends site.  

New permits for single-family homes also fell compared with March 2025, even as housing starts jumped, a sign that the pipeline for new building may be drying up.  

It makes sense that builders might be cautious given the current economic and political climate, wrote Realtor.com senior economist Joel Berner in an April 29 report. “Builder margins are being squeezed by rising material costs that stem from today’s geopolitical uncertainty on top of the already-high costs of land and labor.”

It was the best March for single-family starts since 2021 in the Northeast and the Midwest, the best since 2022 in the West, and the best since 2024 in the South. The South has most of the single-family starts – 50,000 out of the total 88,900 nationwide.  

Sales of existing homes fell 1% in March from last year and the median price increased 1.4% to $403,100, according to an April 13 report from the National Association of Realtors. Chief Economist Lawrence Yun, in a statement, said fewer people can afford homes because of an uncertain economy and also a low supply of homes for sale. 

“Inventory remains a major constraint on the market,” Yun wrote. “An additional 300,000 to 500,000 homes for sale would help bring the market closer to normal conditions and allow consumers to make purchase decisions without feeling rushed.”

Stateline reporter Tim Henderson can be reached at thenderson@stateline.org.

This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Washington State Standard, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

Shortly after purchasing 74 acres in a state timber sale on the northern end of the Olympic Peninsula, Bruce Webster received a phone call from Earth Law Center attorney Elizabeth Dunne. She asked if the Elwha Legacy Forests Coalition could pay Webster the amount he would make from logging to forgo the removal of the 2 acres of trees surrounding Sadie Creek Campground. 

Webster agreed and set a price: $32,000.

The agreement would allow Webster to pay the Department of Natural Resources its management fee. It would allow counties and junior taxing districts to get their fair share of it, too, Webster said.

“It’s kind of a win-win for everybody,” he said.

When approached about the agreement in September last year, Public Lands Commissioner Dave Upthegrove said the plan wouldn’t work. 

Upthegrove, who campaigned on a promise to save older forests on state-owned land, said he couldn’t change a sale that took place before he became commissioner. Though, he told Dunne in an email, it is “very much the sort of idea I want to explore.” 

“It’s two acres, for God’s sake,” said WendyRae Johnson, soil advocate and a member of the forest coalition. “I just thought it would be a no-brainer.”

The dispute over saving the Sadie Creek forest has played out over the last two years, but the clock is ticking for the Elwha Legacy Forests Coalition. Webster gave the group a Monday deadline to raise the $32,000. As of Thursday afternoon, the group has raised nearly $17,000.

But without the Department of Natural Resources’ backing, the land remains harvestable even if the coalition pays Webster, Upthegrove told the Standard.

In his forty years of logging, Webster never heard of a group buying out a portion of a timber sale for conservation, but he has no problem with it. He would make $16,000 and give the Department of Natural Resources the same amount. 

“My side is pretty straightforward. If you can do that, we can do it. If not, I’ve got to start cutting,” he said.  

The sale

The Sadie Creek Campground is located about 20 miles west of Port Angeles, just off State Route 112. It is part of the 74 acres within the Doc Holliday timber sale. The area is filled with a mix of Douglas firs, western red cedars, and sitka spruce, with some up to 125 years old. A nearby salmon-bearing stream is also on the property. 

The state-managed area has miles of trails for hikers, horseback riders and off-highway vehicle riders, offering views of the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Vancouver Island. With a Discover Pass, visitors can camp overnight at any one of its six campsites for free.

The timber sale didn’t come without protest. 

Elwha Legacy Forests Coalition, which is a grassroots volunteer organization, documented trees larger than 60 inches in diameter that had not been previously marked by the agency, pointing out that the Department of Natural Resources had missed those, according to Scott McGee, founding member of the coalition. 

As state law requires, the Department of Natural Resources cannot allow the logging of trees of that size.

Another group, known as the Troublemakers, removed all boundary markers in one unit of the Doc Holliday tract and turned them into the agency with a letter urging them to cancel the sale. 

The Department of Natural Resources put the markers back in place and added the larger trees the coalition found to those that wouldn’t be cut down. 

Webster Logging bought the timber for $620,000 in August 2024. 

After the sale, S’Klallam tribal members wrote a letter to Upthegrove explaining the cultural significance of the land. 

“The forest of Sadie Creek… is home to plants critical to traditional medicine and ceremonial practices,” it said. “Sadie Creek provided our people with their first canoe, a testament to the enduring bond between the forest and the Skallam peoples way of life.”

‘Uncharted territory’

Randy Johnson, Clallam County commissioner and member of the Board of Natural Resources, approached Upthegrove this week to discuss saving the two acres of campground. 

“Maybe there is a way to make something happen,” Upthegrove told the Standard on Wednesday. “There is something compelling about the very small scale of this.”

The logging company has not approached Upthegrove, he said. The agreement set in place between the logging company and the forest coalition doesn’t include the Department of Natural Resources. That means the land could theoretically be put up again in another sale. 

Upthegrove described the situation as uncharted territory.

“The question isn’t just about two acres,” he said. “It’s about, are we going to get into the business of conservation easements as a department?”

“To have the first one posed be on a sale that’s already at this stage makes it even more complicated,” he added.

More recently, Upthegrove said he developed a conversation lease workgroup within the agency to develop procedures for how something like this would work. He said he would continue looking into the issue, but couldn’t give a timeline.

Others aren’t impressed with Upthegrove’s handling of the situation. 

“So you run for office, but then you’re not going to change anything that ever happened before?” said Bill Bryant, former Republican candidate for governor and founding board member of the Nisqually River Foundation. 

“The Sadie Creek sale highlights that Washington State does not value forests beyond their timber value,” he said. “The only person standing in the way of this is the commissioner.”

Stephen Kropp, founder of the Legacy Forest Defense Coalition, has sued the Department of Natural Resources on numerous occasions over timber sales with older trees. 

“He completely ignores the fact, the reality, that these forests and many watersheds are going to disappear on his watch,” Kropp said. “He’s literally presiding over the liquidation of the last remaining legacy forests.”

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision gutting the federal Voting Rights Act could upend American politics and trigger a new rush to redraw congressional districts.

The opinion released on Wednesday, in a case called Louisiana v. Callais, holds sweeping consequences for how states and local governments draw district lines at all levels of government, from Congress to school boards. 

Louisiana, whose congressional map is at the center of the case, may even suspend an upcoming primary election so state lawmakers can pass a new map. Other states are also weighing new gerrymanders, either this year or before the 2028 election. 

Gerrymandering refers to drawing political maps for the purpose of gaining some form of unfair advantage — whether partisan or racial or to help or hurt an incumbent or candidate.

Following the decision, Democrats are calling for Congress to pass new federal voting rights legislation, but President Donald Trump would likely veto it. Others are urging more radical changes, including expanding the size of the Supreme Court.

As the nation responds to the decision, here’s a States Newsroom look at the decision, what it means and what could happen next.

What is Louisiana v. Callais?

After the 2020 census, the Louisiana Legislature passed a congressional map that included one district where a majority of residents are Black. About a third of the state’s population is Black.

States typically draw new congressional lines once a decade following the census, though several states have pushed through new maps this year after Trump called on Republicans to maximize their political advantage heading into the midterm elections this November.

Black voters challenged the Louisiana map and an appeals court ordered lawmakers to pass a new map. The legislature in 2024 approved a map that includes a second district where a majority of residents are Black, also called a majority-minority district.

In response, a group of white voters sued over the new map, claiming it violated the U.S. Constitution and was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The Constitution’s 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law and the 15th Amendment prohibits denying the right to vote on the basis of race.

The lead plaintiff in the case is Phillip Callais, hence the case’s name. The New York Times reported last year that Callais is a veteran who lives near Baton Rouge. 

The Supreme Court held its first oral argument on the case in March 2025. But instead of issuing a decision later that spring, the court held a second round of oral argument in October. 

At that time, comments by the conservative justices strongly suggested the court was interested in weakening the federal Voting Rights Act.

What is the Voting Rights Act and what role did it play in redistricting?

The Voting Rights Act, or VRA, is a 1965 federal law passed by Congress and signed by President Lyndon Johnson.

The law was designed to stop racial discrimination in voting and combat Jim Crow laws like literacy tests that Southern states used to prevent Black people from voting.

It contains several sections but the Supreme Court decision in Callais dealt with Section 2. That section prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race and other characteristics. In 1982, Congress expanded Section 2 to ban voting practices that have a discriminatory effect, whether or not the law was intended to discriminate.

Section 2 has acted as a ban on racial gerrymandering, or the practice of drawing districts to minimize the political influence of minority voters. Over time, that’s led to the creation of numerous majority-minority congressional districts.

Many of these majority-minority districts are located in Republican-controlled Southern states  but are held by Democrats. In the past, if states drew new maps to spread minority voters across several districts, they could face challenges in federal court under Section 2.

What did the Supreme Court decide?

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Louisiana’s congressional map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. 

The court found that because the Voting Rights Act didn’t require Louisiana to create a second majority-minority district, the state didn’t have a compelling reason to consider race when drawing its map.

Under the court’s reasoning, Section 2 only applies when evidence supports a strong inference that intentional discrimination occurred. In other words, lawmakers only violate Section 2 when they draw districts with the purpose of affording minority voters less opportunity because of their race.

The court’s majority opinion says “none of the historical evidence presented by plaintiffs came close to showing an objective likelihood that the State’s challenged map was the result of intentional racial discrimination.”

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, which was joined by all of the court’s conservatives: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neal Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

The court’s three liberal justices — Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson — dissented.

Why is the decision a big deal?

The decision empowers states to gerrymander in ways that break apart districts where a majority of residents are Black, Hispanic or belong to another minority group.

In 2019 the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts would no longer take cases about partisan gerrymandering. That’s where states draw maps to help a political party.

Because many majority-minority districts in the South are held by Democrats, the Callais decision gives Republican states the power to break apart these districts if they can show they are doing so for a partisan purpose.

“Under the Court’s new view of Section 2, a State can, without legal consequence, systematically dilute minority citizens’ voting power,” Kagan wrote in a dissent.

In the short term, the decision means several Black Democrats in the U.S. House may lose their seats if states pass new maps either this year before the November midterm elections or before the 2028 election. At least one projection has pegged the potential losses as high as 19 seats.

The loss of even a few Black representatives would constitute the largest drop in Black representation in Congress since Reconstruction following the Civil War, according to an NPR analysis. 

In the long term, minority voters will have a more difficult time electing their preferred candidates if they are moved into majority-white districts. The decision also applies to state legislative districts, meaning the number of Black state lawmakers may drop as well.

What impact does the Voting Rights Act have after the ruling?

Not nearly as much.

The Supreme Court’s decision didn’t strike down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. But Kagan and other critics of the opinion say the protections once extended by Section 2 are effectively dead.

To block a map under Section 2, challengers will now have to show states intentionally discriminated against minority voters, a very difficult standard when states can say they drew maps for partisan advantage.

In a series of decisions during the past 13 years, the Supreme Court has also weakened other elements of the Voting Rights Act.

In 2013, the court effectively blocked preclearance, another major portion of the law contained in Section 5. Preclearance required states and local governments with a history of discrimination to obtain federal permission before making voting changes.

Preclearance applied to most Southern states and a handful of others. The justices didn’t strike down preclearance, but ruled that the criteria used to determine whether governments should be subject to preclearance was unconstitutional.

The law required districts that had voting tests in place in 1964 and had less than 50% turnout in the 1964 presidential election as eligible for preclearance. The court found that the criteria no longer made sense and were outdated. 

In theory, Congress could pass new criteria that would restore preclearance.

How are Republicans responding?

Republicans in Southern states are pushing for new maps that could hand their party more seats in the November elections — but also oust Black Democratic members of Congress.

Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry, a Republican, announced on Thursday that the state’s primary election, set for mid-May, would be paused. The suspension will give time for state lawmakers to redraw the state’s congressional map to eliminate the state’s second majority-minority district.

“We are working together with the Legislature and the Secretary of State’s office to develop a path forward,” Landry said in a statement.

Florida lawmakers passed a new map hours after the court’s decision that could provide Republicans with up to four additional seats. Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis had introduced the map earlier in the week and had cited Callais in urging lawmakers to act.

In Tennessee, Sen. Marsha Blackburn, a Republican running for governor, called on state lawmakers to pass a new map. Prominent Republicans in Georgia said the state should pass a new map.

Not all Republicans are pushing for immediate action. Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey said that while she supports the Supreme Court’s decision, the state wasn’t in a position to hold a special session to redistrict.

How are Democrats responding?

Democrats have condemned the Supreme Court’s opinion and say lawmakers and the public should fight back.

Many Democrats say Congress should pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, named after civil rights activist and Georgia Democratic Rep. John Lewis, who died in 2020. The legislation would set new criteria for preclearance, seeking to restore the practice after the Supreme Court stopped it in 2013.

The U.S. House passed the measure in 2021, but it didn’t advance through the Senate. 

Enacting the measure remains extremely difficult. If Democrats retake control of Congress in the November elections, Trump would almost certainly veto the measure. Republicans in the U.S. Senate would also likely block the bill, unless Democrats eliminate the filibuster.

Democrats are also weighing a new round of gerrymanders in blue states. While most attention has focused on Southern Republican states, Democrats can now also engage in racial vote dilution in states like California to secure additional U.S. House seats.

Some Democrats and opponents of the Supreme Court’s decision are pushing for other responses. 

They include expanding the size of the court from nine justices to dilute its conservative majority, implementing term limits for justices, banning mid-decade redistricting or requiring states to use independent commissions to draw congressional maps.

“We must continue to fight for a democracy in which every vote counts, and in which every vote holds equal power, starting by banning mid-decade gerrymanders nationwide and establishing fair redistricting criteria,” Sen. Alex Padilla, a California Democrat, said in a statement.

But those changes would require federal legislation, giving Republicans the opportunity to stop the proposals through filibusters in the Senate or by Trump’s veto.

Retired police officers and firefighters in Washington, including former Congressman Dave Reichert, sued the state Thursday to block an attempt to raid their pension fund to help with ongoing budget shortfalls.

The retired first responders argue the maneuver leaves their pensions vulnerable to market downturns and is unconstitutional.

The new law, signed this month by Gov. Bob Ferguson, terminates the overfunded pension account at the end of June 2029. It would then reinstate the fund, leaving 110% of what the state expects to owe its members. As of June 2024, the fund was 160% funded. By 2029, it’s expected to reach more than 200%.

This move is expected to sweep nearly $4 billion from the Law Enforcement Officers’ and Firefighters’ System Plan 1, or LEOFF 1, with that surplus put into a separate pot where it could potentially cover general state expenses.

Backers of the legislation note that about 80% of the contributions to the pension plan came from the state, with the remaining 20% split between local government employers and workers.

The Legislature and governor intend to use $880 million from the fund to backfill spending from the state’s rainy day savings account. Tapping that money from reserves in the current budget cycle helps fill an estimated $2 billion budget gap. Washington still faces a looming deficit to be dealt with when legislators return to Olympia next year.

The Democrat-backed law passed the Legislature on narrow margins, with some Democrats joining Republicans in opposition.

The potential class-action lawsuit, filed Thursday in federal court in Seattle, argues the move violates the contract clauses of the state and U.S. constitutions. The complaint argues the prevailing legal stance has been that the money in the account can only be used for its beneficiaries.

A spokesperson for the state attorney general said Thursday morning that the office hadn’t had a chance to fully review the suit yet.

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Timm Ormsby, D-Spokane, said he doesn’t believe the law “runs afoul of any court precedent,” after consultation with outside legal experts focused on pensions during the legislative process. 

“Whatever pension those firefighters and law enforcement signed when they came into service, those benefits are guaranteed,” Ormsby said, adding that the redirected surplus funding will be used for the benefit of all Washingtonians.

On the other side, Steve Berman, an attorney for the plaintiffs bringing the lawsuit from Seattle-based firm Hagens Berman, said in a statement that using the money for purposes other than paying out benefits would be a “gross miscarriage of justice.”

The lawsuit also fears that leaving the pension account with only 110% of benefits leaves the fund at risk in the case of a market downturn. Pension funds are allocated across stocks and other investments. The Washington State Investment Board manages the LEOFF 1 fund.

State actuaries have said the law “increases the potential of future state contributions if adverse experience occurs.” The actuarial office expects $3.9 billion from the account to be swept in 2029, under current assumptions.

“Our state lawmakers are flirting with a very dangerous move that jeopardizes the futures and securities of Washington’s first responders and retired law enforcement officers,” Berman said.

Compared to other states, Washington has a reputation for well-managed pension systems.

As of earlier this year, the LEOFF 1 fund had fewer than 6,000 members, just a few of whom were still working. Contributions were suspended in 2000, as the account became fully funded. 

Reichert, a former King County sheriff, is one of the lead plaintiffs. After his law enforcement career, he went on to serve in Congress from 2005 to 2019. He was also the Republican candidate for governor in 2024, losing to Ferguson.

Reichert said “it almost seems like elder abuse in a way.”

“The reasons for needing the money are suspect to us, and it’s also offensive that they’ve just disregarded the emotional, physical trauma that these 5,500 remaining cops and firefighters have experienced throughout their career,” he said. 

The other plaintiffs include a retired King County sheriff’s deputy, Seattle police officer, Seattle fire official and Lacey officer, among others. 

The system is available to police officers and firefighters hired before Oct. 1, 1977. A separate pension fund, unaffected by the new law, covers those who started work after that date.

When the law takes effect June 11, the clock starts for beneficiaries to sue in state court, said Kathryn Leathers, director of the Department of Retirement Systems. 

Under the law, pension participants will have until Dec. 31, 2027 to file a suit. There’s a provision mandating claims are “subject to direct review” by the state Supreme Court. And the department must notify every active member, retiree and spousal survivor of this process.

Litigation in state court would proceed on a different legal track than Thursday’s federal suit.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

This appears to mark the first time a state has ever terminated a public employee pension plan. The state will need to get approval from the Internal Revenue Service to proceed.

The lawsuit hasn’t been scheduled for a hearing.

Some lawmakers this year had also pushed to use the pension funding to backfill the state’s climate account, but that idea was set aside.

Reporter Jerry Cornfield contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump signed a bill Thursday that will fund almost every agency in the Department of Homeland Security for the next five months, ending the shutdown that began in mid-February. 

The House approved the bill, which doesn’t include additional spending on Immigration and Customs Enforcement or the Border Patrol, on a voice vote earlier in the day.

The DHS shutdown, the third funding lapse in the last year, stalled paychecks for federal employees throughout much of the department, including those at the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Transportation Security Administration. 

Trump enacting the DHS appropriations bill finally marks an end to the annual government funding process that was supposed to be wrapped up before the end of September. 

Connecticut Democratic Rep. Rosa DeLauro, ranking member on the Appropriations Committee, said during brief floor debate it was “about damn time” Republican leaders brought the bill to the floor. 

DeLauro said that “from the outset” Democrats wanted to negotiate with Republicans to address “armed, masked agents marauding our streets and terrorizing people in our communities.”

“It has been the Republicans (who) have been intransigent and not willing to do that,” she said. “But there we go. Today we’re going to do it. It could have been done 76 days ago. I’ll take it today.” 

Texas Republican Rep. Chip Roy said separating out funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol from the DHS funding bill “is offensive to the men and women who serve” in those agencies. 

“While we are all unified in funding the rest of DHS, we are absolutely horrified that we are blowing up the appropriations process to target those brave men and women who are doing the Lord’s work to keep us safe from cartels, from dangerous actors and from illegal aliens across the streets of America that have been endangering the American people,” he said. 

Republicans plan to use the complex budget reconciliation process to fund ICE and the Border Patrol for the rest of Trump’s term without negotiating any new guardrails on immigration agents. 

One shutdown after another

Instead of completing the dozen annual government funding bills before their Oct. 1 deadline, lawmakers’ stark differences over funding and policy led to a trio of shutdowns that stalled paychecks for federal employees and wreaked havoc on hundreds of programs. 

The first shutdown, which affected much of the federal government, lasted 43 days as Democrats tried unsuccessfully to extend the enhanced tax credits for people who purchase their health insurance from the Affordable Care Act marketplace. 

A partial shutdown lasting four days ended in early February when lawmakers approved a stopgap spending bill for the Department of Homeland Security alongside the remaining full-year appropriations bills for other departments. 

But lawmakers failed to reach a bipartisan agreement to place constraints on federal immigration agents before the temporary funding bill for DHS expired on Feb. 14, leading to a third shutdown for the department.  

Senate Democrats demanded several restrictions on immigration agents after federal officers shot and killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis in January. While Republicans control both chambers of Congress, most bills cannot move through the Senate without the support of at least 60 lawmakers. 

After nearly six weeks, Senate Republican leaders agreed to remove funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol from the DHS appropriations bill, unanimously sending it to the House for approval in late March.

House hangup

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said at the time a plan to use the complex budget reconciliation process to provide three years of funding for ICE and Border Patrol wasn’t acceptable. He refused to put the Senate-passed bill on the House floor for a vote. 

The Senate tried again in early April, sending an identical bill to the House, which Johnson declined to schedule a vote on until Thursday. 

The House vote on the DHS appropriations bill happened less than a day after Republicans in that chamber voted to adopt the budget resolution that unlocks the reconciliation process. Republican senators approved the tax and spending blueprint earlier this month. 

Congress’ budget resolution isn’t a bill and doesn’t need to go to the president for his signature in order to take effect. It doesn’t actually fund anything, but is designed to help lawmakers plan tax and spending policy for the next decade. 

GOP lawmakers intend to use the reconciliation process the budget resolution provides to approve a bill in the coming weeks that will provide up to $140 billion for ICE and Border Patrol. That avoids the need to place any new constraints on federal immigration officers in order to get Democrats’ votes to limit Senate debate. 

Members of Congress will, however, still need to find agreement on funding for the rest of government ahead of the next fiscal year, which will begin on Oct. 1. 

Another impasse will mean another shutdown, just weeks before the November midterm elections. 

The U.S. House approved, 224-200, a five-year farm bill Thursday as members of Congress attempt to update major agriculture and nutrition policy after three years of extensions.

The bill would authorize subsidy and nutrition assistance programs through fiscal 2031. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated an earlier version of the bill would not meaningfully affect discretionary federal spending over an 11-year window, and would add $162 million in mandatory spending over the next six years.

Most Democrats opposed the bill, but 14 voted in favor. Three Republicans voted against. Six members did not vote.

The Democrats in favor were: Sanford Bishop of Georgia, Jim Costa and Adam Gray of California, Henry Cuellar and Vicente Gonzalez of Texas, Sharice Davids of Kansas, Donald Davis of North Carolina, Marcy Kaptur of Ohio, Kristen McDonald Rivet of Michigan, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez and Kim Schrier of Washington, Josh Riley of New York, Darren Soto of Florida and Gabe Vasquez of New Mexico.

The Republicans who voted against were: Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Andrew Garbarino of New York and Harriet Hageman of Wyoming.

Few policy changes

Because Republicans’ massive spending and tax cuts law last year made major changes to some U.S. Department of Agriculture programs, mainly the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program that helped about 1 in 8 Americans afford groceries in 2024, the farm bill passed Thursday was a “skinny” version and relatively short on major policy updates.

The bill would still have to pass the Senate, which has not yet introduced its version. 

Arkansas Republican Sen. John Boozman, who chairs the Senate Agriculture Committee, cheered House passage Thursday and said a Senate text would be released “in the coming weeks.”

“This is an important step toward updating long-overdue policies that support our farm families and strengthen rural communities,” he said of the House vote in a statement. “We’ve put more farm in the farm bill through the Working Families Tax Cuts (the GOP spending and tax cuts bill), and this legislation builds on that success.”

New authorizations needed 

Farm bills are typically written to last five years. But Congress last approved a version in 2018. Extensions of the 2018 version were enacted in 2023, 2024 and 2025.

House Agriculture Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson, a Pennsylvania Republican, said the measure would still meaningfully update farm and food programs.

“It is more evident than ever that rural America needs a new farm bill now, not next year or next Congress,” he said. “Producers are operating under the third consecutive farm bill extension and the simple truth is the policies of 2018 are no match for the challenges of 2026.”

Agriculture Committee ranking Democrat Angie Craig of Minnesota opposed the bill, saying it did not address any of the pressing issues that farmers and SNAP recipients face. The bill does not help alleviate the rising costs farmers face from President Donald Trump’s tariffs and “locks in the $187 billion cut” to SNAP in last year’s spending law, Craig said.

“It doesn’t fix any of the underlying policy choices by Republicans and this administration that caused the problems in the first place,” she said, adding that  continuing the SNAP cuts put “more pressure on struggling Americans at a time when the cost of groceries and healthcare continues to grow.  

Craig said Thursday morning that the measure could have helped corn farmers by including a provision to allow gasoline made with 15% ethanol available all year. The product, known as E15, increases demand for corn, but has been limited in summer months because of the pollution it can cause in high temperatures. 

Thompson responded that the committee would consider a separate measure on year-round E15 in mid-May.

Local food, foreign food aid oversight

The bill does include some new provisions.

It would authorize $200 million for a new local food procurement program, to be used largely by food banks. 

It would move authority for foreign food assistance programs under USDA from the now-defunct U.S. Agency for International Development. 

It would raise the limit that individual farmers could borrow from USDA and expand rural development programs that fund substance abuse and mental health services.

Members voted Thursday morning for an amendment that removed a controversial provision to shield pesticide producers from legal liability to warn users of a risk of cancer. If it became law, the provision would have mooted a case argued before the U.S. Supreme Court this week related to a Missouri jury’s award to a user of Monsanto’s popular Roundup weedkiller who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

“Going to make hunger worse”

Several Democrats slammed the bill, but seemed to take more issue with the “big beautiful” law Trump signed last July 4. The farm bill, Massachusetts Democrat Jim McGovern said, would not counteract the changes in that law.

“We are considering on the floor a five-year farm bill that, quite frankly, does nothing for our farmers and screws over poor people and maintains the nearly $200 billion in cuts to SNAP,” the top House Rules Committee Democrat said on the House floor Thursday. “It is going to make hunger worse in this country.”

Thompson said Democrats were too focused on what was not in the bill, rather than the provisions that enjoy bipartisan support.

“Today, you will hear some opposing comments made that this is a partisan bill and even more on what’s not in the bill,” he said at the outset of floor debate. “This bill is filled with good policy that is also overwhelmingly bipartisan.

WASHINGTON — Members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus raised serious concerns Thursday about the impact of a recent Department of Justice decision that will make it easier to deport hundreds of thousands of people brought into the country unlawfully as children, referred to as Dreamers. 

Texas Democratic Rep. Joaquin Castro said the April 24 decision from the Department of Justice’s Board of Immigration Appeals, “put a target for deportation on every single Dreamer in this country.”

The decision from the BIA found that having Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, status is not enough to prevent a deportation, making it easier for Dreamers to be removed from the U.S. There are roughly 500,000 DACA recipients. 

The case before the three-judge panel stemmed from an appeal from immigration attorneys from the Department of Homeland Security after an immigration judge terminated removal proceedings for a DACA recipient, Catalina “Xóchitl” Santiago that cited her status as reason she could not be deported.  

While the decision does not mean Santiago will be immediately deported, it does set precedent for similar cases. 

Separately, immigration advocates have warned that DACA recipients have been swept up in President Donald Trump’s mass deportation drive and have been detained despite their legal status. 

Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chair Adriano Espaillat said the decision will allow immigration judges to remove DACA recipients first without terminating their status.

“Before, you had to terminate their DACA status, before they got deported,” the New York Democrat said. “Now they could go straight ahead and do this egregious action by the Board of Immigration Appeals. This is a serious escalation (of) the assault against DACA recipients.”

Spokespeople for the Justice Department did not return a message seeking comment Thursday.

Trump ‘crusade’ against DACA

Democratic Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada said the recent decision “is the Trump administration’s latest move to attack Dreamers.” She criticized Trump for going back on his comments that he would “work with the Democrats on a plan,” to keep DACA recipients in the country. 

“That is just an indefensible decision,” she said. “Their ruling on DACA is a clear escalation in President Trump’s crusade to strip protections from DACA recipients. He is attacking the program from every angle.”

DACA was created by President Barack Obama’s administration in 2012 to protect eligible residents from deportation and allow them to obtain temporary work permits,  driver’s licenses and to qualify for in-state tuition for higher education.

In Trump’s first term, he tried to rescind the program in 2017 by halting new applications and sending hundreds of thousands of recipients across the country into limbo. The Supreme Court eventually ruled against the Trump administration.

Some Republican-led states have challenged the legality of DACA and an appeals court allowed for work permits to expire in Texas, but kept deportation protections. 

Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson has admitted to violating state ethics law and accepted a $4,000 fine for allowing a former top adviser to travel with him on a state plane to the Tri-Cities last summer.

Under an agreement awaiting action by the state Executive Ethics Board, Ferguson would pay half the fine, with the rest suspended if he commits no new violations for two years.

Ferguson and Kate Reynolds, the board’s executive director, each signed the stipulated agreement earlier this week. The Executive Ethics Board will consider approving, rejecting or modifying it during its May 8 meeting.

By reaching the agreement, Ferguson, a Democrat in his second year as governor, avoids the board conducting a public hearing on the charges and potentially imposing a fine of up to $5,000 for each violation.

In accepting the settlement, Ferguson agreed that evidence “is such that the Board may conclude” that he violated the Ethics in Public Service Act.

Ferguson could not immediately be reached for comment. Brionna Aho, his communications director, said the governor handled the matter without use of state resources.

If the agreement is adopted, it will close the book on allegations arising from the flight last June, which Ferguson invited Mike Webb, his former chief strategy officer, to join. Webb had resigned weeks earlier amid complaints that he fomented a hostile workplace. 

For the flight, employees of the governor’s office occupied six of the plane’s seven seats. Webb sat on a seat over the plane’s toilet.

In January, the board concluded there was “reasonable cause” to believe that the governor’s actions ran afoul of Washington’s ethics laws, which bar the use of state resources for the private benefit of a non-state employee. Reynolds concluded then that the governor provided “a special privilege” to Webb by allowing him to travel on the Washington State Patrol aircraft,

Ferguson contended last year that use of state resources was “de minimis in nature” and not for private gain, and he asked for the matter to be dismissed.

“Allowing an individual to travel as a guest neither interfered with official duties nor provided that individual with any improper advantage derived from state office,” he said in a written response to investigators. 

The agreement obtained Thursday says the governor “admits that they made a mistake, and it will not happen again.”

Ferguson also agreed that he violated two statutes — one barring use of state resources “for the private benefit or gain of a non-state employee” and the other prohibiting him from using his position to secure “a special privilege” to a non-state employee by allowing them to travel on a state aircraft.

The Washington State Patrol told investigators that aircraft costs for the trip were $2,094.68 per flight hour.

Webb, who now works for the Singleton Schreiber law firm, declined to comment.

2025-061 Ferguson Proposed Stipulation

Housing activists in Tacoma are gathering signatures for a ballot initiative that could strengthen enforcement of renter protections.

The initiative is a follow-up to the “Tenant’s Bill of Rights,” also known as the Landlord Fairness Code, passed by Tacoma voters in 2023. That ballot measure added a number of new renter protections, including a ban on excessive fees; winter eviction restrictions; and mandatory relocation assistance for rent increases over 5%.

But activists say compliance has been spotty. If a renter feels their landlord is not compliant with the protections, taking them to court is often their only recourse, and that is out of reach for most tenants, said Kiss’Shonna Curtis, an organizer with Tacoma for All, the group behind the 2023 initiative and the new one this year.

“Litigation is a lengthy process,” Curtis said. “Landlords have a lot of resources, and tenants just don’t have the time, the energy or the money.”

The new initiative — called “Safe Homes for All” — would task the city with issuing fines and going after noncompliant landlords. Enforcement operations would be funded with a new per-unit rental registry fee for landlords.

The idea has been met with pushback from landlords. Sean Flynn, president of the Rental Housing Association of Washington, argues that the added liability and fees would drive out landlords.

“What this tells anyone who’s interested in building or providing housing is: ‘Don’t do it in Tacoma,’” Flynn said.

If the initiative passes, landlords would be required to pay tenants a fee of at least $500 and not more than five times the unit’s monthly rent for each violation of the city’s tenant laws.

“We want to create a real deterrent for landlords on the one hand, and an opportunity for tenants to get some kind of restitution for the harm that is often caused to them through violations,” said Ty Moore, director of Tacoma for All.

The Safe Homes for All initiative would also require the city to create an education program for landlords and tenants, as well as new protections for renters interested in forming a tenant union. Landlords would be required to “engage in good faith bargaining” with tenant unions and post notices in building common areas reminding tenants that they have the right to form a union without retaliation.

“The strongest protection for tenants is going to come from tenants organizing themselves,” Moore said.

Flynn, with the rental housing association, argued that opening up zoning laws and attracting development to Tacoma would be a better approach to address housing affordability — not more regulation.

“You need more housing units, which means you need more housing providers,” Flynn said. “And you don’t attract housing providers to your municipality with this.”

Curtis, with Tacoma for All, is involved in tenant legal aid, and said she regularly hears stories about tenants being charged excessive fees, not being given proper notice of rent increases, and dealing with mold, broken appliances and other code violations that go unchecked.

“The hope is that this initiative would increase accountability and deter landlords from violating in the first place,” Curtis said.

Organizers hope to put the initiative on the November ballot, and are aiming to gather 9,000 signatures by June 15.

Nate Sanford, covering policy and political power dynamics facing young adults for KNKX, is with the Washington State Murrow Fellowships, a local news program supported by state legislators.

Washington’s new law setting stricter eligibility standards for sheriffs was partially blocked in state court on Wednesday, one day before much of it was set to take effect.

The preliminary decision from a Thurston County Superior Court judge came in response to a lawsuit four eastern Washington sheriffs filed against the state.

Senate Bill 5974 established new, equal standards for county sheriffs, who are usually elected, and police chiefs, who are appointed. Failing to meet the new requirements or getting state certification revoked is grounds for removal from office under the new law. 

Wednesday’s court ruling blocks those elements of the law as they relate to sheriffs.

The sheriffs argue that the law undermines the will of voters by creating an administrative path to force elected sheriffs from office if they don’t meet the new requirements.

The state plans to appeal the ruling.

The sheriffs, calling the law “blatantly, flagrantly unconstitutional,” asked Judge Christine Schaller to temporarily halt it from going into effect on an emergency basis while the litigation continues.

“It is a fundamental right to run for elected office, and to vote for elected office, with very, very few exceptions,” Schaller said, finding the Legislature “may have exceeded its constitutional authority.”

“It appears that the Legislature does not trust the people of the state of Washington to have good judgment” to elect sheriffs who promote trust in law enforcement and enhance public safety, the judge continued in lengthy remarks, delivering her ruling for over 40 minutes.

Schaller noted that the remedy to remove a disappointing elected official should be the next election, and “should not be to attempt to limit the candidate pool, or only allow a narrow class of people to be in a candidate pool by creating multiple qualifications for an elected office.”

The new criteria for sheriffs include at least five years of law enforcement experience, no felony or gross misdemeanor convictions, being at least 25 years old and no history of actions that would get state certification as a peace officer revoked. In cases where a sheriff is removed from office, county officials would appoint a replacement.

If they don’t already have it, sheriffs need to get state certification from the Criminal Justice Training Commission within nine months of taking office. Until now, they’ve had a year.

Five-member hearing panels from the Criminal Justice Training Commission make final decisions on decertification. The panels include three civilians and two police officials. These decisions can be appealed. Nearly half of sitting sheriffs have open misconduct complaints against them with the commission, said the plaintiffs’ attorney, Mark Lamb.

Sheriffs say removal from office should be up to their constituents at the ballot box. The seldom-used recall process is currently how voters can remove sheriffs before their term ends.

Lamb argued that under the law, a sheriff could be removed from office if they affiliated with someone who said something perceived as offensive.

“This is an absolutely egregious overreach by the Legislature,” Lamb said. “This law is not a close call.”

Washington Solicitor General Noah Purcell, who argued the state’s case, countered that the law simply extends standards that already apply to rank-and-file officers to police leaders. And he said elected prosecutors and judges are subject to conduct rules that could cost them their law license, and thus their positions. Lamb responded that the bar association isn’t a state governmental body and can’t unilaterally remove officials from office.

Purcell also argued the sheriffs are assessing the law’s consequences based on speculation without it taking effect.

The sheriffs who brought the litigation include: John Nowels of Spokane County, Glenn Blakeslee of Pend Oreille County, Brad Manke of Stevens County and Ray Maycumber of Ferry County. All are up for election this year. The candidate filing deadline is next week.

Blakeslee, Manke and Nowels were in the Olympia courtroom Wednesday, as was Thurston County Sheriff Derek Sanders, who has vocally opposed the law.

After the hearing, Nowels said he was “relieved” at the ruling.

“We’re not hiding from accountability,” Manke said. “We are absolutely accountable to the people that elect us. This is really about protecting free and fair elections and protecting our voters’ rights.”

The case had originally been based in Pend Oreille County, but a judge there moved it to Thurston County, where the state government is based and another related case is ongoing, to avoid diverging rulings in the separate lawsuits. 

The other case, which was scheduled to be heard Friday in Thurston County and lodges similar complaints, was filed by the Washington State Sheriffs’ Association and a Kitsap County sheriff candidate. 

The law also restricts the use of police volunteers, a provision that would take effect later. Schaller’s ruling doesn’t block this aspect of the law, or the requirements for appointed sheriffs.

YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.

SUPPORT

This article was first published by FāVS News.

MOSCOW, Idaho – Hundreds of local residents and students lined up more than an hour early Tuesday as Turning Point USA brought its national tour to the ICCU Arena on the University of Idaho campus, with Daily Wire commentators Matt Walsh and Michael Knowles headlining.

One person in line was Julian Gossard. Gossard is a student at Whitworth University in Spokane and wanted to show support to TPUSA.

“I came to this event because I really love America, and I really want to make sure this country is heading in the right direction,” Gossard said.

Protesters gather across the street

Across the street, protesters held signs reading “Bigots off our campus,” “God hates fascists” and “Be courageous, oppose all tyranny.” University of Idaho student Chloe Belfer Sanford said she came to draw attention to UI platforming a far-right group.

“We oppose the university allowing TPUSA to be here at all because we feel that they represent a fascist movement and that they shouldn’t be allowed to speak on campus,” Belfer Sanford said. “We believe in the rights of all people including immigrants, queer people, people of color, disabled people, and we believe TPUSA is opposed to that.”

Belfer Sanford acknowledged both sides are exercising free speech but her problems is with the university hosting them.

“We don’t believe that the university tuition should go to platforming these people,” Belfer Sanford said. “We believe that people should be allowed to speak — but they are anti-pluralist, they don’t want people like us to speak or to be allowed our freedom of religion or freedom of expression.”

Inside the ICCU Arena, Walsh and Knowles took the stage before a sea of white hats, embroidered with “freedom” or “47,” and black curtains framing the crowd behind them. Within minutes, both mocked the protesters outside.

“Did you see the protest outside?” Knowles said.

“It was a little low energy. I was kind of disappointed. I want more. Put some energy into it,” Walsh said.

Knowles mocked the “half a dozen” LGBTQ+ protesters outside, making derogatory remarks about their appearance, then used them as a launching point to attack transgender rights.

He used this as a launching point into how the left has become too radicalized. The introduction portion touched on topics including political violence and transgender ideology.

During the Q&A portion both fielded questions regarding transgender representation in mass shootings, their support for Trump despite his affiliation and appearance in the Epstein Files, abortion and religion.

When an audience member pressed the speakers on Trump’s documented ties to Jeffrey Epstein, Knowles said Trump is innocent until proven guilty and that association alone does not constitute a crime.

Knowles argued that Epstein’s ties extended across the political establishment — from Ivy League faculty to leaders of both parties — and said not all associations are equal, drawing a contrast between Trump and Bill Clinton’s more extensive documented relationship with Epstein.

When an audience member challenged Walsh on a statistic he cited about transgender representation in mass shootings, Walsh did not clarify that the study surveyed only one case. He deflected, then argued that political messaging targeting transgender people fuels violence.

“When you go to that particular group of people and you tell them, ‘Hey, these people over there, they’re trying to commit a genocide against you,’ and if you want me to believe that’s some sort of coincidence, I don’t buy it,” Walsh said.

The exchange drew one of the loudest responses of the night.

Tour honors slain TPUSA founder

Tuesday’s event was the final stop on TPUSA’s “This is the Turning Point Tour,” which also visited George Washington University, the University of Georgia, Ohio State University and Baylor University this spring.

The tour was organized as a tribute to TPUSA founder Charlie Kirk, who died last year after being shot while speaking at Utah Valley University. CEO Erika Kirk announced the tour to counter what the organization describes as “leftist indoctrination” on college campuses.

“Stand up for the truth, defend life, love your family fearlessly … and don’t think that it’s someone else’s role to do it,” Erika Kirk said in a statement. “You do it. Do it for Charlie.”

It was not Kirk’s first connection to the region. He visited Pullman and Moscow in 2025 as part of his “American Comeback” tour. The University of Idaho has an active TPUSA chapter.

FāVS News uses professional journalists and thoughtful commentary to explore faith, values and ethics. Support journalism like this by making a tax-deductible donation. FāVS is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. © FāVS News. All rights reserved. Reproduction permitted only to authorized media partners or with written permission.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ office on Monday invoked an upcoming landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision on the role of race in drawing congressional districts to justify the Republican’s proposed gerrymander.

“The use of race in redistricting should never happen,” the governor’s general counsel, David Axelman, wrote in a memo unveiling a map that aims to hand Republicans four additional U.S. House seats in Florida.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court delivered an opinion sharply weakening a major portion of the federal Voting Rights Act.

Even before the decision, Republicans and Democrats across the country were scrambling to get ahead of the court’s anticipated ruling. 

The rush comes even as state legislative sessions wind down and the window to redraw maps rapidly closes ahead of the midterm elections in November — likely pushing most redistricting battles into the 2028 election cycle.

The opinion in the case, Louisiana v. Callais, could reverberate for decades. The court’s conservative majority significantly curtailed the consideration of race when drawing legislative maps. 

Until now, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act has limited states from using maps that dilute the voting power of minority citizens.

“If the Supreme Court does decide to gut or significantly weaken Section 2 of the VRA, we’re very concerned that it would give, basically, the green light to states to racially gerrymander,” Michael McNulty, policy director at Issue One, a group focused on protecting American democracy, said in an interview ahead of the decision.

Republicans could ultimately secure up to 19 U.S. House seats nationally directly because of the Supreme Court’s decision, according to a projection by Fair Fight Action, a Georgia-based progressive voting rights group, and the Black Voters Matter Fund, which advocates on behalf of Black voters. At the state level, the groups have projected that Republicans could gain up to 200 state legislative seats across the South. 

“It is hard to overstate what an earthquake this will be for American politics,” Rick Hasen, a professor at UCLA School of Law and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project, wrote in a blog post following the opinion’s release on Wednesday.

Louisiana case

A group of white voters challenged Louisiana’s congressional map as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander after the state in 2024 created a second district where a majority of voters are Black. 

The U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative justices agreed, ruling 6-3 that the map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander because the state didn’t need to create a second majority-minority district.

In the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that “none of the historical evidence presented by plaintiffs came close to showing an objective likelihood that the State’s challenged map was the result of intentional racial discrimination.”

Justice Elena Kagan, one of the court’s three liberal justices, wrote in a dissent that the Supreme Court has “had its sights set” on the Voting Rights Act for more than a decade.

“Under the Court’s new view of Section 2, a State can, without legal consequence, systematically dilute minority citizens’ voting power,” Kagan wrote.

Following the opinion, Republican-led legislatures across the South are expected to move to break apart Democratic districts where a majority of residents are Black or from other minority groups. 

U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican, called on the state legislature to reconvene and redraw the state’s congressional districts to create another Republican-held seat in Memphis. Blackburn, who is running for governor, said an additional seat is essential to cement President Donald Trump’s agenda.

Mississippi Republican Gov. Tate Reeves last week announced a special session to redraw the state’s Supreme Court districts, to begin 21 days after the court releases its decision.

“It is a decision that could (and in my view should) forever change the way we draw electoral maps,” Reeves said in a statement announcing the session.

Although the Supreme Court case centered on Louisiana, state officials are likely out of time to adopt a new map for this year’s election. The primary election is set for May 16.

Still, Louisiana will be free to pursue redistricting next year.

U.S. Rep. Troy Carter, Sr., a Democrat who represents one of the state’s two majority-minority districts, said the court’s decision was a “devastating blow” to the promise of equal representation.

“This ruling is about far more than lines on a map — it’s about whether Black Louisianians will have a meaningful opportunity to make their voices heard,” Carter said in a statement.

The redistricting wars of 2026

As of 2024, roughly a third of U.S. House seats represented majority-minority districts — 122 held by Democrats and 26 held by Republicans, according to estimates by Ballotpedia. Texas and California account for nearly half of all the districts.

Seven states have already taken the extraordinary step of redrawing their maps this year after President Donald Trump urged Republicans to draw lines that maximize partisan advantage ahead of the midterms. Maps are typically redrawn every 10 years after the census.

Texas and California struck first, followed by Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio and Utah. Virginia voters last week approved a redraw, and Florida lawmakers approved a new map Wednesday. 

All told, Republicans may emerge from the redistricting war with a small net advantage of a handful of seats if the Florida plan is enacted and the other maps are upheld.

The calendar will prove a major obstacle to additional gerrymanders this year. Primary elections have already been held in some southern states and ballots have been distributed in others. 

Mississippi, North Carolina and Texas have already held primaries, while ballots have been distributed in Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina. 

But after November the clock resets, giving states more than a year to pursue further changes to their maps before the 2028 election.

“We are much more concerned about the impact on 2028 and beyond that that would have, letting these politicians basically just pick their voters instead of the voters picking them,” McNulty said.

John R. Lewis bill

As Democrats look ahead to Callais’ likely fallout in the coming years, they have begun urgently calling for action in Congress and at the state level. They also say the decision emphasizes the stakes of this year’s elections.

“Today is a devastating day for democracy and a wake-up call for all those who seek to protect it,” Heather Williams, president of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, said in a statement.

Democrats in Congress have repeatedly offered the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. Named after the civil rights activist and Georgia congressman who died in 2020, the legislation aims to strengthen Section 2 and other elements of the current Voting Rights Act, though it’s unclear whether the bill would be constitutional under the Callais decision.

The U.S. House, under Democratic control, passed the legislation in 2021 but it was filibustered in the Senate. Some lawmakers are speaking about the measure again, and Democrats may take control of Congress in November’s elections—though they would still face President Donald Trump in the White House. 

“We can and must revive the Voting Rights Act,” Rep. Terri Sewell, an Alabama Democrat and the ranking member of the House Administration Subcommittee on Elections, said at a shadow hearing on voting rights on Monday.

For their part, Republicans hailed the Supreme Court decision as long overdue.

U.S. Rep. Richard Hudson, a North Carolina Republican who chairs the National Republican Congressional Committee, in a statement said “activists” for too long had manipulated the redistricting process to achieve political outcomes, dividing Americans in the process.

“The Supreme Court made clear that our elections should be decided by voters, not engineered through unconstitutional mandates,” Hudson said.

Voting Rights Act over the years

Over more than a decade, the Supreme Court has narrowed the potency of the Voting Rights Act, a 1965 law banning racial discrimination in voting that came as Congress battled Jim Crow laws in southern states. 

The measure was intended to help enforce the U.S. Constitution’s 14th and 15th amendments, which guarantee equal protection under the law and prohibit denying the right to vote on the basis of race.

In 2013, the court effectively halted preclearance — the requirement that some states and local governments with a history of discrimination obtain federal permission before changing their voting practices. At the time of the decision, most southern states and a handful of others were subject to preclearance.

The Supreme Court in 2019 ruled that federal courts cannot review allegations of partisan gerrymandering. The decision cleared the way for state lawmakers to gerrymander their maps for political advantage without fear they would be second-guessed by federal judges. 

The opinion helped empower a wave of gerrymanders after the 2020 census and set the stage for this year’s mid-decade redistricting.

Turning to the legislatures

Facing a bleak federal landscape, some voting rights advocates are increasingly turning to state legislatures. The Supreme Court decision undercutting Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act will likely intensify efforts to advance state-level legislation.

“Because political participation is inherently local, it is imperative to press for protections at the ground level,” Todd Cox, associate director counsel at the Legal Defense Fund, a racial justice legal organization, said at the shadow hearing.

Some Democratic state lawmakers already introduced measures in anticipation of an unfavorable Supreme Court decision.

The Illinois House last week approved a state constitutional amendment that would require districts to be drawn “to ensure that no citizen is denied an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of his or her choice on account of race.”

The Illinois amendment would also require, where practical, the creation of racial coalition or influence districts — terms that refer to districts where racial minorities together constitute a majority of residents. The measure, which must also pass the state Senate before going to voters, was a pre-response to the Callais opinion.

“This will ensure that Illinois will always recognize the fundamental principle that a democracy of the people, by the people and for the people must include all the people,” Illinois Democratic House Speaker Emanuel Welch told reporters after the amendment advanced.

Illinois Republicans have cast the amendment as a Democratic power grab. The state has some of the most gerrymandered maps in the nation, Illinois House Minority Leader Tony McCombie, a Republican, said in a statement. The Princeton Gerrymandering Project has given Illinois’ maps an overall “F” grade.

“Let’s be clear: this has nothing to do with strengthening democracy,” McCombie said. “It’s about locking in one-party control at any cost.”

While the idea of a special tax on millionaires is hotly debated across the country, Maine state Rep. Cheryl Golek characterized her state’s new tax as a modest and reasonable step toward fairness.

That’s because, she said, working- and middle-class households in Maine — including teachers, firefighters and nurses — are paying effective state income tax rates similar to or higher than those of the highest earners.

“Those who benefit the most from our economy do so because of the people, infrastructure and communities that support that success,” said Golek, a Democrat. “Asking for a small additional contribution from the wealthiest in our state is a reasonable and widely supported step toward a fairer system.”

The legislation signed by Democratic Gov. Janet Mills this month will add a 2% tax to households whose income exceeds $1 million per year.

Maine and Washington, which enacted its own law last month, are among the latest Democratic-led states to ask for more tax dollars from the rich as national wealth inequality widens and states face heightened budget pressures. They follow the lead of other states including New Jersey and Massachusetts that have implemented specific taxes for the rich.

The idea is gaining traction as lawmakers in at least a dozen states, including Illinois, Minnesota, Rhode Island and Virginia, have proposed new taxes for the wealthiest taxpayers. In California, advocates this week announced they gathered enough signatures for a ballot initiative that would impose a one-time tax on billionaires. But these proposals often stir yearslong battles.

The taxes can take different forms — taxing annual incomes above a certain threshold or taxing capital assets, including high-value stocks and real estate. Earlier this month, New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Gov. Kathy Hochul, both Democrats, proposed a new pied-à-terre tax for homes valued above $5 million when owners have a separate primary residence outside of New York City.

In neighboring New Jersey, those earning over $1 million per year face an income tax top rate of 10.75% in addition to a so-called mansion tax on the sales of high-value homes.

Proponents say these moves can help balance state tax structures that are tilted against lower earners. The left-leaning Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy says the tax systems of 40 states favor the wealthiest earners. But opponents argue that these measures levy new taxes on business owners, dissuading local investment and encouraging rich residents to move away — especially risky during a time when many other states are slashing taxes.

“When the outlook of our population growth is stagnant and we should be attracting people to Maine, it puts a disincentive to people to call Maine home,” Patrick Woodcock, president and CEO of the Maine State Chamber of Commerce, said during a news conference ahead of the state House vote on the tax.

The rising push to tax the wealthy in liberal states comes as some red states are moving to more regressive tax systems, which put a higher burden on lower earners.

“You increasingly have two poles where you have a larger number of states with fairly low income taxes and a smaller but still significant number of states that have doubled down on high rates, particularly high rates on high earners,” said Jared Walczak, senior fellow at the conservative-leaning Tax Foundation.

He said increasing income taxes pushes wealthy people and employers to low-tax states. Even if individuals don’t directly move because of taxes, they follow businesses to other states, he said.

And some progressives are wary of going too far: California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom is opposing the ballot initiative that would impose a one-time 5% tax on those whose net worth exceeds $1 billion. Hochul, who pushed for the new tax on second homes in New York City, has warned that more tax increases on the millionaires and billionaires could hollow out a crucial portion of the state’s tax base.

Walczak said only a handful of in-demand places can afford to impose higher taxes for the same reason that people pay higher rents.

“It’s worth it to a lot of people,” he said. “People are willing to pay very high rent, but there’s a limit. In the same way, they’re willing to pay higher taxes to live in New York, but there is a limit.”

Rising wealth inequality

The gap between the rich and poor has been widening for decades.

Wealth for the bottom fifth of American households has barely moved in recent decades, while the top 0.1% have seen their wealth increase by nearly $40 million each, according to an analysis by the anti-poverty nonprofit Oxfam America.

Between 1980 and 2022, the share of national income going to the top 1% doubled, while the share going to the bottom 50% fell by a third, Oxfam reported.

Recent federal policy changes have only exacerbated the need for progressive state tax changes, said Amber Wallin, executive director of the State Revenue Alliance, which is lobbying for higher taxes for the wealthy across multiple states.

President Donald Trump’s major tax and spending bill, often called the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, slashed funds for safety net programs including food stamps and Medicaid. At the same time, it provided tax cuts that largely benefit the wealthy.

“So we know millions will lose access to healthcare, millions will lose food assistance, and states all across the country will see funding cuts for key programs,” she said. “We know that people power a strong economy, not tax cuts for the wealthy, and when the rich pay their fair share of taxes, we all benefit.”

Since Massachusetts voters in 2022 approved a 4% surtax on annual incomes above $1 million, that Fair Share Amendment has provided the commonwealth with $6 billion in transportation and education funding.

But Jim Stergios, executive director at the libertarian-leaning Pioneer Institute, said it’s not just the ultra-wealthy who are paying that tax. People who record a one-time sale of a business or a home can face the tax even if they’re not earning over $1 million every year, he said.

He said the tax is pushing residents out of the state and dampening business investment. Federal data from the U.S. Census Bureau shows Massachusetts lost more than 33,000 residents to other states last year, though Democratic Gov. Maura Healy noted the overall population did increase because of foreign immigration. Stergios noted lawmakers are still facing challenges balancing the state budget even with the new revenue.

“So over the long term, it’s not going to have a salutary effect,” he said. “We’re going to continue to have budget problems. We do have budget problems even with this.”

Proponents and opponents of the state’s millionaire’s tax have touted recent IRS data in their arguments: Residents leaving Massachusetts took a total of $4.2 billion in adjusted gross income with them in 2023, the first year of the new tax, Bloomberg reported. Yet the number of residents moving out of Massachusetts who reported income of $200,000 or more fell after the tax was implemented.

“There’s no real evidence of millionaire out-migration. I’m sure there’s some isolated anecdotes, but the actual data don’t show it,” said Phineas Baxandall, director of research and policy analysis at the left-leaning Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center.

He said one piece of evidence that the wealthy remain in Massachusetts are the proceeds of the tax itself, which are funding major priorities including free community college and expanding childcare subsidies for thousands.

“Massachusetts is rightfully fearful of the federal cuts that are happening,” Baxandall said, “but we’ve been able to still move forward with real, transformational investments.”

Multiyear efforts

Though interest in raising taxes on the rich is growing across the country, the idea faces considerable skepticism and often requires years of organizing.

In March, Michigan advocates announced they would suspend their campaign to put on the statewide ballot a 5% tax on individual incomes over $500,000 and joint incomes over $1 million.

“We always knew that we were going to face strong headwinds from billionaires who don’t want to pay their fair share,” Rachelle Crow-Hercher, president of the Invest in MI Kids steering committee, said in a statement to Michigan Advance. That coalition plans to eye the 2028 election cycle instead, she said.

Last week, Illinois House Speaker Emanuel “Chris” Welch announced he would drop a push for a new millionaire’s tax as Democrats came up short of the necessary supermajority needed to put the issue on this fall’s ballot.

Welch believes the issue will come before lawmakers again, but after missing a key legislative deadline it won’t be eligible for a statewide vote until 2028. He said it remains popular among voters. Lawmakers proposed using proceeds of a new tax for schools and property tax relief.

“I believe that we should tax the rich and the rich should pay more,” he said. “To those who much is given, much is required.”

I believe that we should tax the rich and the rich should pay more. To those who much is given, much is required.

– Illinois House Speaker Emanuel “Chris” Welch

Meanwhile, the newly enacted Washington tax faces a lengthy, though expected, court challenge.

The legislation signed last month by Democratic Gov. Bob Ferguson imposes a 9.9% tax on household income above $1 million a year. Opponents argue that income is property and thus must be taxed uniformly because of state constitutional requirements.

In addition to the constitutional concerns, Republican state Rep. Jim Walsh said the new law opens the door for lawmakers to eventually expand income taxes to more households — not just the rich. Instead of raising revenue, he said Democratic lawmakers should focus on cutting spending, noting the state operations budget has more than doubled in the past decade.

“The problem is not the financing mechanism of the state’s operations,” he said. “It’s the rate at which far-left advocates in the legislature have been increasing state government spending in the state. It’s ridiculous.”

To Democratic state Sen. Noel Frame, the legislation brings the state’s regressive tax code more in line with Washington’s progressive politics. With no statewide income tax, sales and property taxes leave lower income earners to cover more of the cost of state services, making Washington’s one of the nation’s most regressive tax systems.

“For all the things that we do that are good, big, bold economic policy — to have the tax code that we have is just an embarrassment, and it’s completely out of line with our values as a state,” Frame said.

Like the push for a $15 minimum wage started in liberal cities and states, Frame expects the millionaire tax movement will spread into more conservative areas.

Already, some conservative states, including Idaho, Indiana and Florida, have made moves to reject some of last year’s federal tax changes that benefit corporations and the wealthy.

“The people are demanding better,” Frame said. “And the more that people understand the deep connection of tax policy to income and wealth inequality, the more engaged they become.”

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org. 

This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Washington State Standard, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

SEATTLE — In his record-breaking tenure as Washington House speaker, Frank Chopp never spearheaded legislation, preferring to work behind the scenes. 

So when, in 2019, he brought forward a bill to create a new psychiatric teaching hospital at the University of Washington, his fellow lawmakers quipped that he might not understand the legislative process.

That facility opened in 2024. And, on Tuesday, it was dedicated in his honor. Chopp died last year at age 71. 

The $244 million hospital has had a bumpy start. Its opening was delayed, and even after launching, it had to halt admissions due to a lack of public defenders available to represent patients held involuntarily during court proceedings. Even after resolving that issue, the hospital had problems filling its beds, leading to layoffs, as reported by The Seattle Times.

Half of the rooms in the facility, which is located on the UW Medical Center’s Northwest campus in north Seattle, are for long-term care to patients committed civilly under the state’s Involuntary Treatment Act. It also has 25 beds specifically for older adults in need of mental healthcare.

Its purpose is two-fold. For one, it addresses a lack of beds for patients. And the teaching hospital helps train psychiatry residents, with the goal of relieving a mental healthcare provider workforce shortage.

The hospital is now known as the Frank Chopp Center for Behavioral Health and Learning. The University of Washington Board of Regents had approved the renaming last May.

Chopp’s death from cardiac arrest came just months after his retirement from elected office. He had served Seattle’s 43rd Legislative District since 1995, and led his caucus for two decades. Chopp stepped aside as House speaker in 2019.

He’s hailed for a political career focused on helping the state better serve its most vulnerable residents, fueled in part by his sister’s own challenges with a bipolar disorder diagnosis.

“Frank’s drive to improve behavioral healthcare for all citizens of Washington state was really informed by watching Jo-Anne get up every day,” said Chopp’s wife, Nancy Long.

Chopp saw himself as a community organizer, first and foremost, Long said, adding that on their marriage certificate, his job was listed “urban guerrilla.”

His fingerprints were all over some of the state’s most vital programs and projects, including Apple Health, the Housing Trust Fund, Fair Start for Kids, and the Workforce Education Investment Act. Lt. Gov. Denny Heck has called him “the greatest legislator in the last century.” 

He leaves a legacy, but also what King County Executive Girmay Zahilay called “disciples” who were touched by Chopp’s work. Chopp’s daughter, Ellie, works in Zahilay’s office.

Gov. Bob Ferguson said that when he drives over a bridge named after someone, he can’t help but look them up. He hopes naming the center after Chopp will have the same effect.

“While we all knew and worked with and loved Frank,” Ferguson said, “let’s be honest, many people out there don’t, but when they come through those doors, in whatever form they come through those doors, years from now, I have no doubt that many of them will Google his name. And they’re going to learn about Frank what we all know.”

Many of Chopp’s political allies noted Tuesday the irony of naming a building after Chopp, who really wasn’t interested in getting credit. 

“Frank must have had a surgery to remove his ego,” former Gov. Jay Inslee said.

The university has also set up a scholarship fund in Chopp’s name for students interested in learning behavioral health policy. Dr. Jürgen Unützer, chair of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the UW, brought the idea of the Chopp Scholars Program to the former speaker just days before his death. 

Chopp, a UW grad, loved it, Unützer said, but had one gripe: “Does it have to be called Chopp?”

State officials and environmentalists point to a new report on Washington’s greenhouse gas emissions as an indicator that the state’s climate policies are working. 

Others look at the same data and say it raises doubts about whether those policies significantly reduce carbon emissions at all. 

The Department of Ecology report shows emissions in the state shrank by half a percentage point from 2021 to 2022. 

Washington’s carbon footprint decreased by half a million metric tons between those two years. 

The figures are from the most recent greenhouse gas emissions inventory report, which the department released on Friday. 

“Washington is a leader in fighting climate change,” said Casey Sixkiller, Ecology’s director. “That said, we must remain laser-focused to make even more progress in combatting this threat.”

Todd Myers, vice president for research at the Washington Policy Center, and a frequent critic of the state’s climate policies, said the state is nowhere near on track to meet its 2030 emissions reduction targets. 

To do so, he said, would require lowering emissions by 5-7% year after year — on par with the drop seen during the COVID pandemic, when economic activity and travel slowed drastically.

“Every year, we either see emissions go up or tiny reductions like this, and yet every year, the comments from the Department of Ecology leadership is, ‘our policies are working.’”

“Clearly they are not working, and unless they are honest, we’re going to keep failing,” said Myers. 

‘Significant steps’

Greenhouse gas emissions in Washington reached their highest levels in 2000. Between then and 2022, emissions dropped by over 13% despite the state’s population growing by a third and gross domestic product doubling, according to Ecology.

In 2022, Washington state emitted 96.1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, roughly half a percentage point less than 2021 emissions. The difference is the equivalent of a year’s worth of emissions from 109,000 cars, according to the agency. 

Transportation and building emissions both rose by half a million metric tons in 2022, but all other sectors — including electricity, agriculture and industrial processes — fell, researchers found.

The decline is largely due to more reliance on renewable energy, namely hydropower. 

When there is less snowpack, and therefore less hydropower production, Washington relies more on fossil fuels, the report notes. While 2022 was a good snowpack year, every year since some or all of the state has experienced a drought. 

With recent developments in climate policy, emissions are expected to continue decreasing. 

In 2023, the Climate Commitment Act took effect, pushing the state’s largest polluters toward a carbon neutral path. 

Also, that year, the Clean Fuel Standard launched, which aims to curb transportation pollution, the largest emissions sector. The law requires fuel companies to gradually switch to cleaner alternatives like biofuels, to buy credits against low-carbon fuel options, including electric vehicle chargers, or to improve fuel production efficiency.

At the end of 2025, the state’s no coal policy, a part of the Clean Energy Transformation Act, kicked in, though there has been pressure from the federal government to keep Washington’s last remaining coal plant open. Coal pollutes more than any other major fossil fuel.

“We have made really significant steps,” said Leah Missik, Washington legislative director for Climate Solutions. “But to meet our targets, we really need to do more.”

State law requires emissions to be at roughly 51 million metric tons by 2030, the equivalent of 45% below 1990 levels. 

The state needs to make smart investments that reduce emissions and boost affordability, Missik said, pointing to dollars raised from the Climate Commitment Act. 

In the two years since the Climate Commitment Act took effect, Washington generated over $4 billion from the state’s biggest polluters paying for their own carbon emissions. 

More than $1.5 billion of the revenue has been invested in over 3,600 projects across 37 state agencies, according to Ecology. 

Myers argues that the state isn’t prioritizing investments in projects that actually reduce carbon emissions.

“A lot went to expanding government, not actually delivering reductions,” he said.

Lag with reporting

The 2022 data release in 2026 is due to a lag in federal data, according to the Department of Ecology. The agency is developing in-state sources to supplement that data in an effort to produce more timely reports. 

An early forecast shows that emissions likely declined in 2023 and 2024 because of continued growth in renewable energy. 

Instead of publishing statewide emissions reports every two years, the agency will now release them annually. The next report is expected in December.

WASHINGTON — U.S. senators across the aisle pushed back Tuesday against President Donald Trump’s proposal to eliminate funding for programs serving disadvantaged students.

Education Secretary Linda McMahon defended those and other proposed cuts to her agency outlined in Trump’s fiscal 2027 budget request, which calls for $75.7 billion in new discretionary budget authority for the department that would mark a $3.2 billion, or 4.1%, reduction from fiscal 2026 levels. 

The administration has taken major steps to dismantle the 46-year-old Department of Education as part of the president’s quest to send education “back to the states.” That effort continues despite much of the funding and oversight of schools already occurring at the state and local levels.

“We’ve been clear: Shifting authority back to the states will not come at the expense of the central federal programs (and) support, much of which predate the department itself,” McMahon told lawmakers at the hearing of the U.S. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies.

The panel shares jurisdiction over Education Department spending with the corresponding subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee. The president’s budget request is generally considered a starting point for negotiations, but Congress is responsible for deciding federal spending.

Bipartisan support for TRIO 

Republican and Democratic senators took particular aim at the administration’s proposal to eliminate Federal TRIO Programs in fiscal 2027.

The Federal TRIO Programs — funded at $1.19 billion this fiscal year — help support groups including low-income students, first-generation college students, individuals with disabilities and veterans. 

Sen. Susan Collins, chair of the full Senate Appropriations Committee, said she opposes the president’s proposal to eliminate TRIO, noting that these programs have “changed the lives of countless first-generation and low-income students in Maine and across the country.” 

The Maine Republican added that TRIO “enjoys robust support and has made such a difference in the lives of children.” 

Arkansas GOP Sen. John Boozman also emphasized his support for TRIO, noting that in his state, these programs “have been a game-changer in helping low-income and first-generation students not only access higher education, but also succeed once they are there.” 

Sen. Jeff Merkley was the first in his family to go to college and said he comes from a “very blue-collar, frontier, homesteading, timber background.”

The Oregon Democrat said it’s from that perspective he believes that “having conscious programs to help people overcome the cultural chasm that exists between blue-collar kids like myself and that college world that you have very little contact on is enormously valuable in America, and the stats from these programs are pretty damn impressive.” 

The secretary told the panel that while “there are many instances where the TRIO program has been very beneficial … as we look across the country in how to spend these dollars and how to have similar results by maybe not necessarily focusing students towards college degrees, maybe there’s another way for them to have their path to success.” 

McMahon said her agency was in the process of spending “about $2.1 million” for investigating and evaluating the TRIO programs.

In its summary of Trump’s fiscal 2027 budget request, the department said that TRIO “has failed to meet the vast majority of its performance measures, and studies of program effectiveness have shown that it has not increased college enrollment.” 

Dems decry plan to eliminate agency

Meanwhile, McMahon took heat from the leading Democrats on the subcommittee and the broader Senate Appropriations panel over the administration’s ongoing efforts to dismantle the agency. 

Part of those efforts include several interagency agreements between Education and the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Interior, State and Treasury that transfer many of Education’s responsibilities to those agencies.

Sen. Tammy Baldwin, ranking member of the subcommittee, said Education “is transferring the vast majority of its programs to other federal departments, agencies with little experience or expertise or capacity to administer them.” 

The Wisconsin Democrat said that instead of “reducing bureaucracy” — a major goal of the administration across the federal government and the department in particular — the transfers are creating “another layer of it.”

She added that “where states previously primarily dealt with the Department of Education, they will now have to deal with multiple federal agencies.” 

Sen. Patty Murray of Washington state, the top Democrat on the full Appropriations Committee, pressed McMahon on the status of the administration mulling the transfer of special education services out of the Education Department amid its dismantling efforts. 

The possible move to transfer programs out of the department’s Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services has stoked widespread concern from disability advocates.

McMahon said her department was “still evaluating where those programs would best be located, and we have not made that determination yet.” 

“I can assure you that the intent of this administration is not to put these students at risk in any way whatsoever,” McMahon said. 

But Murray was not satisfied with the secretary’s response, saying she is “deeply concerned that your answer sounds like you’re still moving ahead — let’s make it clear that will break the law, and it will make it a lot harder for these students with disabilities to get the education and understanding that their country will stand behind them with that.” 

A Trump administration proposal would end gender identity protections for people in federally funded housing and shelters.  

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed rule would remove references to “gender” and “gender identity” from agency regulations and replace them with “sex,” defined as a person’s biological classification as male or female. That would repeal an Obama-era rule that ensured housing programs are open without regard to gender identity.

The new rule also would allow owners or operators of shelters and other facilities that permit single-sex or sex-specific facilities “to require reasonable assurances and evidence to confirm the sex of an individual seeking service.”

“Through these revisions, the rule would ensure equal access to qualifying facilities would be provided in accordance with the sex of an individual based on his or her immutable biological classification as either male or female rather than the ever-shifting concept of self-assessed gender identity,” the proposed rule said.

The department will take public comments on the proposal through the end of June.

The National Housing Law Project advocacy group criticized the measure, saying it would force federally funded shelters to deny access to unhoused transgender people and allow federally funded housing providers to discriminate against applicants and tenants based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

“Not only will the proposed policies directly harm families and communities, they will increase costs for state and local governments, hospital systems, and social services agencies by forcing more housing insecure people to live on the street rather than in shelter,” Chief Program Officer Deborah Thrope said in a statement.

The proposed rule would affect a population already experiencing disproportionate levels and risks of homelessness. Nearly one-third of transgender respondents in a 2022 survey by the National Center for Transgender Equality said they had experienced homelessness, while a UCLA School of Law Williams Institute analysis found transgender adults were several times more likely than cisgender straight adults to have been homeless in the past year.

The measure could spark a legal battle between the administration and states that adopted gender identity protections into housing and shelter laws.

California, Illinois, Massachusetts and New York protect gender identity in housing, public accommodations or both. On the other hand, Iowa and Idaho enacted laws that define sex biologically or restrict access to sex-specific spaces, regardless of gender identity. 

Stateline reporter Robbie Sequeira can be reached at rsequeira@stateline.org.

This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Washington State Standard, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

No mining proposal in recent Alaska history has generated more concern for the state’s salmon runs than the Pebble project.

The huge copper and gold deposit extends into multiple salmon-bearing watersheds, and sits upstream from Alaska’s most lucrative salmon fishery.

But now, in a new court filing, Pebble’s developer says just a tiny number of salmon are blocking the mine’s construction — 27 fish, to be exact, and all one species.

Federal regulators, who halted the project in 2023, are “preserving” 27 coho salmon “at the cost of $800 billion” in minerals, lawyers for Pebble Limited Partnership wrote in a recent brief filed in Alaska’s federal district court.

The remarkably specific fish figure aligns with the number of spawning salmon counted years ago in a stream directly within the proposed mine site.

But Pebble’s opponents say it’s a gross mischaracterization: They’ve long worried that mining could harm the prolific Bristol Bay salmon runs downstream.

“I don’t think it’s a valid number,” said Daniel Cheyette, an executive at Bristol Bay’s Indigenous-owned regional corporation, which is opposed to the mine.

“It’s well documented in the administrative record that the mine is going to have very specific impacts to the mine site itself — and lots of impacts to the habitat below the mine site,” Cheyette added.

Pebble’s lawyers acknowledge that salmon at various life stages have been observed in streams near the mineral deposit. But they cite the specific number of spawning coho eight times across the 66 pages of their recent legal brief.

The figure has taken on a life of its own online, where it sparked outrage among Pebble advocates and stockholders who see those fish as an obstacle to huge profits.

“27 SALMON DUDE WTFFFFFFF,” one mine booster recently posted on X. She added, in a YouTube video: “Tell me where they are. I’ll kill them all right now, with my bare hands.”

The 27-fish-versus-800-billion-dollars narrative comes as part of the latest attempt by Pebble’s owner, Vancouver-based Northern Dynasty Minerals, to overturn a 2023 decision by the federal government that effectively quashed the development.

And it’s further evidence that Pebble is committed to a long-term effort to save the embattled project, which would tap into one of the world’s largest copper, gold and molybdenum deposits.

Pebble lacks key approvals, and its efforts to obtain them have been tied up in litigation and bureaucratic processes for years. But its owners continue to spend millions of dollars each year on legal fees and administrative expenses.

The project is still attracting investment because of its enormous size — and because global demand for copper is rising, according to David Hammond, a Colorado-based mineral economist with decades of industry experience.

“These investors, the ones that really provide the money, have to have a very long-term horizon on their investment strategy. And by long term, I don’t mean five years, I mean two decades,” Hammond said.

“Their feeling is, this is going to eventually go into production,” he added.

Pebble expects to spend some $14 million this fiscal year, primarily on litigation, according to a recent corporate disclosure with Canadian securities regulators.

Pebble has fueled debate across the Bristol Bay region and the state for years.

Supporters, including the Dunleavy administration and two local Indigenous-owned corporations, say building the mine would boost the rural region’s economy and create much-needed jobs.

But opponents, including a broad coalition of commercial fishermen, conservation groups and Alaska Native organizations, say the mine’s benefits are not worth the risk it poses to Bristol Bay’s salmon runs.

Pebble’s recent legal brief was filed by a Colorado-based lawyer at a high-powered international firm. It responds to a move by the Trump administration earlier this year to defend the Biden-era project veto.

In a statement shared with Northern Journal, Pebble’s chief executive, John Shively, said the company reiterates its view that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s actions against the project contradicted an earlier federal environmental review, “which clearly states that the project can be done without harm to the salmon fishery in Bristol Bay.”

Pebble’s boosters have long argued that the mine’s impacts would be minimal and that it could coexist with a fishery that generates hundreds of millions of dollars a year. They note that many Bristol Bay salmon spawn in watersheds other than those where the mine is located.

But mine skeptics note that the project is expected to result in the loss of more than eight miles of anadromous fish streams and 91 miles of streams that support anadromous fish habitat. Federal regulators also say mining could affect downstream ecosystems through changes in flow — and opponents fear a failure at Pebble’s proposed waste disposal site could cause an environmental disaster.

Pebble’s lawyers, in their recent filing, point to a federal finding six years ago that the mine likely would not have a measurable impact on the Bristol Bay fishery, and they say the streams at the mine site “are especially low in salmon.”

“Only 27 have been observed spawning, in only one reach, and from only one species,” the lawyers wrote. Those fish “naturally might disappear in any given year anyway,” the brief said.

A Pebble spokesperson could not immediately confirm the source of the 27-salmon figure, though it corresponds with data from Pebble’s fish counts conducted nearly two decades ago.

Those data were published in a 2020 federal environmental review of the proposed mine. The document also says that surveys found juvenile salmon in streams within the mine’s proposed footprint, and that those streams support rearing habitat not just for coho but also king salmon.

The Trump administration’s lawyers, in their court brief earlier this spring, said that Pebble’s fish surveys were limited, and likely undercounts.

This article was originally published in Northern Journal, a newsletter from Nathaniel Herz. Subscribe at this link.

Alaska Beacon is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Alaska Beacon maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Claire Stremple for questions: info@alaskabeacon.com.

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson wants to make changes to a Senate-passed bill that would end the shutdown at the Department of Homeland Security, a move that will further delay funding and prolong the stalemate that began in mid-February. 

The holdup could again interrupt paychecks for workers at the Transportation Security Administration and Federal Emergency Management Agency, both of which are part of DHS. Huge backups in airline security lines resulted in March when TSA officers went without pay for weeks until the administration scrambled to reprogram funds.

Johnson, R-La., has chosen not to negotiate potential tweaks in the funding bill with Senate Democrats, who will be needed to advance it if the House makes alterations.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said during a Tuesday afternoon press conference the bill that’s stalled in the House doesn’t “need tweaks.” 

“They’re just stuck. So they come up with, ‘We need some technical changes,’” he said. “Hold up national security for technical changes? It’s absurd. They can pass the bill right now.” 

Washington Democratic Sen. Patty Murray, ranking member on the Appropriations Committee, said during a brief interview she was “flabbergasted” by Johnson’s comments.

She added during the press conference she has “no idea what technical changes they’re looking at.”

House hasn’t voted on DHS funding

The Senate unanimously passed a bill to fund the vast majority of the Department of Homeland Security in late March and again in early April. Johnson hasn’t put it to the House floor for a vote, blocking it from becoming law. 

The legislation doesn’t include funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement or the Border Patrol, a compromise negotiated after Republicans and Democrats were unable to broker agreement on guardrails for immigration enforcement operations. 

Republicans plan to provide upwards of $70 billion in additional spending for ICE and Border Patrol in a party-line budget reconciliation bill they hope to pass in the coming weeks. 

Johnson said last week he believes the “sequencing is important” on when each of the two bills becomes law. But time is running out for the tens of thousands of federal workers, who are about to miss out on their paychecks once again. 

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said in a statement the executive order President Donald Trump signed earlier this month to pay all DHS employees despite the funding lapse can only stretch so far. 

“That money is dried up if I continue down this path the first week of May,” Mullin said. “My pay roll through DHS is just over 1.6 billion dollars every 2 weeks so the money is going extremely fast and once that happens there is no emergency funds after that.”

‘We’ve got to get these agencies funded’

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said he’s working with House GOP leaders to “massage” the DHS funding bill in hopes it will become law sometime soon. 

“I’m very sympathetic,” he said. “We talked last night and he’s got to manage his challenges there. We have to manage our challenges here. But one way or the other, we’ve got to get these agencies funded.”

The disconnect between House Republicans and their Senate GOP counterparts on when to fund DHS is just one of several challenges party leaders are attempting to address this week. 

“We’re trying as best we can to coordinate strategy with the House. But, you know, it’s a unique situation. We’ve got very narrow margins and people with real strong opinions,” Thune said. “So it’s going to take, obviously, I think, the heavy involvement of the White House to bust some of these things loose. But we’re trying as best we can to ensure that we can get all of these issues across the finish line and ultimately on the president’s desk.”

Republican leaders will need the support of their own members as well as at least some Democrats in order to get major legislation, including the DHS funding bill, to Trump. 

But as of midday Tuesday, it didn’t appear they’d looped in key negotiators on possible changes to the Senate-passed spending bill. 

Recess next week

Alabama Republican Sen. Katie Britt, chairwoman of the subcommittee in charge of funding DHS, said she didn’t know what changes House GOP leaders wanted to make. 

“I am not aware. I just know that we need to find a pathway forward,” she said. “And nobody should be leaving here, or certainly flying off to (congressional delegation trips), until we do.” 

Both chambers of Congress are scheduled to leave on Thursday for a week-long break. 

Connecticut Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy, ranking member on the DHS funding panel, said House Republicans hadn’t reached out to him or his staff. 

“I don’t know why he’s making this more complicated than it needs to be,” he said. “Our bill, which passed the Senate 100 to zero, would pass the House easily.”

TACOMA — Washington state health inspectors have tried for months to investigate complaints at the embattled immigrant detention center in Tacoma, to no avail. 

Now the state is taking its frustrations to court, asking a federal judge Tuesday to force the hand of the facility’s operator.

It’s the latest development in the yearslong saga to provide state oversight there. Gov. Bob Ferguson and Attorney General Nick Brown, both Democrats, announced their latest legal action in a press conference outside the Northwest ICE Processing Center, alongside religious leaders and community advocates. 

“The law is clear, yet the owner of this facility, The GEO Group, has continued to obstruct our efforts to ensure they are following state law,” Ferguson said. “The GEO Group is not above the law.”

Ferguson accused the company of “continued obstruction and brazen disregard for state law.”

A GEO spokesperson deferred comment to ICE. The agency didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Officials from the state Department of Health have tried to get in to inspect 10 times since 2023. But The GEO Group, which runs the for-profit detention center, has kept turning them away, the state says.

When they tried last month, GEO told state inspectors they needed to file a request with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in Seattle to access the Northwest ICE Processing Center, according to the state. ICE has not responded, according to the state. 

In that case, the state was attempting to look into complaints about drinking water and the facility denying detainees the ability to attend religious services, according to court filings.

They were again turned away when they attempted to inspect April 20, according to the state.

This is despite the state, so far, winning a legal battle with GEO Group over this issue. Last August, a federal appeals court upheld a 2023 state law seeking to pave the way for state health inspections of the private facility, as part of a broader suite of oversight reforms. A lower court ruling had blocked the law in response to a GEO lawsuit.

In February, GEO asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to rehear the case and pause enforcement of the court’s order as it prepares a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court for review. The court denied both of those requests.

The court’s ruling formally took effect early last month. GEO has until mid-June to file with the high court, after receiving an extension. It would then take months for the justices to decide whether to take the case.

The Florida-based GEO Group has argued in recent court filings that any resolution to the case should wait until the Supreme Court can weigh in. 

A hearing on the state’s new motion hasn’t been scheduled, but Brown said he hopes it will be “fairly quickly.”

“Now is the time where action is right,” he said. “Washingtonians are entitled to accountability and transparency in private companies that turn detention into profit, and we understand that that urgency is so acute in this moment.”

Brown called it “not just a legal obligation. It is a moral obligation.”

The detention center has faced scrutiny for years. This includes allegations of medical mistreatment, abuse and neglect, and concerns about water quality and food. 

The Department of Health said it has received more than 3,500 complaints over the past three years about the detention center, which holds detainees before deportation or release back into the United States. The agency has been receiving concerns for years, with no way to investigate them.

Examining drinking water is a top priority, officials have said. Other issues raised in past complaints to the Department of Health include access to medication, sanitation and concerns that seem to stem from crowding, like the number of beds being put into some rooms.

Of the over 3,500 complaints, roughly 1,000 deal with water, food and air quality. For example, detainees have complained about finding burned plastic, metal string, hair, worms and rope in the food served by GEO, according to the state.

Earlier this year, Democrats in the state Legislature considered fining GEO for not allowing health inspectors inside. The law passed in 2023 allows the state to fine the operator for noncompliance.

Campaign finance activist Conner Edwards’ quixotic quest to recall Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson from office was intended to prod the governor into filling two vacant seats on the state’s Public Disclosure Commission. 

It worked.

Late Friday, Ferguson appointed Teebah Alsaleh of Seattle, a lawyer for Microsoft, to the commission. Her selection came a week after the governor installed Matt Segal, a founding partner at Pacifica Law Group and former King County Superior Court judge, to the other opening. The first meeting for the two new commissioners will be May 28.

With that, Edwards said he would end his pursuit of a recall.

“While I am disappointed that it took the drastic step of filing recall paperwork to elevate this to Governor Ferguson’s attention, the important thing is that the problem has now been solved,” said Edwards in an email Friday evening. 

“Teebah Alsaleh seems like an excellent pick to serve on the PDC and I look forward to hearing her perspective on the many issues now facing the PDC,” said Edwards, a prodigious filer of complaints of alleged violations of campaign finance rules.

Edwards filed his recall petition April 1, contending Ferguson’s failure to fill the openings within a timeline prescribed in state law amounted to misfeasance and a violation of his oath of office.

Those vacancies threatened to impede the panel’s effectiveness in enforcing state campaign finance laws in the upcoming election season, he said. With only three of its allotted five members, all had to be present for the quorum required to conduct hearings and decide cases.

Brionna Aho, Ferguson’s communications director, did not reply Monday to emailed requests for comment on the recall ending. Ferguson has also been silent on the effort to oust him.

In a legal filing Friday, Ferguson did respond to the now-moot petition, arguing that the statute saying the governor shall appoint new commissioners within 30 days is simply a “procedural guide.”

“To require the Governor to appoint a new member to the Commission within 30 days could even lead to adverse consequences by forcing the Governor to rush to appoint a new member without adequate vetting and investigation,” the response continued.

Grumbling over Ferguson’s picks

Meanwhile, Sen. Mark Schoesler, R-Ritzville, called into question Monday whether Ferguson’s two appointments will meet the commission’s requirement to have no more than three members from the same political party. None of the three current commissioners is associated with the minority party, he contends.

Segal, whose firm has served as Ferguson’s private counsel, fills the seat vacated by Allen Hayward in January 2025. Hayward was the longtime counsel for the House Republican Caucus. 

Alsaleh will assume the seat held by Commissioner Nancy Isserlis, who left last August. 

Alsaleh made $50 contributions to Sahar Fathi’s campaign for Seattle City Council in 2012 and Democrat Pramila Jayapal’s campaign for state Senate in 2014, commission records show. Fathi is now one of Ferguson’s top advisers and Jayapal is a Democratic leader in the U.S. House of Representatives.

“Clearly neither of these people identify with the minority party,” Schoesler said. “If it is not a violation of the law, it is a violation of the spirit of the law.”

He noted that the Senate Republican Caucus suggested the governor consider Jim Honeyford, a retired state senator from Sunnyside, for one of the open seats.

Neither Segal nor Alsaleh responded to requests for comment.

In a commission press release, Segal said that he is looking forward to serving as a fair and neutral voice, and prioritizing education and guidance for filers.

“Now more than ever it’s important that we act with transparency and that we get it right when it comes to campaigns and elections,” Segal said. 

Aho last week, and again Monday, offered some insight into the process that preceded the selections.

“Our office has handled hundreds of appointments, and we look for the same thing every time: Individuals who are smart, qualified, and willing to sacrifice their time for the people of our state,” she wrote in an email.

Longtime state lawmaker Sam Hunt, who represented Olympia in the Washington Legislature, died Saturday after a short battle with leukemia. He was 83. 

Hunt served 16 years in the state House, before moving to the Senate in 2017. He was chair of the committees overseeing state government and elections in both chambers. Hunt decided not to seek reelection in 2024, and was appointed a regent at Washington State University.

Hunt helped lead the charge for numerous measures to improve Washington’s elections and increase voter turnout. In his last legislative session in 2024, he proposed legislation to make voting mandatory, but it didn’t pass.

Upon retirement, Hunt highlighted his support for the state’s marriage equality law and for state employee collective bargaining rights. He compared the elections he ran and his time in the Legislature to riding a bucking bronco.

Tributes poured out on social media, where Hunt’s daughter, Hillary, announced his death. 

Tina Podlodowski, former chair of the state Democratic Party, called him a “statesman.”

“Sam truly lived the adage of making sure that every vote was counted and every voice was heard, and our state is better for his having been a part of it,” she wrote. 

Rep. Larry Springer, D-Kirkland, called Hunt an “institution.”

“More important, he was an institutionalist who stood steadfast for what that capital building stood for,” Springer wrote.

Gov. Bob Ferguson recalled Hunt showing off his collection of political buttons at his home. Ferguson is an avid collector of political memorabilia, as well. 

Sen. Claire Wilson, D-Federal Way, served with him on the Senate’s K-12 education committee. 

In an interview, she recalled him working with students to make September the “month of the kindergartner.”

Working on education issues was “such a big deal to him,” Wilson said. She called him the “kindest, kindest, kindest man.

“Everything he did was for the right reason,” she added. “Sam was the same person in every room.”

She and Hunt both graduated from Washington State University, so their corner of the 4th floor of the Legislative Building, where their offices were located, was filled with maroon and gray.

Hunt’s successor, Sen. Jessica Bateman, D-Olympia, also remembered his leadership on education and his commitment “to a vision of a state where every child has what it takes to succeed in life.” She called him a mentor. 

On the other side of the aisle, Sen. Drew MacEwen, R-Shelton, noted he and Hunt were far apart politically, but still formed a strong friendship. 

“We just respected each other and that we had differences,” MacEwen wrote on Facebook.

Hunt grew up in Yakima, and as a child was named the Washington State Junior Poultry Man of the Year. He was a school teacher in both Montesano and Pasco, where he was also a city council member. Hunt also worked for the state Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction and the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee under legendary Sen. Warren Magnuson. 

Back in Washington state, he served as a state Senate staffer in the 1980s and for Gov. Booth Gardner.

He joined the state House in 2001. He represented the 22nd Legislative District in the Legislature, which covers Olympia, Lacey, Tumwater and some of unincorporated Thurston County. 

Hunt brought his strong values and ethics to the Senate Democratic caucus, said Majority Leader Jamie Pedersen, D-Seattle.

“Sam was a cherished, well-loved colleague for me and many others for years. He was kind, gentlemanly, always courteous,” he said.

He “never left behind” his roots in Yakima, his teaching, his alma mater, the people in his districts and the many state workers he represented, Pedersen said.

“He wore all of these things on his sleeves but not in an annoying way,” Pedersen said. “He really was just a fantastic human being.”

While in the Legislature, Hunt served as national chair of the Council of State Governments. And outside of the Legislature, he was an avid gardener who had about 50 rose bushes. 

Hunt’s family asked that, in lieu of flowers, donations be made to the Sam Hunt Memorial Scholarship at Washington State University. 

Reporter Jerry Cornfield contributed to this report.

The U.S. Supreme Court could be ready to overturn a Missouri state court verdict that favored a man who sued the manufacturer of the popular herbicide Roundup for lacking any warning that the product carried a risk of cancer after oral arguments in the case Monday.

The arguments focused on whether states could enforce their own labeling requirements of pesticides, or whether federal law preempted any deviation among states. Members of the court’s 6-3 conservative majority emphasized the need for uniformity across the country.

The U.S. Department of Justice intervened in the case in favor of Monsanto, the Missouri-based company that manufactures Roundup and has been owned since 2018 by German pharmaceutical company Bayer. The company faces thousands of lawsuits claiming exposure to Roundup increased a risk of cancer and that the company failed to warn consumers when it reasonably should have known of the risk.

Monsanto denies that the product causes cancer, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has consistently agreed.

John Durnell, a St. Louis resident, sued the company in 2019 claiming that exposure to Roundup over two decades led to his developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a type of blood cancer. A Missouri trial court awarded him $1.25 million, and appeals courts affirmed the ruling.

But the Supreme Court, which is the first federal court to hear the case, seemed inclined to protect federal supremacy. The EPA, which regulates labeling requirements for herbicides, does not require the kind of warning the Missouri jury said was appropriate.

Federal law typically trumps state law, which Monsanto and the Justice Department emphasized Monday. Industry groups across the economy tend to support federal supremacy because it saves companies from complying with 50 separate regulatory schemes across states.

‘Is that uniformity?’

An exchange between Ashley Keller, the attorney for Durnell, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, whom President Donald Trump appointed in his first term, may hold the key to the court’s ultimate ruling.

Keller argued that Congress in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, which governs herbicide use, did not include a clause to expressly say that the federal law would preempt any state claims.

There was no issue of a difference between state and federal law, Keller said. Instead, a particular jury decided a single case based on unique facts, he continued. Different juries in other cases may have decided differently.

But Kavanaugh seemed not to accept that argument. He rephrased a similar question several times, and, even as Keller objected, appeared to dismiss the idea that the Missouri verdict was compatible with a national standard.

“You think it’s uniformity when each state can require different things?” he asked.

Keller rejected that framing. 

“The label’s illegal in one state and legal in another state,” Kavanaugh responded. “That’s uniformity?” 

Keller said he didn’t agree with that premise either, saying the label is not illegal based on the state but based on the facts presented at trial and the jury’s interpretation.

“The label subjects you to liability in one state and does not subject you to liability in another state,” Kavanaugh continued. “Is that uniformity?”

“I don’t think it’s state by state,” Keller said. “I think it’s jury by jury.”

Paul Clement, a well-known conservative appeals lawyer, represented Monsanto in the case, and described Keller’s argument as chaotic. It would not just open up separate regulatory regimes in each state in the country, but subject manufacturers to liability based on the makeup of any particular batch of citizens on a state court jury.

“It’s worse than 50 states,” he said. “It’s every jury is a new day.” 

A host of agencies in countries across the globe have all done studies on glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, Clement said.

“It’s probably the most, like, studied herbicide in the history of man, and they’ve all reached the conclusion based on more data and the kind of expert analysis they can do that there isn’t a risk here,” he said. “You shouldn’t let a single Missouri jury second-guess that judgment.”

Liberal justices seek consumer protections

The court’s liberal justices spent more time questioning why states shouldn’t be allowed to enforce stricter regulations.

Justice Elena Kagan asked Principal Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Sarah M. Harris, who argued on behalf of the federal government in favor of throwing out the verdict against Monsanto, if she agreed with Clement’s argument.

Harris said she largely agreed, noting that 50 states setting up separate regulations on labeling pesticides would cause confusion.

But Kagan asked why uniformity should be a higher goal than safety, saying a certain state government might have a better understanding than the EPA.

“It does undermine uniformity, I appreciate that,” Kagan said. “On the other hand, if it turns out that they (state regulators) were right, it might have been good if they had an opportunity to do something to call this danger to the attention of the people while the federal government was going through its process.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also pointed out that the EPA only registers herbicides once every 15 years, meaning that states might have better information than the EPA, especially later in that cycle.

“Lots of things can happen in science in terms of developments about the product,” she told Clement. “So if the product can become misbranded because of new information, I guess I’m just wondering why you think that you couldn’t have a situation where it would be perfectly rational for either the EPA or the states to bring to the attention of that manufacturer this new information and process a claim related to it.”

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday appeared likely to allow law enforcement to continue seeking warrants for the location history of cellphones near crime scenes, even as the justices wrestled with how far the government must go to protect Americans’ privacy.

Some of the justices appeared to be searching for a middle ground during oral arguments in a case out of Virginia challenging what is known as a geofence warrant that was used to catch a bank robber. Several justices asked skeptical questions of both sides, though no one voiced explicit support for prohibiting such warrants altogether.

As smartphones have become ubiquitous, along with apps that track users’ movements, the high court is once again wading into how the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, applies in the digital era. The justices’ decision, of tremendous interest to state attorneys general, will shape how easy or difficult it is for investigators to sweep up location data.

Over the past two decades, geofence warrants have become a major tool of law enforcement. At a basic level, they allow police to identify phones within a geographic area for a certain period of time. 

The data can be tremendously valuable to investigators, offering a way to develop suspects in crimes where their identities aren’t otherwise known. Underscoring their importance, a broad bipartisan coalition of states has urged the justices to uphold the warrants.

But civil liberties advocates say geofence warrants ensnare people in digital dragnets, handing the government data on anyone who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. They argue that accessing data on anyone within a certain area — the geofence — amounts to a general warrant prohibited by the Constitution.

Summing up the high court’s uncertainty in Monday’s arguments, Justice Amy Coney Barrett told U.S. Deputy Solicitor General Eric Feigin, who was arguing in favor of law enforcement access to location data, that while he had described his opponent’s position as maximalist, “there’s a risk of the government’s position being maximalist the other way.”

“I was just going to say this seems very complicated from the user’s point of view, frankly,” Barrett said at a different portion of the argument.

Credit union robbery

The case before the Supreme Court, Chatrie v. United States, arises from a 2019 robbery of a federal credit union in Midlothian, Virginia. Okello Chatrie was convicted of armed robbery after surveillance footage showed the robber using a cellphone. A detective then obtained a geofence warrant directed at Google for devices within 150 meters of the credit union within an hour of the robbery.

Google initially provided anonymized data in response to the warrant. The detective then requested and received additional location data on nine users. Finally, the detective received de-anonymized information on three users, without obtaining an additional warrant.

While Google has since changed the way it stores location history data to limit geofence warrants, other apps and tech firms collect the data. Lawyers for Chatrie argue that geofence warrants open the door to the authorities requesting information on everyone at a sensitive location — perhaps an abortion clinic or a political convention — at a particular time.

“The warrant authorized the government to direct Google to search every single person’s account to find those people who were within the geofence. That is a general warrant,” Adam Unikowsky, a lawyer for Chatrie, told the court.

4th Amendment debate

The Supreme Court’s last major decision on 4th Amendment rights and phones came in 2018, when the justices ruled that law enforcement generally needs a warrant for location data derived from when phones connect to a cell site. That data is generated by just having a cellphone, and the justices found that a phone is now a basic element of participating in society.

By contrast, the Trump administration argues location history data isn’t protected by the 4th Amendment because users voluntarily share it with Google and other tech firms by turning on location tracking on their phones. Because the information was turned over with their consent, users have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

“Petitioner here is asking for an unprecedented transformation of the 4th Amendment into an impregnable fortress around records of his public movements that he affirmatively consented to allow Google to create, maintain and use,” Feigin said.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of the court’s three liberal justices, argued that if the government can access location data without a warrant because Chatrie consented to sharing it with Google, then the government could obtain all sorts of other data shared with the company, such as photos and calendar entries.

“If this is consent, that means the government can seek those documents for any reason, not just the commission of a crime — or no reason, correct?” Sotomayor said.

“Correct. It would not be a search, so no search warrant would be required,” Unikowsky replied.

Red and blue states back geofence warrants

Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia have filed a court brief arguing that geofence warrants can be more precise than many traditional investigative methods when supported by probable cause and appropriately tailored. In the brief, they urged the justices not to prohibit geofence warrants altogether.

State attorneys general across the political spectrum signed on to the brief. They include Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Washington.

Geofence warrants can generate critical leads when the perpetrators of crimes are otherwise unknown, they wrote. When suspects are unknown but the suspected wrongdoing is linked to a specific place and time, location data provides one of the narrowest available tools for finding leads, the brief argues.

“This Court should make clear that the Constitution does not categorically ban those investigative methods,” the states’ brief reads.

Google brief

In a court brief, Google said geofence warrants result in invasive searches that are overbroad. Geofence searches, by their nature, have a high risk of sometimes sweeping in thousands of innocent users, the company said.

Even small geographic areas covering short periods of time can include hundreds of thousands of people, Google argued. Geofence parameters set by law enforcement often cover more ground than the location of the crime, with private homes, apartments, government buildings, hotels, places of worship and busy roads all included.

Lawyers for Google wrote that the company takes no position on whether the warrant in the Chatrie case complies with the 4th Amendment.

“But Google firmly believes that, based on the private nature of Location History data, law enforcement was required to obtain a warrant to access that data,” the brief says.

Orin Kerr, a Stanford Law School professor and one of the nation’s foremost experts on the 4th Amendment, predicted after the oral argument that the justices would likely rule that geofence warrants can be constitutionally drafted. 

However, he was uncertain whether the court would rule on whether the geofence search that identified Chatrie’s phone was a search under the 4th Amendment.

“They’ll probably say that geofence warrants have to be limited in time and space,” Kerr wrote on social media.

SEATTLE — Washington state on Monday sued Albertsons over allegations it has been overcharging customers for years via buy one, get one free offers. 

Attorney General Nick Brown claims Albertsons, which also runs Safeway and Haggen stores, overcharged customers on at least 3.1 million transactions under this scheme between October 2019 and May 2024, bringing in at least $19.6 million from those purchases. 

The lawsuit, filed in King County Superior Court, says Albertsons artificially raises the prices of items like bread, produce and olive oil in the weeks or months before a buy one, get one, or BOGO, offer. It then lowers the prices within a month of the promotion. 

The complaint argues customers pay a premium on the first product, which covers a portion of the cost of the “free” one. The lawsuit comes after a monthslong investigation, Brown said.

“Washington consumers are already burdened by affordability issues, and we’re not going to stand by and let them get fleeced by deceptive marketing,” Brown said in a press conference.

Albertsons said in a statement that the company is aware of the lawsuit.

“We engaged in good‑faith discussions with the Attorney General’s Office and strongly disagree with its claims, which are based on flawed analysis and data errors that we identified and raised,” the company said.

“Albertsons Companies is committed to complying with the law and to offering customers clear value through our promotions,” the statement continued. “As this is pending litigation, we will address the matter through the legal process and cannot comment further.”

In 2021, the lawsuit says, Oroweat Premium Italian Bread at an Albertsons in Tacoma cost $3.69. But the store raised the price to $4.29, about 16%, around the time of a BOGO offer on the bread, according to the lawsuit. After the deal passed, it dropped the price to $4.17. 

Other increases included 50% for mini watermelon at Safeway in Colville, 57% for olive oil at a Gig Harbor Albertsons and 84% for pimiento-stuffed olives at an Albertsons in Renton.

This isn’t the first time this issue has been called out. 

In Oregon, Albertsons paid $107 million to settle a 2016 class-action lawsuit over similar allegations. In that case, eligible customers could each receive up to $200.

And in 2024, Albertsons settled with Washington consumers who brought their own lawsuit against the company. The terms of the settlement weren’t disclosed.

The state’s lawsuit alleges Albertsons is violating safeguards in the state’s Consumer Protection Act against unfair and deceptive practices. 

Brown is asking a judge to order Albertsons to end its buy one, get one practices, provide restitution to customers and pay civil penalties with interest.

Albertsons, based in Boise, Idaho, has 225 stores in Washington, according to the attorney general’s office. 

Washington has previously gone to court with the grocery giant to block its merger with Kroger out of anti-competitive concerns. In response to the lawsuit filed by then-Attorney General Bob Ferguson, a King County judge ruled the merger violated state consumer protection laws and halted it. A federal judge similarly blocked it, after the Federal Trade Commission sued. 

Brown pointed out this new lawsuit comes as the Trump administration has “gutted” federal consumer protection efforts. And grocery prices are on the rise. 

“This is something that everyone is facing, something that I face, trying to decide what products and food to buy for your family feels more important than ever before,” he said.

State lawmakers this year proposed legislation to temporarily ban electronic pricing systems at retailers and prohibit surveillance or algorithmic surge pricing. The bill didn’t pass the Legislature, but its sponsor has said she plans to try again in 2027.

Brown said his office has been “paying a lot of attention” to this issue, and eyeing whether companies are tailoring prices to customers based on personal data.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A New York City mom and domestic violence survivor felt a flashback of fear when she received a notice in March that the emergency housing voucher she and her son have relied on since 2023 will run out soon.

“It felt like the rug was pulled out from under me,” said Nyla B., who did not want her last name used to protect her safety. “I remember how hard it was to get housing when I left. I didn’t want to go back to a shelter with my son, who has health needs. The thought of being homeless again — or going back to my abuser — came rushing back.”

Nyla and other renters housed through the federal Emergency Housing Voucher program face a looming deadline to find alternative housing assistance, after the Trump administration announced that funding will run out earlier than expected. The program, created by Congress in 2021 and initially expected to last through 2030, has helped people at risk of or experiencing homelessness as well as those fleeing domestic or dating violence, stalking or human trafficking.

But with funding ending this year, some renters have been provided little guidance on what to do next. Some cities are transitioning them to other programs, but others are struggling with how to ensure the recipients don’t end up homeless. Some housing advocates say cities had plenty of warning about the end of funding and yet some didn’t act fast enough.

Across the country, the program has provided roughly 70,000 vouchers across more than 600 local public housing authorities.

Unlike other ongoing federal housing programs such as Section 8, the Emergency Housing Voucher program was crafted as extra pandemic-era assistance. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development announced in March 2025 that funding would run out for the program in late 2026, effectively accelerating the end of the initiative years ahead of its original timeline. HUD said the money went faster than expected “due to historic increases in rental prices.”

HUD did not answer Stateline questions about the program.

In New York, Nyla was accepted into the program in the summer of 2022, found an apartment a year later, and moved in by fall 2023. Before that, she spent years living with relatives after leaving her abuser in 2016, because the lingering financial abuse and trauma made it difficult to secure stable housing on her own, she said.

Nyla received an initial notice warning of the program’s diminishing funds in August 2025. A second letter in March informed her that the program would run out of money in 2026. Now, she could be evicted and lose her home.

Transitioning to Section 8

As of April 15, more than 47,000  emergency vouchers remained actively leased, according to HUD. That’s a drop from roughly 59,000 in April 2025.

Vouchers are heavily concentrated in large coastal and urban states, with the two highest cluster of voucher recipients in New York City (5,125 vouchers) and the Los Angeles region (2,823 in the city and 1,624 in the county). Additional concentrations are spread across New York state agencies (1,772 and 1,385) and other major metros — including Chicago (615), Philadelphia (716), the Seattle area (689), and Santa Clara County, California (591).

Before the end of 2025, some housing authorities began preparing for the elimination of the emergency vouchers, such as adjustments made to the Chicago Housing Authority’s fiscal 2026 budget.

For city programs that had relatively low numbers of voucher holders, such as the 45 recipients in Iowa City, Iowa, the city will transition them into the regular Section 8 federal Housing Choice Voucher program without having to reopen the waitlist.

New York City Housing Authority officials originally planned to transition people from emergency vouchers to regular Section 8 vouchers, but were unable to do so because the agency lacks funding and is in “shortfall status.” The city said it sought a federal waiver from that requirement but was denied.

The agency says it has about 5,200 active Emergency Housing Voucher participants, but lacks the funding to move them into the regular Section 8 program. Instead, the agency is urging participants to apply for public housing by May 1, after which it will begin trying to match eligible households to vacant units.

But officials say they cannot guarantee placement in another program or apartment.

“Participants must complete a public housing application,” Deputy Press Secretary Andrew Sklar said in an email to Stateline. “NYCHA encourages residents to submit their application by May 1 and will be accepting applications on a rolling basis through the summer.”

But housing advocates believe the agency should have planned better, noting that the Trump administration signaled more than a year ago that funding would run out earlier than expected.

“That wasn’t a secret,” said Gabbi Sandoval Requena of New Destiny Housing, a New York City-based nonprofit that provides housing and services to domestic violence survivors and their families. “There is no public plan from NYCHA for how to transition these households, and the way this was communicated created a lot of anxiety and confusion. For domestic violence survivors, it could mean going back to their abuser — putting their lives and their children’s lives at risk.”

Other city options

A potential lifeline for those losing the emergency vouchers, a separate New York City rental assistance program called CityFHEPS — Fighting Homelessness and Eviction Prevention Supplement — is subject of a legal battle over its cost. New Mayor Zohran Mamdani during his campaign had promised to expand the program but instead is continuing a lawsuit to block that expansion, saying it would cost too much money.

City agencies see no perfect solution to keep former emergency voucher recipients housed long term.

Roughly 2,000 additional New Yorkers get emergency housing vouchers from the city’s Department of Housing Preservation & Development. Kim Moscaritolo, a spokesperson for the agency, said the city is attempting to transition those households to a separate, locally funded subsidy — HOME tenant-based rental assistance — that could extend assistance by about two years.

“We are limited by the resources that are available to us, because when a program that’s supposed to last for 10 years suddenly loses funding, it’s always a challenge to figure out how to keep people in their homes,” said Moscaritolo. “It’s not a perfect solution, but it at least extends the opportunity for these folks to have that same sort of housing stability.”

New York Democratic state Sen. Brian Kavanagh introduced legislation that would open up an existing state housing program to those at risk of losing their federal rental subsidies. He and other lawmakers also are fighting to increase state funding for that program.

The Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles told Stateline it allocated 3,365 emergency housing vouchers. With the funding for the program set to expire in 2026, the program is no longer accepting new applicants and sent out notices regarding the sunset of the program, a spokesperson told Stateline.

Uncertainty for voucher holders

The loss of these vouchers have some recipients wondering how to stay housed. Do they go back to shelters — which advocates say could be further overwhelmed with evicted voucher holders — or, in some cases, go back to the chaotic situation that led to homelessness in the first place?

Many survivors of domestic violence struggle to leave because they don’t have enough money or a safe place to live. According to a survey by the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence, 73% of survivors nationally said their financial situation affected their ability to leave an abusive relationship, while 28% of survivors reported being denied housing due to experiences with domestic violence.

A bill in Nyla’s home state, New York, would prohibit landlords from asking for information or proof from a victim of domestic violence in order to apply for housing.

Nyla recounted being denied on application by landlords when she first looked for apartments after leaving her abuser. She said that landlords were fearful that the situation she left would follow her and possibly cause issues in the apartments she was applying for.

She said finding an apartment became her second job.

“You’re judged before you even say you’re a survivor, and I’m already seen as not reliable, not worthy just for having housing assistance,” she said. “They double-check you, like they don’t believe what’s on your application. And I think regardless of the situation we left, we are deserving of a safe, stable home just like market-rate renters.”

Stateline reporter Robbie Sequeira can be reached at rsequeira@stateline.org.

• 7:50 amThis story was updated to correct Gabbi Sandoval Requena's name.

This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Washington State Standard, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

Former state representative Robert Sutherland, a conservative Republican whose brashness and spread of election conspiracies marked his four years in office, is mounting a comeback weeks after revealing plans to move from Washington.

Sutherland said Friday he is “currently in the race” to succeed retiring Rep. Carolyn Eslick, R-Sultan, in the 39th Legislative District, encompassing parts of Snohomish and Skagit counties. 

He joins Republican Steve Ewing and Democrats Ida Keeley and David Garrett in seeking to fill the opening created with Eslick’s March announcement that she would not seek re-election.

Sutherland declared his candidacy April 18 at a meeting of Snohomish County Republican Party leaders, less than a month after announcing on Facebook that he and his wife had bought a retirement home in Idaho and “our days here in WA are numbered, I am sad to say.”

Sutherland, who has said the sale of his Granite Falls home will close next week, listed a Lake Stevens address on the campaign committee registration form he filed Friday with the state Public Disclosure Commission.

He represented the 39th district for two terms but didn’t get a third, losing reelection in 2022 to Republican Sam Low of Lake Stevens, a Snohomish County Council member.  Low won re-election by decisively beating Sutherland in a rematch in 2024 for the Position 1 seat.

Sutherland, a devotee of President Donald Trump, was a purveyor of stolen election theories and falsehoods about fraud in the 2020 presidential election. 

In the 2021 session, he co-sponsored bills to end voting by mail and require only paper ballots with special watermarks be counted. Neither received a hearing in the Democrat-controlled House. In 2023, Sutherland ran unsuccessfully for Snohomish County auditor.

He also fought COVID mandates imposed in the Legislature. He joined with other GOP members in a lawsuit challenging House rules requiring members be vaccinated in order to get into their offices or be on the House floor. He lost the suit.

On Monday, Sutherland edged Ewing for the endorsement of the 39th Legislative District Republican committee. Ewing said the final vote was 13-8.

The next day, on Facebook, Sutherland posted he was “honored and humbled. Is it time to elect a real Republican to represent the good folks of the 39th to fight the tyranny in Olympia? Last night they said YES.”

Ewing, who served from 2019 to 2025 on the Lake Stevens City Council, has already received endorsements of the current 39th District delegation of Eslick, Low and

Sen. Keith Wagoner, R-Sedro-Woolley. He also enjoys backing from Snohomish County Councilmember Nate Nehring, Sultan Mayor Russell Wiita, Marysville Mayor Jon Nehring and Arlington Mayor Don Vanney.

Sutherland’s late entry is “just a dynamic that I am going to have to deal with,” Ewing said Friday. “If anything, it bolstered my supporters.”

Democrats Keeley and Garrett are each vying for a state elected office for the first time.

Garrett, of Marysville, works for the Boeing Co. as a structural design engineer on its 777-8 Freighter program. He’s active in and held leadership posts with the Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace, or SPEEA.

Keeley, a Lake Stevens resident, has worked in the public sector on child welfare and juvenile justice issues. She held administrative positions with the state Department of Children, Youth and Families and the Snohomish County Juvenile Court, and served as chair of the Children’s Campaign Fund Action Board.

The filing period for candidates is May 4-8 with the primary election Aug. 4. The two candidates with the most votes will advance to the general election on Nov. 3.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The alleged shooter at Saturday night’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner in Washington, D.C., wrote a “manifesto” ahead of his planned attack, President Donald Trump said in a Sunday morning interview on Fox News and later in the day on the CBS show “60 Minutes.”

Meanwhile, Trump and MAGA allies online said security flaws exposed by the incident prove the need for a new secure ballroom at the White House. Trump, first lady Melania Trump and Cabinet officials were safely evacuated from the Washington Hilton after shots were fired by a suspect said by officials to be armed with a shotgun, handgun and multiple knives.

Multiple news reports Sunday identified the suspected shooter as 31-year-old Cole Tomas Allen of Torrance, California, and The Associated Press said he is a tutor and amateur video game developer. The White House has not released that information publicly and spokespeople did not return a message Sunday.

Fox News Host Jacqui Heinrich used the name in her interview with Trump, who did not use it himself but did not correct Heinrich when she named Allen and called the manifesto “anti-Trump” and “anti-Christian.”

Trump said the document revealed a “hatred” for Christianity.

“The guy is a sick guy,” he said. “When you read his manifesto, he hates Christians. That’s one thing for sure: He hates Christians.”

The New York Post published what the outlet said was the full text of the manifesto, which sought to reconcile the attack with Christian teachings, rather than mock the religion itself. The document was also referenced in the CBS interview, with host Norah O’Donnell saying it characterized members of the administration as targets.

The document lays out a series of objections to a planned attack and the writer’s rebuttals.

“Objection 1: As a Christian, you should turn the other cheek,” Allen wrote, according to the New York Post. 

“Rebuttal: Turning the other cheek is for when you yourself are oppressed,” he continued. “I’m not the person raped in a detention camp. I’m not the fisherman executed without trial. I’m not a schoolkid blown up or a child starved or a teenage girl abused by the many criminals in this administration. Turning the other cheek when *someone else* is oppressed is not Christian behavior; it is complicity in the oppressor’s crimes.”

Noting this was what he characterized as the third assassination attempt of Trump in less than two years, U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson wrote on social media that a Trump trademark is a calm demeanor under pressure.

“I’ve spent a lot of time with him over the past several years, and he is at his strongest in times of crisis and turmoil,” the Louisiana Republican wrote. “It is a primary reason why his time in office is so historic. Adding to that history, he has now survived a third assassination attempt.”

Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche said Sunday on news shows that the gunman appeared to be targeting administration officials but did not say it was specifically Trump. The White House put out a statement with the headline, “President Trump Stands Fearless After Third Assassination Attempt.”

Arraignment Monday

Blanche also said he expects the suspect to be arraigned in D.C. federal court on Monday. Jeanine Pirro, the top federal prosecutor for the District of Columbia, said Saturday night the man would be charged with using a firearm during a crime of violence and assault on a federal officer using a dangerous weapon. 

The suspect traveled from Los Angeles to Washington by train, switching trains in Chicago, Blanche said in a Sunday morning interview on NBC News’ “Meet the Press with Kristen Welker.” That mode of travel would have allowed him to transport the weapons that officials said were found on him across the country without facing a security check, unlike an air flight.

Blanche said he did not think any additional laws to increase security on trains were needed.

The shooter was staying at the Washington Hilton, the longtime site for the annual White House Correspondents’ Dinner, for days before the attack, Blanche said. 

At the time of the interview, Allen was not cooperating with the investigation, Blanche said.

Asked if there was any foreign connection to the planned attack, Blanche said many details of the shooter’s plans were yet unknown.

“We’re still looking into motivation, and that’s something that hopefully we’ll learn over the next couple of days,” Blanche said. “We do believe, based upon just a very preliminary start to understanding what happened, that he was targeting members of the administration. We don’t have specifics beyond that.”

Blanche added that the law enforcement agent injured by a shot to his bulletproof vest Saturday night was doing well and had received a call from Trump.

“The president spoke with him last night,” Blanche said. “He was in great spirits. He apparently didn’t really even want to go to the hospital, although he was certainly injured.”

Ballroom pitched as security fix

Trump, a host of right-wing influencers and at least one Democratic member of Congress called for the construction of a new ballroom for the White House in response to the incident.

“What happened last night is exactly the reason that our great Military, Secret Service, Law Enforcement and, for different reasons, every President for the last 150 years, have been DEMANDING that a large, safe, and secure Ballroom be built ON THE GROUNDS OF THE WHITE HOUSE,” Trump wrote on his social media site, Truth Social, Sunday morning. 

“This event would never have happened with the Militarily Top Secret Ballroom currently under construction at the White House,” he continued. “It cannot be built fast enough! While beautiful, it has every highest level security feature there is plus, there are no rooms sitting on top for unsecured people to pour in, and is inside the gates of the most secure building in the World.”

The initial White House announcement of the ballroom, in July, emphasized space needs for large events and gave only a passing mention to security updates, saying the Secret Service would provide them.

U.S. Sen. John Fetterman, a Pennsylvania Democrat who is among the senators who most commonly cross party lines, posted on social media Sunday that a new ballroom was a necessity, calling on opponents to drop their “TDS,” or Trump Derangement Syndrome, a name to describe people who oppose anything Trump does.

“That venue wasn’t built to accommodate an event with the line of succession for the U.S. government,” Fetterman wrote. “After witnessing last night, drop the TDS and build the White House ballroom for events exactly like these.”

Montana Republican U.S. Sen. Tim Sheehy said he would propose a bill to expedite the construction of the White House ballroom.

“This week I will introduce and seek unanimous consent for legislation providing express approval for construction of a Presidential ballroom,” he wrote on X. “It is an embarrassment to the strongest nation on earth that we cannot host gatherings in our nation’s capital, including ones attended by our President, without the threat of violence and attempted assassinations.”

And Rep. Chip Roy, a Texas Republican who is a leader among the caucus’ far-right members, said ballroom construction should be included in an upcoming funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security.

“Any consideration of DHS reconciliation instructions this week & beyond should provide for construction of a secure ballroom on White House grounds – in addition to other concerns,” he wrote.

A U.S. appeals court ruling last month that upheld West Virginia’s ban on Medicaid coverage for adult gender-affirming surgeries could embolden other states seeking to impose similar restrictions.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in March overturned a lower court decision in Anderson v. Crouch that had reversed West Virginia’s ban on Medicaid coverage for adult gender-affirming surgeries. The lower court ruled that the ban was discriminatory.

The decision came after the Supreme Court last year upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for youth in U.S. v. Skrmetti. The court then vacated several lower courts’ rulings and handed back cases — including West Virginia’s — for reconsideration in light of the high court’s opinion in the Tennessee case.

In response, the new West Virginia ruling extends the Supreme Court’s reasoning to the state’s ban on Medicaid coverage for adult gender-affirming surgery. The judges wrote West Virginia’s policy applies only to certain procedures, contending that it doesn’t target certain people or a protected status such as sex.

In a unanimous opinion, the three-judge appeals panel wrote, “(I)t is not irrational for a legislature to encourage citizens ‘to appreciate their sex’ and not ‘become disdainful of their sex’ by refusing to fund experimental procedures that may have the opposite effect.” The panel added, “The Supreme Court’s decision in Skrmetti forecloses any argument to the contrary.” The plaintiffs have filed a request for a rehearing by a full panel.

Providing care to people that aligns with their gender identity has been associated with overall better well-being and mental health, some research shows. Gender-affirming care includes a range of services, including hormone replacement, chest and genital removal or augmentation, and facial surgeries.

Experts say that while the West Virginia ruling technically sets a precedent only for 4th Circuit states, it could embolden and influence other states that are aiming to impose similar restrictions on public funds for gender-affirming treatments for adults. It also aligns with the slew of federal directives issued by President Donald Trump, including his order that federal agencies only recognize a biological, binary definition of sex.

“This gives states leeway to enact laws that would potentially restrict access to gender-affirming care for trans youth and adults,” said Elana Redfield, federal policy director at the Williams Institute, a think tank at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law. “It could encourage states to adopt more, broader bans, including Medicaid bans, even for adults.”

An estimated 152,000 transgender adults are enrolled in Medicaid, but less than half live in states that guarantee coverage for gender-affirming care, according to the Williams Institute. About 29% of LGBTQ+ people live in states that exclude coverage, according to the Movement Advancement Project, a think tank that also tracks legislation.

Carmel Shachar, assistant clinical professor of law and faculty director of Harvard Law School’s Health Law and Policy Clinic, called Anderson v. Crouch “a significant early case in the post-Skrmetti landscape.”

“(The ruling) is definitely influential,” she added, saying it’s “a sign of which way the wind is blowing right now when it comes to state policies.”

At least seven other states have faced lawsuits over banning or limiting insurance coverage for gender-affirming care, Reuters reported. According to the Movement Advancement Project, a think tank that supports LGBTQ+ rights, 27 states explicitly include gender-affirming care in Medicaid coverage policies, and 11 states explicitly ban Medicaid funds from use for gender-affirming care for people of all ages.

Oklahoma is aiming to join that list. Republicans there are advancing legislation that would prohibit Medicaid funds from covering adult gender-affirming care. The bill would also bar public money from being used by any organization or individual to pay for gender transition. It passed the Senate last month and a House oversight committee 11-2 last week.

During a floor debate this month, Oklahoma state Rep. Ellen Pogemiller, a Democrat, asked the bill’s sponsor directly whether privately covered adults who get care in public hospitals would lose access to care. “That’s a grave concern,” said Pogemiller, who added that she’s received that question from constituents.

“Fair point. I don’t have an answer for you,” replied Republican state Rep. Erick Harris, a cosponsor of the bill.

Pogemiller also cited a 2022 national survey by The Trevor Project, which provides suicide prevention services for LGBTQ+ youth, that found 55% of Oklahoma transgender and nonbinary youth had seriously considered suicide in the previous year. The research on whether gender-affirming care prevents suicides in children or adults is inconclusive.

“Are you concerned with legislation like this leading to an increase in youth and adult suicide?” she asked.

“I am concerned about public funds being used for things that they shouldn’t be used for,” Harris said. “That’s what I’m concerned about.”

Shannon Minter, legal director at the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, said the ruling in the West Virginia case could lead to more discrimination.

“It invites states to come up with creative ways to discriminate against other groups of people and disguise it as just regulation of medical care,” Minter said. “It’s dangerous when the law and the courts refuse to recognize that type of blatant discrimination.”

Hailey Briggs is the executive director of Oklahomans For Equality, which serves LGBTQ+ communities in the state, running support groups and an LGBTQ+-affirming clinic that offers hormone replacement therapy. She said the bill is triggering more fear in the community. Since the start of this year’s legislative session, the clinic has seen between four and six new patients each week, some driving from hours away, as well as an uptick in mental health care service calls.

“This entire legislative session in particular has been just absolutely brutal for folks,” she said.

The bill is “not a narrow policy change,” Briggs continued. “We do see this as really a sweeping attempt to push essential health care out of reach for a lot of folks.”

The organization anticipates a surge in patients and insurance denials should the bill be signed into law, since the clinic isn’t federally or state funded and offers low-cost care. “We work to supplement for folks who don’t have insurance or are underinsured,” Briggs said. “They are going to be turned away from their trusted providers in state-funded institutions.”

Texas is one of the states that bans Medicaid coverage for such care for people of all ages. Andrea Segovia, senior field and policy director at the Transgender Education Network of Texas, said there’s an ongoing “chilling effect” as a result of such policies. Her team is increasingly hearing of insurance denials, she said.

“They’re seen as cosmetics. They’re seen as not necessary,” Segovia said of some medical procedures. “Somebody will email us and say, ‘I lost my coverage,’ or ‘I got this letter from my insurance.’”

Shachar, of Harvard Law School, said the 4th Circuit ruling may make denying coverage easier.

“Private insurers would still be free to cover these services, even if Medicaid doesn’t cover them. But I think an insurer who doesn’t want to cover these services might feel a little more comfortable after this case,” Shachar said. “It definitely opens the doors there for insurers to (say), ‘Medicaid’s not covering it, we don’t want to cover it.’”

An opinion by Texas Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton last month barred mental health care providers from assisting in transitioning youth’s care, and he said anyone helping with such care is “committing child abuse.” But now, even adults have told Segovia’s team that their mental health therapists are dropping them as patients.

“There have been multiple people — adults — who have lost their mental health care provider because (the providers are) concerned that the attorney general would come after them and their license,” Segovia said. “It’s just created a lot of confusion for our professionals.”

Stateline reporter Nada Hassanein can be reached at nhassanein@stateline.org.

This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Washington State Standard, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

SEATTLE – The first time Dr. Anita Chopra had a long COVID patient, she cried.

It was two years after the pandemic, she said, when the once-healthy patient described symptoms of weakness, chronic fatigue and frequently forgetting daily activities.

“I still see him. He’s in his late 40s, but the amount of change he dealt with, the challenges he’s still struggling with are just overwhelming,” Chopra said.

Chopra is a lead physician at the University of Washington Medicine Long COVID clinic, based at the Harborview Medical Center, and a primary care provider at the university’s primary care center at Shoreline.

Since the pandemic, researchers and physicians, including Chopra, have been studying the long-term effects of COVID-19 and the complications that continue to interfere with daily life. These effects have disproportionately affected some groups of people, such as Latino farmworkers. Chopra said her observations also reflect a broader pattern in the agricultural community, where workers face higher rates of long COVID but often don’t receive a diagnosis.

The dizziness started while Baldomero Muñoz was working in the blueberry fields of Oregon.

Dr. Leo Morales, a UW medical school professor and lead researcher with the university’s Latino Center for Health, said a survey by the center shows 41.2% of agricultural workers experience long COVID – one of the highest rates among professions studied. Overall, 34% of Latinos report experiencing long COVID, the highest rate among the racial groups examined.

The study defines long COVID as an illness affecting people with a probable or confirmed COVID-19 infection, with symptoms appearing within three months and lasting at least two months.

Morales said both delayed access to vaccines early in the pandemic and vaccine hesitancy contributed to these disparities.

“The best way to prevent long COVID is to prevent COVID in the first place and vaccines are an important strategy,” Morales said.

A 2020 study by the University of California Berkeley School of Public Health found that many farmworkers initially avoided vaccination due to concerns about side effects (65%), fears of contracting COVID-19 from the vaccine (12%), and distrust of the government (12%).

The 2022 California Farmworker Health Study also points to poor living conditions and high rates of underlying conditions, such as diabetes, as contributing factors.

“At this point, long COVID is one of many different conditions that we need to be concerned with,” he said. “Access to care is the biggest issue we have right now.”

The diagnosis gap

Dr. Kendl Sankary, a physician at the clinic, said one of the key components to a long COVID diagnosis is ruling out other conditions that are causing similar symptoms.

“There’s not like a blood test or an imaging test that can tell us someone has a long COVID. We really base the diagnosis upon the person’s symptoms and the timeline of their symptoms with respect to a COVID infection,” she said.

Common symptoms of long COVID include fatigue, shortness of breath, brain fog and chest pain.

However, the waitlist at the only long COVID clinic in Washington state is long and the diagnosis process depends on the person.

The clinic has seven providers, making it difficult to get an appointment quickly.

Sankary said she’s had multiple patients who have worked with a primary care doctor and gotten to the point of at least suspecting long COVID as the diagnosis within a couple of months.

“And then I have other patients where they’ve been dealing with these symptoms for four years and haven’t come to a clear diagnosis until they’re able to get into our clinic. So it really depends from person to person,” she said.

For farmworkers, the referral and waitlists aren’t the only issues. Geography also plays a role.

Most farmworkers reside in Yakima, Chelan, and Grant counties, according to 2025 data from the Washington State Employment Security Department – far from Seattle, where the clinic is based. For a long period, referrals were also limited to King County, further restricting access, Sankary said.

“Which is unfortunate, because I know the rates are higher in that group,” she said.

Beyond distance, a 2025 report from the Washington State Institute for Public Policy found that about 40% of farmworkers lacked health insurance.

Chopra said she dedicates one day a week to long COVID patients and sees about six people. Only about 6% of her patients have been Latino. Sankary, who sees about 16 patients a week, said few of hers are Latino as well.

Awareness and working conditions also contribute to the gap, Chopra said. In rural communities, patients may not recognize their symptoms as long COVID.

She added that many farmworkers delay seeking or accepting a diagnosis, in part because symptoms like fatigue, shortness of breath or chest pain often are normalized in physically demanding jobs, and because taking time off work to seek care is not always feasible.

“These patients are working and sometimes the only working member in the family, so they feel like they have to keep on working,” she said. “The advice that they hear from their family members, or co-workers or friends, is just ‘tough it out.’ And unfortunately, with long COVID, there is no such thing.”

Chopra describes these delays as a “social determinant of health,” shaped by working and living conditions that can both discourage care and worsen lingering symptoms after COVID.

“They work in Eastern Washington. It is very dry. They can manifest as asthma, shortness of breath. Sometimes they can have chest pain. Sometimes, some of them experience heart racing for no reason,” Chopra said. “That impact of COVID on their lungs makes them more susceptible to the dry condition and all the dust that they are inhaling.”

But Chopra said their working conditions also can expose them to other health risks, raising questions about whether symptoms stem from COVID, environmental factors or both.

Pesticides vs. COVID

We Are Ella, a Latina-led social justice organization based in the lower Yakima Valley, recently released a documentary highlighting farmworkers affected by air pollution and chemical exposures from sources such as pesticides and fertilizers.

Maricela Santana-Walle, environmental justice coordinator, said the group also conducted a survey alongside the documentary to better understand the effect in the region.

It found many farmworkers face illnesses like asthma, linked to years of pesticide exposure, Santana-Walle said.

But asthma is also the fifth most reported symptom for long COVID patients, according to research by UW Latino Center for Health.

Chopra said pesticide exposure and long COVID likely overlap.

“What we see in patients is some of them have pre-existing asthma and that can become exacerbated after long COVID. Or some patients who come in, they don’t have any history of asthma, but now they have symptoms,” she said.

“So is this pesticide exposure? If they have reactive airways or new onset of asthma, then pesticides can add to it, which is why we will get a chest X-ray and will refer them for lung function testing. But certainly pesticide exposure can superimpose on the already irritated lungs,” Chopra said.

Sankary also said that at the university’s occupational health clinic, they have seen patients with chemical exposures. She said that for farmworkers, it is important to conduct additional testing to determine whether symptoms align with a clinical diagnosis, like pesticide exposure, rather than a symptom-based one, which is how long COVID often is diagnosed.

“As long as we’ve ruled out kind of those other conditions that have other specific treatments, then I’ll often kind of put them through some of the same treatments that are symptom-based that I would someone with long COVID, even if we’re not 100% sure,” Sankary said.

Chopra said the long COVID clinic is working toward making sure it has partnerships across the state to ensure patients who are dealing with COVID symptoms can get faster referrals and treatment.

“I want to make sure that it’s a trickle down effect; empowering providers will improve patient care,” she said. “That is the bottom line.”

This story is part of a reporting fellowship sponsored by the Association of Health Care Journalists and supported by the Commonwealth Fund.

Monica Carrillo-Casas, reporting on northeastern rural communities for The Spokesman-Review, is with the Washington State Murrow Fellowships, a local news program supported by the state.

The Trump administration has denied Washington’s request for federal funding to prepare for future floods after a historic deluge hit the state late last year.

The letter Thursday from Federal Emergency Management Agency Associate Administrator Gregg Phillips gives little explanation for the denial. Phillips only writes that the federal hazard mitigation grants are “not warranted.”

The state has 30 days to appeal.

President Donald Trump earlier this month approved separate requests for federal aid to help individuals, nonprofits and state, tribal and local governments rebuild. The December flooding forced evacuation orders for over 100,000 Washingtonians and damaged nearly 4,000 homes, according to the state.

U.S. Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Everett, called the Trump administration’s move on the mitigation funding “an unacceptable decision for the families and businesses that I represent.”

“The disaster declaration helps people recover from the last flood, but hazard mitigation helps people survive the next flood,” Larsen said in a statement, adding that FEMA “should be helping Northwest Washington prepare for the inevitable next major flood, not just doing damage control.”

In February, Ferguson pegged the preliminary damage at $182.3 million. Of that total, the state could ask the federal government to cover three-quarters. That’s roughly $137 million. This pot is what Trump agreed to, though it’s unclear exactly how much money will flow into the state.

When Ferguson made the request, he cited a new floodwall in Mount Vernon that protected the Skagit County city from more devastating flooding in December to make the case for the funding to prepare for future disasters.

At the time, he said the toll from the flooding “would have been even worse, significantly worse, without infrastructure to protect against flooding.”

The state can ask for mitigation funding of up to 20% of its total damage estimate. That would be a maximum of over $36 million in this case. 

Ferguson’s office didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the denial.

Trump has made a point of rejecting aid for some states led by Democrats, including in Washington in the aftermath of the 2024 bomb cyclone.

The deadline for individuals impacted by the flooding to apply for federal funding is June 10.  The aid is available to people in Chelan, Grays Harbor, King, Lewis, Pacific, Pierce, Skagit, Snohomish, Thurston and Whatcom counties and numerous tribal communities. People should first file claims with their insurance providers, then apply for federal assistance online at www.DisasterAssistance.gov, by calling 1-800-621-3362 or using the FEMA App. 

Meanwhile, earlier this week, FEMA approved over $250 million nationwide to help state and local communities protect against future floods. This included nearly $930,000 for the city of Enumclaw for culvert design replacement, $300,000 for Snohomish County and $180,000 for the state Department of Ecology to develop a strategy to reduce flood risk in areas frequently beset by flooding. 

The state has gone to court with the Trump administration over the withholding of more than $150 million in other disaster mitigation funding for Washington. Among the projects left in limbo were levee and floodwall construction in Aberdeen and Hoquiam.

Last month, Attorney General Nick Brown, along with other states, secured a court order requiring FEMA to take concrete steps to reverse the cancellation of the funding.

These funding streams are separate from what the Trump administration denied this week.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The Pacific Northwest faces a near-term electricity shortfall as demand rises faster than new resources can be built, according to a new regional analysis from San Francisco-based Energy and Environmental Economics.

Arne Olson, a senior partner at the firm, said the findings point to an immediate challenge for utilities and policymakers trying to balance reliability, affordability and decarbonization.

“We see a looming shortfall of electric power with the need to construct a significant amount of new resources to fill that gap,” Olson said. “The need is now. It’s not 10 years from now.”

The study identifies mounting pressures on both sides of the equation. On the supply side, coal plant retirements, slow permitting, transmission bottlenecks, and supply chain disruptions have limited the pace of new generation. At the same time, demand is accelerating, driven by artificial intelligence, data centers, and long-term electrification policies such as electric vehicles and electric heating.

In an interview with Austin Jenkins on TVW’s Inside Olympia, Olson said the region is seeing “an unprecedented amount of new electric demand, largely from tech industry data centers driven by artificial intelligence.”

The region’s heavy reliance on hydroelectricity — which Olson said provides roughly 60% to 65% of energy — adds another layer of risk because output varies with water conditions. A prolonged winter cold snap combined with low hydro availability presents the highest risk of shortages, he said.

To close the gap, Olson said the region must move quickly on multiple fronts, including wind, solar, batteries, and demand-side tools such as flexible load and energy efficiency. But he emphasized those resources alone cannot ensure reliability under all conditions.

“You’ll be very happy that you have a natural gas plant during that circumstance that you can turn on rather than having to endure a rotating blackout type of an event,” he said.

Olson framed natural gas not as a contradiction to climate policy, but as a necessary complement to it. Under the state’s Climate Commitment Act, natural gas is not prohibited but regulated within a declining emissions cap. It is treated as a fuel whose greenhouse gas emissions must be covered by allowances in a carbon market, increasing its cost over time while remaining part of the energy system as the state moves toward net-zero emissions.

Environmental groups including the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Climate Solutions argue natural gas should play only a limited, transitional role. The Sierra Club has moved away from earlier views of natural gas as a “flawed but necessary transition fuel” and now opposes new gas infrastructure, urging utilities to meet demand with clean energy and phase out fossil fuels. NRDC has also described gas as a “transitional” fuel while warning of its climate impacts. For its part, Climate Solutions warns that natural gas is a “major” and growing source of climate pollution and calls for a managed shift away from fossil gas toward electrification and clean energy.  

Wind and solar are mature and increasingly deployable, Olson said, but their intermittent nature and limited storage duration leave gaps that current technologies cannot fully address. Nuclear and emerging options such as long-duration storage, geothermal, and carbon capture show promise, but are unlikely to scale quickly enough to meet near-term needs.

As a result, Olson said maintaining — and in some cases expanding — natural gas capacity is a practical step to preserve reliability while the region builds out cleaner resources. Over time, those plants would be used less frequently as more carbon-free energy comes online.

The transition, he added, will come with higher costs, as utilities invest in new infrastructure to meet both demand growth and policy goals.

This article was first published by TVW, a media nonprofit that provides comprehensive coverage of state government. TVW broadcasts unedited gavel-to-gavel coverage on statewide cable and at tvw.org, and produces original current affairs and education shows, including “Inside Olympia” and “The Impact”. TVW’s mission is to give Washingtonians access to their state government, increase civic access and engagement, and foster an informed citizenry.

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court Friday blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order that disallowed immigrants claiming asylum at the southern border.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia found that immigration law allows those fleeing persecution to apply for asylum. 

“Congress did not intend to grant the Executive the expansive removal authority it asserts,” Judge J. Michelle Childs wrote, adding that they upheld a lower court’s ruling.

The three panel judges who heard the case were Childs, Justin R. Walker and Cornelia T.L. Pillard. Walker, a Trump appointee, filed a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part from the majority.

Childs was appointed by former President Joe Biden and Pillard was appointed by former President Barack Obama. 

“The (Immigration Nationality Act) does not allow the President to remove Plaintiffs under summary removal procedures of his own making,” according to the ruling. “Nor does it allow the Executive to suspend Plaintiffs’ right to apply for asylum, deny Plaintiffs’ access to withholding of removal under the INA, or curtail mandatory procedures for adjudicating Plaintiffs’ Convention Against Torture claims.”

The White House did not respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment. 

“This decision puts an end to the inhumane Trump policy of sending people, including families with little children, back to horrific danger without even a hearing,” American Civil Liberties Union attorney Lee Gelernt, who argued the appeal, said in a statement. “The court made clear that the president does not have the unilateral power to wipe away all of the asylum laws enacted by Congress.”

One of Trump’s first executive orders suspended entry to the southern border on the grounds that there was an “invasion,” which the administration claimed was a condition that allowed the president to invoke a section of the law to suspend asylum claims.

The executive order is part of Trump’s immigration crackdown, as he aims to conduct mass deportations of immigrants in the interior and cease migration to the U.S. through curbing access to asylum and refugee resettlement. 

In response to the order, immigration advocacy groups filed a class action lawsuit against the Trump administration. The groups who brought the suit were the ACLU, the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, and Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project.

RAICES, Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center and the Florence Immigrant And Refugee Rights Project provide legal services to immigrants, and argued that Trump’s executive order harms the legal aid work of the individual plaintiffs.

WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice dropped its investigation Friday of the Federal Reserve and Chair Jerome Powell over building renovation costs, a move that could open the door for new Fed leadership next month — and signaled a victory for North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis.

U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro said her office closed the probe after a request to the Fed’s inspector general to examine the cost overruns.

“The IG has the authority to hold the Federal Reserve accountable to American taxpayers. I expect a comprehensive report in short order and am confident the outcome will assist in resolving, once and for all, the questions that led this office to issue subpoenas,” Pirro wrote on X just after 10 a.m. Eastern.

Pirro said she “will not hesitate to restart a criminal investigation should the facts warrant doing so.”

Powell, whose term expires in May, has been the target of repeated public criticism from President Donald Trump, who threatened to fire the central bank’s chair if he did not lower interest rates.

The Trump administration’s criminal inquiry into Powell for a $2.5 billion renovation project at the Fed’s offices has been eyed with suspicion, including from his own party.

Tillis, R-N.C., said he would not vote for Trump’s pick to replace Powell, former Fed Board Governor Kevin Warsh, unless the administration dropped its “bogus” investigation.

A favorable vote by Tillis on the closely divided Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs is necessary to advance Warsh’s nomination, as all panel Democrats oppose him.

Tillis’s office did not immediately respond for comment.

A federal judge last month blocked the administration’s subpoenas to probe the Fed and Powell.

The Department of Justice declined to comment and referred States Newsroom to Pirro’s social media post.

A White House official reaffirmed Pirro’s announcement Friday.

“American taxpayers deserve answers about the Federal Reserve’s fiscal mismanagement, and the Office of the Inspector General’s more powerful authorities best position it to get to the bottom of the matter. The White House remains as confident as before that the Senate will swiftly confirm Kevin Warsh as the next Federal Reserve Chairman to finally restore competence and confidence in Fed decision-making,” White House spokesperson Kush Desai told States Newsroom in a statement.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., issued a statement dismissing the DOJ’s announcement as “an attempt to clear the path for Senate Republicans to install President Trump’s sock puppet Kevin Warsh as Fed Chair.”

“Let’s be clear what the Justice Department announced today: they threatened to restart the bogus criminal investigation into Fed Chair Powell at any time while failing to drop their ridiculous criminal probe against Governor (Lisa) Cook. Anyone who believes Donald Trump’s corrupt scheme to take over the Fed is over is fooling themselves,” she wrote on X and Bluesky late Friday morning, referring to Trump’s abrupt August firing of Feb Board Governor Cook over alleged financial fraud.

Cook successfully challenged her firing in two lower courts. The U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing whether Trump legally dismissed Cook. 

Trump, who routinely posts about news of the day on his own social media platform Truth Social, had not commented on the announcement as of 12:30 p.m. Eastern.

During an unrelated Oval Office event Thursday, Trump sidestepped a question about what he hoped to learn from Pirro’s investigation into Powell and the Fed.

Instead, Trump responded by saying he could have completed the Fed’s Washington, D.C., headquarters renovation for $25 million and “had money left over.”

“On top of that, he’s been terrible on interest rates because he should have lowered interest rates. That’s why call him Jerome ‘too late.’ ‘Too late’ — that’s his nickname — Jerome ‘too late’ Powell. He likes me a lot,” Trump said.

Jennifer Shutt contributed to this report.

 

Washington got a clear warning this week that its reliance on reserves and one-time maneuvers to balance the budget endangers the state’s strong credit rating, which could worsen financial challenges.

Moody’s, one of the big three credit rating agencies, on Wednesday revised its outlook for Washington finances from stable to negative, signaling deep concern with the state’s propensity to enact budgets that spend more money than it takes in, and uses reserves and other measures to make ends meet.

It did affirm Washington’s strong triple A rating on bonds, acknowledging the state’s economy is fundamentally strong. But if the current budgeting approach continues in future years, Washington will be less able to “absorb unexpected revenue or expenditure shocks” that might occur, the ratings agency noted. 

Democratic state Treasurer Mike Pellicciotti has been delivering a similar message to state lawmakers and Democratic Gov. Bob Ferguson the past two legislative sessions. 

“A check engine light just flashed on our state finances,” Pellicciotti said in an email. “Credit rating agencies have warned for years that reliance on reserves to balance an otherwise structurally imbalanced budget could result in a negative credit action.”

But, he added, “there is still time to fix this immediate issue next session before the costs of a potential credit downgrade start piling on.”

Financial landscape

In the past two sessions, lawmakers and the governor wrestled with multibillion-dollar shortfalls  as state revenue growth isn’t keeping pace with spending.

In March, Ferguson signed a roughly $79.4 billion plan that made adjustments to the $77.8 billion two-year budget lawmakers passed last year, which covers state spending from July 1, 2025, to June 30, 2027.

Democrats, who hold majorities in both chambers, wrote and passed the budget. To balance it, they siphoned $880 million from the state’s rainy day reserves and transferred $375 million from the Public Works Assistance Account, which provides low-interest loans and grants to local governments for infrastructure projects.

In the meantime, the state is facing a deficit in the next budget cycle with total reserves predicted to dip to 1.4% by the end of the 2028 fiscal year. Pellicciotti has recommended the state’s total reserves amount equal at least 10% of general fund revenues.

Ferguson and Democratic lawmakers are counting on the new tax on households with annual incomes above $1 million to provide a stabilizing stream of revenue. But collections won’t begin for three years, presuming the tax is upheld in court and at the ballot box. 

That uncertainty was not lost on Moody’s which said its revised outlook “reflects rising downside risks to the state’s financial flexibility given continued reliance on one-time budget solutions to support General Fund spending, a projected narrowing of budgetary reserves and ongoing legal challenges to new revenues intended to help restore budget balance.”

Meanwhile, Republicans have consistently and loudly criticized Democrats for moving too quickly to spend down reserves and use gimmicks to balance the budget, rather than make tougher choices on how tax dollars are spent.

During the session, Sen. Chris Gildon, R-Puyallup, the GOP budget lead in the Senate, called Democrats’ spending plan an “$80 billion House of Cards that’s built on a very shaky foundation.” 

“It’s going to force really difficult budgeting decisions in future years,” he said.

Lower rating, higher costs

Washington’s credit ratings are an “independent indicator of our state’s finances,” said Pellicciotti. Each session he makes recommendations to lawmakers aimed at improving the state’s fiscal health and sustaining the state’s current Aaa credit rating.

If it is lowered, it would hit the state’s budget directly.

If Moody’s dropped it to Aa1, it would result in an estimated 0.1% increase in interest rates on issuances of state bonds. With Washington issuing around $4 billion in bonds each year, this would add roughly $60 million a year in debt costs to be paid out of the budget, according to the treasurer’s office.

Depleting reserves carries a cost, too. The state invests reserves and can earn $30 million to $40 million per billion dollars. Under the current budget, total reserves are declining from $2 billion last July to a projected $558 million in July 2027. 

The Department of Natural Resources announced Wednesday that four Washington state campgrounds will be closed for the rest of the year and several others will be partially closed following two consecutive years of funding cuts.

The state Legislature has slashed roughly $8 million from the department’s recreation program. In 2025, lawmakers reduced the program’s budget by more than 20%, and this year, they cut another nearly $600,000 of maintenance funding. 

The decrease in funding means sites will be less maintained, storm recovery work will take longer and trailhead bathrooms won’t be stocked, according to the agency.

“At a time when more people than ever are relying on our public lands, we should be expanding recreation access, not reducing it,” said Commissioner of Public Lands Dave Upthegrove in a statement. “I’m ready to work with legislators to find solutions that meet that need.”

The campgrounds to close this year include Anderson Lake in Elbe, Rock Lakes in Conconully and Upper Clearwater in Forks. Island Camp in Glenwood will be closed to overnight use, but the cabin and day use area will remain open.

Seven other campgrounds will either be temporarily closed or have reduced services.

“The final budget came in less severe than earlier proposals, so we’re able to avoid some closures for now,” Upthegrove said. 

Gov. Bob Ferguson proposed cutting $750,000 from the recreation program’s maintenance fund, but lawmakers scaled it down to $580,000. 

In addition to the campground closures, the Washington Conservation Corps, a statewide service program for young adults, will work on fewer projects in partnership with the Department of Natural Resources. In previous years, the partnership supported the equivalent of 70 additional field staff.

The recreation team is made up of 60 field staff across the state. For every 21 miles of trail, 50,000 acres and 333,000 visitors, only one staff member exists.

Recreational site closure alerts and updates can be found on the Department of Natural Resources’ website. 

Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that the Washington Conservation Corps partnership with the Department of Natural Resources ended due to budget cuts. The program will remain intact, but the number of projects it will work on will be reduced.

Medicinal marijuana products that are legal at the state level will see looser federal regulation under an order the U.S. Department of Justice published Thursday, while a process that could remove the drug in all forms from the federal list of the most dangerous drugs is set to begin in late June.

The order, signed by acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, shifts many marijuana products from Schedule I — the Drug Enforcement Administration’s list of drugs with the greatest potential for abuse and least legitimate use — to Schedule III. 

That will open the door to greater research and provide an effective tax break for businesses that sell medicinal marijuana that is legal under state law.

The move follows President Donald Trump’s executive order last year directing the DOJ to move toward rescheduling.

“The Department of Justice is delivering on President Trump’s promise to expand Americans’ access to medical treatment options,” Blanche said in a statement. “This rescheduling action allows for research on the safety and efficacy of this substance, ultimately providing patients with better care and doctors with more reliable information.”

The order applies to state-licensed medical marijuana products in the states that allow medicinal use of the drug.

The move means those businesses can deduct business expenses from their federal taxes and researchers have access to state-legal products. As a Schedule I drug, only cannabis grown in a federal facility could be studied, severely limiting the supply available to researchers.

The DEA also scheduled a hearing on broader reclassification to begin June 29 and end no later than July 15. That hearing will explore the possibility of rescheduling marijuana products that could include recreational use.

The order likely has no immediate impact on the difficulty marijuana businesses have had accessing the banking system. Institutions that lend to even state-legal businesses could be prosecuted on federal money laundering charges for offering banking services to businesses that violate federal drug laws.

‘Historic’ shift

Moving a limited number of products from Schedule I, which includes drugs such as heroin and cocaine, to Schedule III, which includes highly regulated prescription drugs such as acetaminophen with codeine, does not satisfy advocates who have called for complete legalization. 

But it does represent a major shift in the federal government’s official position on cannabis, several pro-legalization groups said.

“It’s historic because the federal government, historically, has denied the existence of medical cannabis, even as a concept,” Paul Armentano, the deputy director of the advocacy group the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, said in an interview. 

The federal government was in recent memory “outright hostile” to medicinal marijuana, Armentano added. The order “finally acknowledges and recognizes not only the legitimacy of marijuana as a medicine, but also the legitimacy of these state programs, and it is trying now to integrate these state programs into our own existing federal regulatory schemes.”

Forty states and the District of Columbia allow medicinal marijuana.

Jasmine Johnson, CEO of Florida-based cannabis company GŪD Essence, wrote in an email that the federal government’s acknowledgement of cannabis’ legitimate medical value was the most important part of the order. 

“That shift alone helps move the industry out of decades of stigma and opens the door for expanded research, more institutional participation, and a more rational regulatory framework,” she wrote.

Medicinal vs. recreational

Recreational use will see no immediate changes from the order. In the 24 states in which recreational use, also called adult use, is legal, businesses that sell both medicinal and recreational products may experience confusion.

Chuck Smith, the CEO of Colorado Leads, an industry group, said in a statement that for Colorado cannabis businesses, “the immediate effects of this order are significant but relatively narrow.”

“Hybrid businesses should expect a transitional period in which federally covered medical activity and federally non-covered adult-use activity may be treated differently for registration, tax, and compliance purposes,” Smith said.

Such businesses would likely not see a tax benefit “when it comes to producing and selling, arguably, the products that consist of the majority of their business,” Armentano said.

Ryan Hunter, the chief revenue officer for Colorado-based marijuana company Spherex, called the DOJ order “a very silly announcement,” noting that it created a third regulatory category of a single plant species.

“Though this is all the same plant,” hemp and medical marijuana “are now considered Schedule III substances under the Controlled Substances Act (similar to Tylenol + Codeine),” while non-medical use is still considered Schedule I, he wrote in a statement. “My mind boggles at these arbitrary and artificial distinctions, but here we are.”

Eventual changes

Johnson, the Florida CEO, said she expected regulators to eventually merge how they treat different uses of the drug.

“The distinction between medicinal and recreational use has always been more regulatory than practical. From an operator’s standpoint, the same plant, supply chain, and compliance standards exist regardless of how it’s categorized,” she wrote. 

“Over time, we’ll likely see a continued shift toward a more unified framework that reflects how consumers actually engage with cannabis, rather than maintaining rigid distinctions that complicate operations.”

Oregonians will soon be able to sue private companies that sell or otherwise improperly use data captured by license plate-reading cameras under a new state law. 

Senate Bill 1516, signed into law by Gov. Tina Kotek on March 31, went into effect immediately due to an emergency clause lawmakers tucked into the legislation. The 16-page law was part of a public safety omnibus package that received bipartisan support, but it stood out for its restrictions placed on the use of automated license plate reading software and the street cameras it employs. Law enforcement agencies have used that technology to dismantle criminal networks, but their use has drawn increased scrutiny amid increased federal immigration enforcement.

“We have the possibility of multiple law enforcement agencies in the state entering into contracts that may not have those private protections of data,” Sen. Floyd Prozanski, a Eugene Democrat who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, told the Capital Chronicle in January. “There may be the ability for other entities (to be) getting access to that material for purposes that are not lawful within the state, specifically sharing with the federal government or other states.”

Oregon’s sanctuary laws prevent state and local law enforcement from assisting federal immigration enforcement without a court order. But civil rights advocates have raised concerns that the data collected by cameras could be used to track immigrants and people seeking abortions, even in states including Oregon that have laws to protect access to reproductive care and bar local police from working to enforce immigration law. 

The technology tracks more than license plates, including features such as car color, make or physical condition, and some researchers have found that its use can lead to misread plates or arrests of innocent individuals.

U.S. Border Patrol employed automated license plate-reading technology in the 1990s, and it spread to police departments across the country in the next decade. One vendor in particular, the Atlanta-based Flock Safety, has drawn condemnation from U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, who previously said the company is “unable and uninterested” in preventing abuses of its products.

University researchers and journalists have documented how U.S. Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement accessed camera data in states like Oregon and Washington. U.S. Border Patrol had access to at least 10 Washington police departments’ databases without explicit authorization, according to an October 2025 report from the University of Washington. And in June 2025, some local agencies outside of Oregon searched the networks of Oregon’s local law enforcement agencies hundreds of times on behalf of ICE, according to the Oregon Law Center.

In response to concerns from privacy advocates, the law limits the retention of such data to 30 days unless it is linked to a criminal inquiry or court proceedings, allowing for law enforcement to hold onto it as they pursue their investigations. Authorities would have to log the purpose of their searches and the specific type of crime or violation being targeted if their search through the data is for a criminal investigation. They are barred from using the technology in a manner that violates the state’s sanctuary laws.

Flock Safety cameras, meanwhile, have stoked increasing controversy in recent months, prompting some Oregon cities to turn off their usage. But they’ve been used for years nationwide in thousands of law enforcement agencies. This past year, the company announced new artificial intelligence tools allowing officers to search for vehicles with unique characteristics. 

The company has also issued guidance around the new law and praised it for establishing Oregon’s “first comprehensive ALPR framework, setting rules for ALPR use while preserving its ability to help solve crime and locate missing persons.” 

“Flock Safety remains committed to responsible ALPR regulation and continued collaboration with policymakers and law enforcement agencies across Oregon and the country,” the company’s website reads. “As SB 1516 takes effect, our priority is to help agencies adjust to the new law while continuing to protect their communities.”

Enforcement questioned

Any member of the public could sue for damages caused by vendors who act “intentionally or with gross negligence” by selling, disclosing or sharing the data. That could include a vendor accessing and providing data to federal immigration authorities without a local law enforcement body’s consent or judicial warrant.

But that leaves a great amount of onus on individual Oregonians to enforce the law, according to Ky Fireside, an Oregon House candidate and Springfield-based progressive organizer who was part of a license plate reader workgroup convened by Prozanski.

“If I wanted to take a private right of action against a vendor, I’m gonna need to find some very powerful lawyers that are willing to work on contingency or something,” Fireside told the Capital Chronicle.

Under the law, non-Oregon law enforcement can also access Oregon law enforcement agencies’ database for information “relevant to the law enforcement purpose” rather than “unrestricted or ongoing access to captured license plate data.” The agency sharing data must log which government agency or entity requested the search and the number of cameras or devices accessed. 

And any vendor that contracts with law enforcement agencies must give the agency monthly and quarterly audits. Those audits, which must also be available to the public, would include information such as the number of unique vehicles the system has captured, what kind of data was searched for, the purpose of a search and any government agencies for whom a law enforcement agency conducted a search. 

Fireside said this transparency is particularly important given the public’s involvement with holding the technology accountable. Prior to halting their use, local authorities in Eugene confirmed that a license plate reading camera in the area was turned on without the city’s consent.

“Every misuse of the system that we found was because of the public auditing these companies, watching them, doing public records requests or just looking at transparency portals,” Fireside said. “It was not like internal affairs investigating themselves and realizing someone did something wrong. It was the public.”

Although the bill exempts license plate reader data used by law enforcement agencies from public records requests, it notes that audits can be disclosed if they are edited to remove personally identifiable information. Videos or images, for instance, would need to be “edited in a manner as to render the faces of all persons within the recording or image unidentifiable.”

One thing privacy advocates wanted, but didn’t get? The law requires that the captured license plate data be encrypted through end-to-end encryption, the process by which secure data is encoded before it is transferred to its destination and decoded. But it doesn’t spell out how that process is defined, a major issue for Fireside.

“The bill requires it, but doesn’t define it. My biggest concern is that these vendors are going to try and skirt that aspect of the bill,” Fireside said. “That is the most dangerous part, because that requirement was the thing that kept the data out of the hands of these private corporations.”

This story was originally produced by Oregon Capital Chronicle, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Washington State Standard, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Republicans approved a budget resolution early Thursday intended to speed the way for billions for immigration enforcement, sending the measure to the House, where GOP lawmakers in that chamber need to adopt it to unlock the reconciliation process. 

The 50-48 vote followed a marathon amendment voting session that Democrats used to highlight policy differences on cost-of-living issues and stalled federal emergency relief dollars for states. 

Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul were the two Republicans to vote against approving the measure. Sens. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Mark Warner, D-Va., did not vote.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said just before the vote-a-rama began that Democrats would put Republicans on the record about the soaring cost of living and the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown. 

“America will see even more clearly tonight where the Republicans are — not on the side of lowering costs, but on the side of masked agents occupying our streets,” he said. 

Republicans plan to use the complex budget reconciliation process, which avoids the need for Democratic support in the Senate, to provide between $70 billion and $140 billion in additional funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol.

The money is supposed to cover those agencies for the next three years, avoiding the need for Republicans to negotiate constraints on immigration activities with Democrats, who have been calling for guardrails since federal agents shot and killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis in January. 

When combined with the Senate-passed bill that funds the vast majority of the Department of Homeland Security for the current fiscal year, the two pieces of legislation are expected to end the ongoing shutdown at that department, which began in mid-February. 

One amendment adopted, 15 turned down

Senators ultimately debated 16 amendments, 12 offered by Democrats and four proposed by Republicans. The only one adopted was from South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, which senators approved on a 98-0 vote. 

The proposal would create a reserve fund to bolster federal immigration agents’ ability to detain and deport adults who entered the country without proper documentation and were then convicted of rape, murder, or sexual abuse of a minor.

“Everybody in this body should be for this,” Graham said. “These people need to be caught, put in jail, or kicked out of our country.”

Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin said he supported the amendment because “under current law, undocumented immigrants who are convicted of rape, murder, or sexual abuse of a minor are subject to mandatory detention and deportation.” 

“What we object to is what is happening in the streets of Minneapolis and Chicago,” he added.

SAVE America Act sidelined

Louisiana Republican Sen. John Kennedy tried but was ultimately unable to convince his colleagues to add a new set of instructions to the budget resolution that would have allowed the Rules & Administration Committee to write a voter identification law. 

Kennedy said he wanted that bill to have three provisions. 

“Require that in federal elections, you have to be an American citizen to vote and provide for the provisions to enforce that. Number two, it would require that in federal elections, you have to prove you are who you say you are in order to vote, and it would provide provisions to enforce that,” he said. “Number three, it further instructs the Rules Committee that we’re going to go back to having an Election Day and not an election month, and it instructs the Rules Committee to provide the provisions to enforce that.”

California Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla, the ranking member of the rules panel, opposed the amendment during debate, saying he couldn’t believe lawmakers were once again experiencing a “partisan attempt to rush through what I refer to as a solution in search of a problem.”

“Despite the president’s claims, there is zero evidence of massive voter fraud across the country, which is the premise of these proposals,” he said. “So not only is it a solution in search of a problem, to paraphrase a wise man, this measure is all foam and no beer.”

Padilla added that a provision in Kennedy’s amendment would have required states to count ballots within 36 hours of an election, a new mandate he said could cause considerable problems for larger states with millions of voters. 

“It’s unfortunate elections administration has been turned into a partisan issue,” he said. “I actually ask our colleagues to protect the early voters, not just in my state but in yours. Protect vote-by-mail opportunities, not just in my state but in yours. Let’s protect women who are married and change their name and their right to vote, not just in my state but in yours.”

Senators did not agree to waive a point of order against Kennedy’s amendment on a 48-50 vote. Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Murkowski and Thom Tillis of North Carolina voted with Democrats. 

Ban on Planned Parenthood funding via Medicaid

Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley tried unsuccessfully to create a pathway to extend the one-year prohibition on Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood that the GOP included in its “big, beautiful” law. That funding ban expires on July 4. 

Hawley didn’t speak about abortion access during debate but focused his criticism of the organization on gender-affirming health care services for transgender youth. 

“Under no circumstance should Medicaid money dedicated to the poor and the needy be used for transgender surgeries and treatments for minor children,” he said. “It is a moral outrage. This body has a duty to stand against it.”

Planned Parenthood’s website states the organization provides surgery referrals as well as hormone therapy, puberty blockers and “transition support.”

Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden argued the amendment represented “Republicans’ latest attempt to strip women of the health care they need and depend on so that they can go score some political points.” 

Senators didn’t agree to waive a point of order against the amendment, which would have allowed it to move forward, by a vote of 50-48. Collins and Murkowski voted with Democrats. 

Private equity and home ownership

Senators rejected an amendment from Oregon Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley that would have addressed the rising cost of housing after he invoked comments President Donald Trump made during his State of the Union address. 

“We have an opportunity tonight to send a message that we agree with the president, that we have a challenge in home ownership, because home ownership is dying,” Merkley said. “And one of the factors is private equity buying up the homes.” 

Ohio Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno spoke out against adopting the amendment, saying lawmakers have already addressed it in a bipartisan way. 

“I obviously urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, because we’ve already passed it,” he said. We’ve already solved this problem. In fact, congratulations to all of us. 89 to 10. We banned institutional ownership of single-family homes. I think that’s fantastic.”

The Senate voted in March to approve a bill designed to increase the country’s housing supply, according to reporting from NPR. But since the House has approved a bill of its own, the two chambers will need to work out their differences before any housing bill becomes law. 

Senators did not agree to adopt Merkley’s amendment following a 46-52 party-line vote. 

Disaster relief funds from FEMA

California Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff proposed an amendment that would have addressed stalled funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which he said is “holding more than $3 billion in disaster relief funding for California.”

“But as we debate this budget resolution, I know our state of California is not alone,” he said. “North Carolina is waiting on millions in relief designated for Hurricane Helene in 2024. Kentucky saw landslides and flooding just weeks after Los Angeles County burned. Florida and the Gulf Coast have also been battered. Texas communities under siege from last year’s floods have still not seen the federal relief their communities need and deserve.”

Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Lankford opposed the amendment, saying that while he agrees FEMA funds need to get to communities, the best way to do that is for the House to pass the annual funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security, which the Senate already approved. 

House GOP leaders are holding on to that bill instead of putting it on the floor as they wait for the reconciliation process to play out. That Senate-passed DHS bill funds FEMA and all of the agencies that make up the department except ICE and Border Patrol. 

“Our challenge has been, we’ve been in a government shutdown on DHS now for two months,” Lankford said. “We’ve got to be able to get those funds released. That means we’ve got to get DHS funding completely done for all of DHS. We have FEMA employees that are being paid but they don’t have program dollars that they can actually release.”

The Senate rejected the amendment following a 49-49 vote. Collins, Florida Sen. Ashley Moody and Murkowski voted with Democrats. 

Washington’s gray wolf population is at its highest count since the state began monitoring in 2008. 

State and tribal officials counted a minimum of 270 wolves and 49 packs, including 23 breeding pairs at the end 2025, according to a new report from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. The numbers are estimates from last winter’s surveying and include lone wolves. 

It marks a 17.4% increase from 2024, when the tally was 230 wolves and 43 packs. That year marked the first decline since counting began. In 2023, the state recorded 254 wolves and 42 packs.

“The growth is pretty consistent in what we’ve seen in our recolonizing population throughout recovery,” said Trent Roussin, a wolf biologist for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

The state groups wolves into three recovery regions: Eastern Washington, the North Cascades, and the Southern Cascades and Northwest Coast. 

The increase was fueled in part by six new or reestablished packs. In northeast Washington, three packs were reestablished. Officials recorded two new packs in the North Cascades and one new pack on the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation.

There were no known wolf packs in the Southern Cascades and Northwest Coast region by the end of 2025, according to the report. 

“Regaining lost footing is essential but these numbers don’t mean wolves are recovered,” said Amaroq Weiss, a senior wolf advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity. “The southern Cascades and North Coast boast some of the best wolf habitat in the state but still have no wolf packs or breeding pairs.”

To get there from their current habitat, wolves would have to cross I-90 or the Columbia Basin, which they can and they have, said Gabriel Spence, wolf biologist for Fish and Wildlife.

“We have had high mortality – human-caused mortality – on wolves in the South Cascades,” said Spence. “That mortality can really slow any population growth.”

At least 28 wolves died last year, according to the report. Six were killed due to livestock conflict. Of those, four were lethally removed by the state. 

Twelve wolves were legally hunted by tribal members on the Colville Reservation. Three wolves died due to alleged poaching with one case referred to a prosecuting office and the other two under active investigation. 

Killing a wolf without authorization can carry penalties of up to a year in jail or a $5,000 fine under state law. 

One wolf that died during a Department of Fish and Wildlife capture operation was determined to have had a congenital heart defect. Two died of natural causes and one died of unknown causes, the report states. 

Under state law, the wolves are classified as endangered throughout the state. That won’t change until at least four successful breeding pairs inhabit western Washington, where none were found, and other pairs continue to survive in the two additional recovery regions of the state. 

Wolves and ranchers

For ranchers, an increasing number of wolves means more risk for their livestock. Because the wolves are classified as endangered under state law, ranchers are not allowed to kill them. 

The state compensates ranchers when a wolf kills their livestock, but even then “it’s not enough,” said Chelsea Hajny, executive vice-president of the Washington Cattlemen’s Association.

Attacks on livestock in 2025 decreased by 50% from the year before, according to the report. Five of the 49 packs last year were involved in at least one confirmed or probable livestock injury or mortality.

But ranchers don’t always report depredations when they happen, said Hajny, calling the reported number “skewed.”

“Ranchers are facing a real crisis,” Hanjy said.

It’s not just the loss of a cow, she said. Wolves that inhabit ranches stress cattle to the point where they are not able to breed or successfully carry a calf. 

“We need more action and more ability to take matters into our own hands,” she added. 

Range riders would be a solution, Hanjy said, referring to those contracted by the state to monitor land and report wolf activity to ranchers, but “there’s simply not enough of them.”

Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson has appointed Matt Segal, a founding partner of the Pacifica Law Group and former King County Superior Court judge, to the commission that enforces state campaign finance laws.

Segal, whose firm serves as Ferguson’s private counsel, was appointed April 16 to the state Public Disclosure Commission. His first meeting will be May 28.

His selection came two weeks after the launch of a recall effort against Ferguson for allowing two of the commission’s five seats to remain unfilled for months. One had been open for nearly all of Ferguson’s term, which began in January last year.

The longshot petition to remove the first-term governor from office accused Ferguson of misfeasance and violating his oath of office by failing to fill the seats within a timeline prescribed in state law. Ferguson is due to file a formal response to the petition Friday.

Segal will serve a term that runs through the end of 2030. With his selection, all four sitting commission members are lawyers and three are former judges.

Segal fills the vacancy created by the resignation of Commissioner Allen Hayward in January 2025. The other opening is for the seat held by Commissioner Nancy Isserlis, who left last August. An appointment for that vacancy could be made this week, according to a Ferguson spokesperson.

Conner Edwards, an attorney and prolific filer of campaign finance complaints, undertook the recall to spotlight a situation that could hamstring the commission in the upcoming election season. With only three of its allotted five members, all had to be present for the citizen panel to have the quorum required to adopt rules, conduct hearings and decide cases. 

Edwards said Tuesday that he was “glad that the vacancy has finally been filled. Mr. Segal certainly has a very impressive and eclectic resume and I hope that he will bring a fresh perspective to the Commission.” 

He reiterated that he’s prepared to end the effort to oust Ferguson if the other seat is filled soon. 

Segal, a former print and broadcast journalist, earned a bachelor’s degree in history from the University of California at Berkeley and a law degree from the Seattle University School of Law.

He helped found Pacifica Law Group in 2011. A decade later, former Gov. Jay Inslee appointed him to the bench and he won election in 2022. He retired two years later, rejoining Pacifica as a partner in its division devoted to public law and finance matters. 

Segal did not respond to requests for comment.

He has donated mostly to Democratic candidates since 2009 including all three of Ferguson’s campaigns for attorney general, according to  Public Disclosure Commission records. 

While he did not give to Ferguson’s 2024 gubernatorial campaign, Pacifica Law Group contributed $4,800, records show.

A Pacifica Law attorney, Zachary Pekelis, defended Ferguson in two headline-grabbing stories in the campaign.

In 2023, a complaint to the Public Disclosure Commission brought scrutiny of Ferguson’s shifting of more than a million dollars raised for past campaigns into his new one for governor. 

Commissioners found no wrongdoing but reached an agreement with Ferguson to disclose the identities of the donors to the past campaigns and treat their contributions as if they were for his gubernatorial campaign.

Then, in May 2024, a conservative activist recruited two other people named Bob Ferguson to file for governor in a not-so-subtle attempt to confuse voters. A flurry of activity ensued with the state Democratic Party and Ferguson — the one who was attorney general at the time — applying enough pressure to force that duo to withdraw.

Simultaneously, Ferguson and Pekelis pushed Secretary of State Steve Hobbs to reorder the names on the ballot and were prepared to sue if he didn’t. That issue became moot when the other Bobs pulled out.

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Wednesday that Democrats will use the unlimited number of amendment votes they are allowed on Republicans’ budget resolution to illustrate policy differences on cost-of-living issues and immigration activities. 

“We are for reducing costs for the American people, whether it’s housing or whether it’s health care or whether it’s electric costs or whether it’s groceries or whether it’s child care,” he said. “And they are funding a rogue police force that is not even popular with the American people.”

Republicans voted Tuesday to begin debate on their budget resolution, which holds instructions that would allow the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee as well as the Judiciary Committee to each write a bill that spends up to $70 billion on immigration enforcement. 

Amendment debate could begin Wednesday or Thursday, followed by a simple majority vote to approve the budget resolution, sending it to the House.  

GOP leaders are using the same complex budget reconciliation process they used last year to enact their “big, beautiful” law to approve three years of funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol. The earlier bill, enacted last July, included $170 billion to bolster the administration’s immigration activities. 

The House and Senate must vote to adopt the budget resolution before they can use the reconciliation process to approve a bill without having to garner 60 votes in the Senate to end debate.

Spending on those two agencies would normally run through the annual Homeland Security government funding bill. But that process stalled earlier this year when Democrats demanded new constraints on immigration activities after federal officers shot and killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis. 

Negotiations between Republicans and Democrats moved rather slowly and contributed to a record-setting shutdown at the Department of Homeland Security, which began in mid-February. 

President Donald Trump urged GOP lawmakers to vote against any Democratic amendments in a social media post.

“The Radical Left Democrats, and their so-called ‘Leader,’ Cryin’ Chuck Schumer, one of the most incompetent Senators in American History, will try to offer ‘Amendments’ during this process to divide Republicans,” he wrote. “Republicans must stick together and UNIFY to get this done, and to keep America safe — something which the Democrats don’t care about. Thank you for your attention to this matter.”

‘Glaring contrast’ to be highlighted

Democrats said during their press conference they plan to use the marathon amendment voting session on the budget resolution that sets up the reconciliation process to force Republicans to take votes on several issues. 

“We are ready with our amendments to show the glaring contrast between the parties in terms of who’s for reducing your costs and who’s not,” Schumer said. 

Senate Appropriations Committee ranking member Patty Murray, D-Wash., said that instead of working on legislation to bring down costs for everyday Americans, Republicans in Congress are focused on providing tens of billions in additional funding for immigration enforcement. 

“Gas prices have surged. Health care premiums have doubled or tripled, or worse, pricing millions out of their coverage. So what are Republicans doing about all of that? Nothing,” she said. “Their urgent top priority this week is shoveling at least $70 billion at ICE and Border Patrol with zero accountability, zero reforms and zero strings attached.”

Hawaii Democratic Sen. Brian Schatz said Republicans are sending a clear message about their policy goals and priorities by using the reconciliation process to provide the administration with another significant boost for immigration and deportation activities. 

“When you’re in the majority in the Senate, you get limited opportunities to use this unusual tool of reconciliation — once, maybe twice, in a year,” he said. “And so it’s pretty significant that using this tool, they have decided to do exactly nothing about the cost of living.”

Klobuchar decries $70 billion for immigration enforcement

Minnesota Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar said that $70 billion in federal spending could go toward addressing many of the other challenges facing the country. 

Instead of giving it to ICE and the Border Patrol, she said, Congress could bolster the number of local police officers, or help people afford the cost of their health insurance premiums, or have Medicare cover dental and vision and hearing care, or build hundreds of thousands of new homes, or help lower the cost of child care for millions. 

Republicans, she said, also know there is a need to place limits on federal immigration agents after events like those in her home state and throughout the country. 

“They know there are serious problems. Why? A number of them joined with us at that Judiciary hearing to call for Kristi Noem to leave,” Klobuchar said, referring to the early March hearing that took place just days before the former DHS secretary was removed. “They asked just as tough questions, some of them, as we did.”

A federal district judge in Oregon overturned Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s directive that said health care facilities providing gender-affirming care to minors are barred from Medicare and Medicaid.

U.S. District Judge Mustafa Kasubhai, in a scathing opinion filed Saturday, called Kennedy’s Dec. 18 directive “one of a long list of examples of how a leader’s wanton disregard for the rule of law causes very real harm to very real people.”

“Secretary Kennedy’s unlawful declaration harmed children. This case illustrates that when a leader acts without authority and in the absence of the rule of law, he acts with cruelty,” Kasubhai wrote.

Kasubhai vacated the Dec. 18 declaration on “Safety, Effectiveness and Professional Standards of Care for Sex-Rejecting Procedures on Children and Adolescents,” as unlawful, saying Kennedy exceeded his authority and failed to follow required procedures for setting regulations.

He also ruled that federal officials lack the authority to set standards that supersede standards of care in the 21 states and the District of Columbia that sued to block the directive. And he prohibited HHS from trying to enforce the “Kennedy Declaration” or “any materially similar policy.”

In a brief emailed statement, HHS spokesperson Emily Hilliard said, “HHS will continue to fight to protect our nation’s children, as this Biden-appointed judge’s ruling puts radical ideology ahead of their safety.”

Maryland was one of 21 states and D.C. that filed suit on Dec. 23, claiming Kennedy’s directive exceeded his authority, violated the states’ rights to manage their Medicare systems as they saw fit and effectively banned “by fiat, an entire category of healthcare.”

Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown welcomed the ruling in a prepared statement Monday as “a victory for every young Marylander, all of whom deserve access to the medical care their doctor recommends that is free from political interference.”

That was echoed by Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

“When families and doctors make healthcare decisions together, no federal official should be able to use threats and intimidation to get in the way,” Rayfield said in a statement Monday. “That’s what Secretary Kennedy tried to do — force hospitals and providers to abandon their patients. Oregon will always stand up for the dignity and wellbeing of every person.”

The dispute stems from the Dec. 18 directive that says, “Sex-rejecting procedures for children and adolescents are neither safe nor effective as a treatment modality for gender dysphoria, gender incongruence, or other related disorders in minors, and therefore, fail to meet professional [sic] recognized standards of health care.”

Kennedy said in a news conference that day, according to Kasubhai’s opinion, that the declaration should be taken as “a clear directive to providers to follow the science and the overwhelming body of evidence that these procedures hurt — not help — children” and that anyone providing such care would be “out of compliance with these standards of healthcare.”

The Kennedy Declaration exceeded Defendants’ statutory authority, flouted applicable notice and comment rulemaking procedures, and impeded Plaintiffs’ rights to regulate the medical profession and their discretion to design their own statutorily-compliant Medicaid plans,

– U.S. District Judge for Oregon Mustafa Kasubhai

Any health care provider that fails to meet professionally recognized standards of care can be excluded from participation in Medicare and Medicaid — effectively cut off from federal funding — on a finding by the HHS Office of Inspector General.

In the weeks after the directive was issued, HHS General Counsel Mike Stuart referred 18 health care facilities that offered gender-affirming care to the inspector general for investigation under the Dec. 18 directive. Included in the referrals were the Johns Hopkins Center for Transgender and Gender Expansive Health and Hopkins’ Emerge Gender and Sexuality Clinic.

The directive had the intended effect. By Feb. 11, Stuart was saying on social media that “more than 40 hospital systems across the country have made the right decision to stop these heinous procedures.”

HHS argued in court that the declaration was not a “‘definitive statement’ on the standard of care” that the inspector general has to apply, but merely Kennedy’s musings on the topic, and could not be challenged by the states as an official regulation. And because the inspector general has not ruled on any of the referrals, there is no damage for the states to assert, the government said.

It also claimed that reversing the directive would deny Kennedy his First Amendment right to express his views on important public issues.

Kasubhai called that argument “asburd,” and said he could “scarcely recall an … action that has come before it [the court] in which the agency’s action was so clearly unlawful.” He said many of the government’s arguments were based on “falsehoods.”

“Defendants cannot bully or gaslight this Court into ignoring the many procedural and legal flaws of the Kennedy Declaration by invoking one of the most sacred principles of our constitutional democracy — the freedom of speech — when that principle comes nowhere close to being implicated,” Kasubhai wrote.

He said the states’ lawsuit has nothing to do with Kennedy’s right to express his opinion about gender-affirming care for minors.

“Rather, Plaintiffs’ claims challenge Secretary Kennedy’s authority to unilaterally, categorically, and without any process, supersede professional standards of care regarding gender-affirming care that apply in the Plaintiff states,” he wrote.

What is at stake, Kasubhai said, is the rule of law and state sovereignty.

“The Kennedy Declaration exceeded Defendants’ statutory authority, flouted applicable notice and comment rulemaking procedures, and impeded Plaintiffs’ rights to regulate the medical profession and their discretion to design their own statutorily-compliant Medicaid plans,” he wrote, before entering his order.

In addition to Maryland, Oregon and D.C., states involved in the suit included California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.

— This story was updated at 6 p.m. Tuesday to correct the number of states involved in the lawsuit against HHS.

This story was originally produced by Maryland Matters, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Washington State Standard, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

Kicking off the MI Healthy Climate Conference on Tuesday, former Washington Gov. Jay Inslee applauded Michigan’s efforts to reach 100% carbon neutrality by 2050, offering optimism amid a bleak federal landscape on climate action. 

Since taking office in 2025, President Donald Trump’s administration has rolled back scores of federal efforts to combat climate change, including the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding, which allowed the federal government to regulate emissions from cars, trucks and power plants.

While there are still those who call clean energy and decarbonization a pipe dream, Inslee noted that 92% of new energy sources brought online in the U.S. last year came from renewable sources. 

The price of solar energy has also come down 83% in the last 10 years, Inslee noted, while the cost of battery storage has also significantly decreased. 

“This is a train to the future,” Inslee said. “We’re on it right now. It has arrived at the station, and everybody in this room has the capacity to continue that revolution that we’re seeing.”

The current political landscape represents a magical moment for anyone envisioning a clean energy future, Inslee said, pointing to three factors making the case for a clean energy transition. 

“Number one, we know that Americans are increasingly frustrated about their high electricity costs,” Inslee said. “Number two, we know that the market is demanding sources of clean energy because it is cheaper and because it is faster, both. And number three, we know that the federal government has withdrawn from any responsibility for dealing with this problem.”

While others view the Trump administration’s opposition to clean energy with doom and gloom, Inslee argued the contrary. 

Invoking Winston Churchill, he stressed that days like these are days of consequence.

“Right now, I believe these are great days for Michigan and Washington where we can move the ball forward, because we have demonstrated in Washington, and you have in Michigan as well, that this is really true,” Inslee said. “Nobody in the White House can stop Michigan or Washington from moving forward on clean energy.”

From helping to install heat pumps to expanding electric vehicle charging infrastructure, the vast majority of decarbonization efforts cannot be touched by the federal government, Inslee said. 

“Technology is with us. People are with us. The science is behind us, and we have vast majorities of people who want to see this happen,” Inslee said. “So I bid you well in your journey, I want to let you know we’re always there to help in Washington State.”

Also speaking at the conference was Phil Roos, the director of the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy, who said Michigan has undergone a profound shift in under 10 years. 

He pointed to the state’s commitment to reaching 100% carbon neutrality by 2050; the release of the MI Healthy Climate Plan in 2022, which set the roadmap for that goal, and the decision to place the Healthy Climate Plan goals into state law with Michigan’s 2023 clean energy laws.

Now, Michigan is in the early stages of putting that plan into effect, Roos said. This year, EGLE will focus on industrial decarbonization, Roos said, noting that Michigan’s industrial sector is central to both its economy and identity.

As part of that effort, EGLE has developed a dashboard that allows the public to see where sources of greenhouse gases are located, Roos said.

In a recorded message later in the conference, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer announced the launch of the state’s fourth MI Healthy Climate Challenge, providing grants to support feasibility studies on short and long-term solutions Michigan manufacturers can use to reduce their carbon emissions.

EGLE will also be developing an environmental vulnerability assessment this spring, Roos said, to help the department understand which people, places and systems are most impacted by climate change. 

And those impacts are here, with Natasha Bagdasarian, the state’s chief medical executive, noting that warming conditions have led to an increase in tick populations and a significant increase in Lyme disease cases within the state.

Additionally, Bagdasarian warned that increased severe weather events and warmer temperatures have made Michigan ideal for blastomyces, a type of fungus that can infect the lungs, causing symptoms of pneumonia.

As the state advances climate solutions, Jalonne White-Newsome, an associate professor at the University of Michigan who previously served as the federal chief environmental justice officer under former President Joe Biden, stressed that these solutions need to benefit all communities, especially those who have not been provided with equal protections. 

“If we are going to advance climate action together, we need everyone,” White-Newsome said. “And we cannot put profit and politics and popularity over people. Because that’s what this work to build a healthy climate is about: people.”

She encouraged individuals ranging from those in government, academia and nonprofits to concerned citizens to shift their advocacy into “sports mode.”

“If you don’t know what sports mode is, it is the thing that allows better acceleration and torque,” White-Newsome said. “You can drive on twisty roads and still accelerate. You can maintain control during steep inclines and declines and come out with more power at the end.”

White-Newsome encouraged attendees to remain principled in their climate advocacy, and to familiarize themselves with the 17 principles of environmental justice.

They should also hear all voices, White-Newsome said, advising them to connect with people in the communities who could benefit or see harm from their actions. 

Lastly, those working in climate solutions and environmental justice should solidify their structure of accountability, White-Newsome said, so they can assess the effectiveness of their work, any harm they cause and how they approach a remedy.

“Our shared vision of a healthy and sustainable Michigan must intentionally include aspirations of environmental justice for all,” White-Newsome said in closing. “And we must be in sports mode, even more committed than ever on this journey as we continue to hustle hard and achieve the vision of a Healthy Michigan we all deserve.”

This story was originally produced by Michigan Advance, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Washington State Standard, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

When Jamie and Chris Thompson got married, they created a big, blended family. 

Chris had three children from a previous marriage. Jamie had a son. Together, they had two more kids. The youngest, Colby, had bright blue eyes and chubby cheeks. Jamie Thompson called him the “little ham of the family.”

But in 2010, a babysitter became so frustrated with his crying that she shook and slammed him, Jamie Thompson recalls. 

This left Colby, then 8 months, with a traumatic brain injury that nearly killed him. 

Now 16, he can’t use his body and can’t communicate. He has severe scoliosis, chronic lung disease, cerebral palsy and is fed via tube, and is dependent on a ventilator to breathe at all times. He requires round-the-clock care. 

For years, Jamie Thompson has been his caregiver, to the point that she sleeps in a recliner next to him in the living room. 

“I’m employee of the month, Colby would tell you, even though he can’t,” she said. “I show up every day. I never have a sick day, I’m always here.”

When it comes to support from the state, Thompson, like many parents providing care to disabled children, falls into a gap. 

Washington compensates parents providing care to disabled children on Medicaid if they are over 18, but not if they’re minors. Other relatives can get paid for taking care of children, just not parents. Professional nursing and personal care are covered, but families say labor shortages make these services often difficult to find.

This has forced some parents to quit their jobs to care for their children full-time without pay. Some fear that such little support will leave them with no other choice than to institutionalize their children.

In response, families have brought a potential class-action lawsuit against the state in federal court for not ensuring that children with developmental disabilities on Medicaid get the nursing and care services they qualify for. 

“It’s really frustrating to know that the state of Washington has been taking advantage of us, all of our families, to take care of our kiddos for free, and there’s not a damn thing anybody can do about it,” Thompson said.

Legislation to potentially pay parental caregivers made some progress in the Legislature in 2024 and 2025, but went nowhere this year. The idea has bipartisan support as a way to overcome the caregiving workforce shortage, but has faltered amid budget concerns. 

“We’re just going through the judiciary to do what they tried to do through the Legislature already,” said Greg Albert, an attorney for the plaintiffs bringing the litigation.

The state attorney general’s office deferred comment to the lawsuit’s defendant, the state Health Care Authority. A spokesperson for the agency, which administers Medicaid, declined to comment as the litigation is pending.

But in court filings, the state has defended its actions, arguing the plaintiffs have “received services appropriate to their factual and medical situations.”

The Health Care Authority “is complying with applicable law and continues to work with the plaintiffs to ensure the provision of services,” the state wrote in court papers. “HCA has not denied any services or failed to make efforts to find additional services.”

‘You have to find a way’

Outside care for families with disabled children falls into two buckets. 

Private duty nursing gives a home-based alternative to institutional care for children with complex needs, like ventilators, tracheostomies or feeding tubes. 

Personal care is for outside help to aid in the daily tasks of living, like bathing, dressing, eating and managing medication, among other things.

The children whose families brought the suit qualify for a combination of private duty nursing and personal care, or both. They include a 3-year-old who has spent much of his life in the hospital and skilled care facilities because no private duty nursing services were available to enable him to live at home. Another plaintiff qualifies for 112 hours per week of private duty nursing but has been getting less than 40 hours for over a year.

The state has countered in court filings by arguing that the “alleged harm, if any, arises out of conditions of which the plaintiffs had knowledge and to which they voluntarily subjected themselves.”

The lawsuit claims roughly 100 people in Washington under age 21 who are eligible for private duty nursing services are not receiving them at the level they’re approved for. It counts about 4,700 people in the same boat for personal care aid. A state study in 2023 estimated 1.4 million personal care hours went unused by children in these circumstances. 

The plaintiffs are asking a judge to allow them to represent those roughly 4,800 children in the class-action case.

Some states, the study noted, pay parents for caregiving for their own children. Many made the move during the COVID-19 pandemic, which deepened the caregiving workforce shortage, but Washington didn’t. Other states have been sued for similar issues.

The lawsuit claims the state is violating multiple federal laws by not providing the care for the allotted hours. The families say the state’s inability to build the workforce is leaving children waiting months to be discharged from hospitals or forcing them from their homes into institutional care.

“Part of it is that they just don’t pay enough to be able to find nurses to go do that,” Albert said. “But the way the federal government looks at it is that’s not good enough. You have to find a way to do it.”

In 2016, a federal judge ordered the state to provide in-home nursing as authorized, in response to a lawsuit from the families of infants and toddlers. 

The latest lawsuit, filed in federal court in Tacoma in February, argues the problem persists a decade later. 

The litigation isn’t trying to bring a specific outcome. The families just want a judge to order the state to do whatever necessary to fulfill the caregiving needs the families say it isn’t meeting. They aren’t seeking monetary damages.

Albert hopes by June to see a judge rule on a preliminary injunction, potentially ordering the state to take steps to improve the system.

‘It’s really taxing’

Starting around 2012, the Thompsons hired a couple nurses to care for Colby. At the time, he qualified for 10 hours a day of skilled nursing. But after a couple years, both nurses had to step away from the family to care for their own families.

For years after that, the replacement nurses they brought in were hit or miss, Thompson said. The last nurse they had was in 2018. 

Since then, the family hasn’t had any outside nursing help, Thompson said. Colby now is eligible for 16 hours of private duty nursing per day.

His mother is still open to having a trained nurse help out, but recognizes she is Colby’s best caregiver. Thompson said if she could change history, she still “wouldn’t ever change being his provider.”

“I have family and friends who think it’s all very sad because I’m just stuck here, but to me, it’s not being stuck,” Thompson said. “It’s frustrating that this is his right to have help. But we’ve just, with everything in our situation, we’ve had to learn to adapt and change our lifestyle so many times.”

Katie Scheid’s daughter, Millie, qualifies for 185 hours of personal care per month due to her severe cerebral palsy diagnosis. Scheid quit her job in 2021 to care for Millie. 

Like Thompson, Scheid isn’t a named plaintiff in the lawsuit, but their experiences are representative of those who brought the case. 

Scheid is her daughter’s primary caregiver, but she isn’t alone. Her parents care for Millie and are compensated. But they’re getting older, and so it’s getting more difficult to meet Millie’s needs. 

“It’s really taxing on the whole family,” Scheid said.

She has long been frustrated that the state won’t pay parental caregivers like herself. 

“That cost is apparently just too much for the state to pay,” she said, “even though those are hours they already promised, hours they already determined were needed.”

As the 2026 Washington state legislative session came to a close, there was at least one thing worth noting: some of the worst anti-farm ideas introduced this year did not make it across the finish line. That is the good news.

The bad news is that stopping bad bills is not the same thing as confronting a crisis. And that is the true indictment of this legislative session.

Early in the year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture issued its Farm Income and Wealth Statistics. Drawing from 2024 USDA data, Washington now ranks 50th in the nation in net farm revenue. That is dead last in profitability and the number itself is staggering.

According to the USDA data, Washington agriculture posted negative $396 million in farm income in 2024. That represented a collapse of more than $1.3 billion in lost farm revenue from 2023 to 2024.

Once those numbers from the USDA report were issued, Save Family Farming joined 17 other agricultural organizations and associations in sending a letter to legislative leaders laying out the facts in plain terms.

And yet, instead of responding with urgency, too many in Olympia spent the session entertaining legislation that would have driven labor costs higher, piled on new restrictions, and handed anti-farming activists and opportunistic attorneys more weapons to wield against the very people still fighting to keep Washington farming alive.

At the precise moment agriculture needed a lifeline, Olympia behaved as though 2026 was just another year for ideological theater. Our elected leadership acted as though this was just another opportunity to appease political interests hostile to agriculture and just another chance to place new burdens on a farming community already on its knees.

That is what makes this past session so infuriating. The worst bills died, but so did any serious effort to address the actual crisis.

Consider House Bill 2616. Save Family Farming is grateful to Reps. Kristine Reeves, Tom Dent and Lisa Parshley for sponsoring legislation intended to address the crisis in agriculture. The effort acknowledged that a crisis exists and attempted to provide a lifeline for farmers. But the leadership within the House Committee on Consumer Protection and Business granted the bill a public hearing only after the policy cutoff, denying relief and making the process feel more like performative pandering.

When Washington ranks 50th in the nation in farm profitability, committees offering nothing more than placating gestures is not leadership.

Washington agriculture is losing on many fronts as critical food and processing infrastructure disappear, plant closures and other losses across the agricultural supply chain have disrupted farm markets, eliminated jobs, weakened local economies, and inflicted harm on farmers, farm workers, and entire communities.

When processing capacity vanishes thanks to the high costs of operating in Washington, farmers lose market access, workers lose paychecks, towns lose economic anchors and the state loses tax base and production capacity.

This is how an industry is dismantled. Not all at once, but piece by piece. It’s buyer by buyer, processor by processor, job by job and farm by farm.

Olympia cannot hide behind ignorance. Legislators were warned. They were given the numbers. They were given the stakes. They were told what this meant for farms, workers, processors, and rural communities.

Decision-makers cannot claim to support agriculture while ignoring the worst profitability numbers in the nation. They cannot claim to care about farm workers while advancing policies that make it harder for farms to survive. They cannot claim to stand with rural communities while the industry that sustains them is allowed to bleed out in plain sight.

Washington cannot afford another session where the priorities are so disconnected from the reality facing farm families. It cannot afford another year in which lawmakers spend more time devising new ways to squeeze agriculture than developing serious ways to save it.

The next session must be different because for many farms, there may not be many more chances.

If the second-largest economic sector in this state can be driven to dead last in profitability yet still fail to provoke meaningful urgency from Olympia, then the problem is not that lawmakers were not warned. The problem is that too many of them looked at a collapsing farm economy and decided it was acceptable.

Dr. Mehmet Oz, the administrator of the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, said Tuesday that the Trump administration will require every state within 30 days to turn in a plan to revalidate the health care providers that participate in their Medicaid programs.

The Trump administration has pledged to root out what it calls rampant fraud in state Medicaid programs. But thus far, it has focused almost exclusively on Democratic-led states, even though fraud involving government benefits isn’t any more prevalent in Democratic-led states than in Republican-led ones, according to federal data.

Oz said Tuesday that the administration will expand its Medicaid anti-fraud effort to all 50 states.

“We’re asking the states to own that problem… red and blue, all of them,” Oz said during a health care summit hosted by Politico. “If you don’t take it seriously, it indicates to us that we might have to take the audits… more aggressively,” he added.

In announcing earlier this month that Vice President JD Vance would lead the administration’s anti-fraud effort, President Donald Trump said on Truth Social that Vance would focus on fraud “‘EVERYWHERE,’ but primarily in those Blue States where CROOKED DEMOCRAT POLITICIANS, like those in California, Illinois, Minnesota (Somalia beware!), Maine, New York, and many others, have had a ‘free for all’ in the unprecedented theft of Taxpayer Money.”

During the interview with Politico, Oz said that his agency had already halted payments to about 450 hospices and home health care centers in Los Angeles. Oz also referred to the decision to hold back $259.5 million in federal Medicaid payments to Minnesota, noting that the state will have an opportunity “to go back and prove to us that they actually have the backup to some of the bills they’ve sent us.”

Andy Schneider, a research professor at the Georgetown University McCourt School of Public Policy, said he was pleased that Oz “did not use this forum to announce more deferrals against Minnesota or other states.”

“Perhaps he’s beginning to understand that withholding federal funds from states does not actually do anything to reduce fraud against Medicaid. Time will tell,” Schneider said.

Laith Quasem, a Seattle-based attorney at the Chapman Law Group who represents Medicaid and Medicare providers and suppliers in fraud cases, said many of his clients have been swept up in the California crackdown and have either had their payments suspended or been removed from the government programs.

“I truly believe CMS is really abusing its discretion right now, and they’re revoking and suspending, but asking questions later,” Quasem said.

“Some of it may certainly be well-founded. Under any administration there are always program integrity concerns,” he said. “But it’s not OK during a crackdown to just put providers out of business without a credible allegation of fraud.”

“Let’s say you’re a hospice, right? What do you do if you’re not getting paid? You’re not going to be able to keep the doors open,” he said. “What do you do with your patients?”

Stateline reporter Shalina Chatlani can be reached at schatlani@stateline.org

This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Washington State Standard, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Republican leaders Tuesday defended the secretive process used in that chamber to investigate allegations of wrongdoing, though they did confirm referring a complaint made against Arizona Democratic Sen. Ruben Gallego to the Ethics Committee.

“At the beginning, we always start very, very privately to protect members because we don’t want to facilitate frivolous accusations,” said Senate Ethics Committee Chairman James Lankford, R-Okla. “We want to facilitate accurate accusations. And actually work through to be able to hold each other to account.”

The comments came just a few hours after Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said he would lead the effort on that side of the Capitol to improve the process for filing an ethics complaint, especially those that have to do with sexual harassment.  

“You may know this, I have two daughters who work on Capitol Hill on committee staff. (This is) very serious to me. I’m a father. I’m not just the speaker of the House,” he said. “For that very reason we have to protect women and anyone who feels like there is any inappropriate behavior whatsoever. So if there are ways to tighten the rules, suggestions, we’re seeking that from all members. We’re open to that.”

Johnson said he hoped that any votes to change House rules would be bipartisan, if not unanimously adopted. He also reflected on a long history of misconduct by members of Congress. 

“There’s always been untoward activity among political figures. I mean going back to time immemorial. There’s always been marital infidelity. There’s always been despicable behaviors,” he said. “It occurs to us that it may not have been exposed and as transparent as it is today because of the very active press corps and 24-hour news cycle and smartphones and everything being recorded.”

Discussions around whether to keep ethics rules and investigations as they are now or overhaul the process began last week after California Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell and Texas Republican Rep. Tony Gonzales both resigned amid sexual misconduct allegations. 

Florida Democratic Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick then resigned Tuesday just before the House Ethics Committee could recommend what repercussions she should face after the panel found her guilty on more than two dozen violations. 

GOP accusation on social media

Swalwell’s resignation may not be the end of that scandal, however. 

Florida Republican Rep. Anna Paulina Luna wrote in a social media post on April 15 that it “seems like the Senate has its own trash to take out. @LeaderJohnThune You need to look into the allegations against one of your Senators, it’s very disturbing. My chief will be contacting your chief.”

Her comments apparently referred to Arizona’s Gallego, who was friends with Swalwell, but has sought to distance himself from the former congressman since news of the allegations by multiple women broke earlier this month. 

Thune said during Tuesday’s press conference that “specific matter” has been referred to the Senate Ethics Committee and that he didn’t “know the particulars of the allegation.”

“The Ethics Committee in the Senate is designed to ensure that this institution and its members conduct themselves in a way befitting of the office and that we’re doing things in an ethical manner,” Thune said.  

Gallego’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 

‘A quiet manner’

Lankford said Senate Ethics Committee members are “extremely serious about taking on allegations, especially allegations like sexual harassment, all the different things that are out there … But we do function in a quiet manner.”

The committee, he said, gets “hundreds of different allegations” that its members then work through to determine if they should proceed. 

“As you know, in the political world that we live in, a lot of allegations come to us that they’re unfounded at the end of it,” Lankford said. 

The Senate Ethics Committee, he said, is unlikely to move to a model similar to that of the House Ethics Committee, which releases statements when it begins investigations into members, sometimes detailing the allegations. 

“There’s a lot more public that comes out on it and they find out at the end of it that it becomes the theater of the allegation,” Lankford said. “So it facilitates more allegations because it creates more theater.”

The Senate panel hasn’t published a press release since August 2024 and its two-page report for 2025 disclosed the committee dismissed 160 of 181 alleged violations due to “lack of subject matter jurisdiction” or because “they failed to provide sufficient facts as to any material violation of the Senate rules beyond mere allegation or assertion.”

The annual report adds the Senate panel issued zero “private or public letters of admonition” and had no “matters resulting in a disciplinary sanction.”

The last time the committee issued a public letter was in March 2023, after South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham solicited “campaign contributions in a federal building” for Georgia senatorial candidate Herschel Walker. 

Lankford later expanded during the afternoon press conference on his belief that some ethics allegations are more political than genuine. 

“Our focus is all folks have to be heard on this but we live in a political world. In a political world if every ethics charge goes out there, everyone then grabs that ethics charge, uses it in a campaign and says ‘There’s been an ethics charge out there, the Ethics Committee is talking about it.’ And suddenly it becomes drama and facilitates more things coming at us,” he said. “We want to take seriously every victim, every accusation. But we also understand the environment that we work in.”

The Trump administration is investigating the University of Washington over concerns about its handling of antisemitism in light of an off-campus event planned by a protest group. 

Assistant U.S. Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon announced the investigation on social media Monday. It will be conducted by the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division. This follows numerous federal probes into antisemitism on college campuses across the country in the aftermath of protests of Israel’s actions in Gaza and elsewhere. 

Dhillon’s social media post cites the Students United for Palestinian Equality and Return’s event scheduled for Tuesday to raise money for the “Lebanese resistance” movement, as Israel has ramped up attacks there.

University spokesperson Victor Balta noted the event hosted by the group known as SUPER UW, and scheduled for Tuesday night, is located off-campus. In a statement, he said the organization is “falsely claiming affiliation with the University of Washington” after its university registration was permanently revoked last May. 

“The University of Washington strongly and unequivocally opposes antisemitism in all forms,” Balta wrote.

He said the Justice Department had notified the university that it is conducting a “compliance review.”

“The University will cooperate with the review and provide information and responses,” Balta said. 

SUPER UW organized the occupation of a University of Washington engineering building last year that led to property damage and the arrests of nearly three dozen people. The group did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the federal investigation.

The Trump administration had announced a probe of the university after the protest. It’s unclear if anything came of that investigation.

Balta said the university has told Meta, which runs Facebook, that the group was using the university’s name on social media without authorization. Meta, according to the university, has declined to address the concern. The university is appealing the company’s decision. 

Police reportedly arrested multiple pro-Palestinian protesters demonstrating at a Town Hall Seattle event over the weekend, where Noa Cochva, a former member of the Israel Defense Forces, was speaking. 

SUPER UW also planned to protest Cochva on Tuesday at Red Square on the university’s campus, according to a Facebook posting from the group.

Since retaking office last year, Trump has targeted elite universities over allegations of harboring antisemitism. Several, including Brown, Columbia and Cornell, have struck deals with the federal government that require them to pay millions of dollars to restore withheld federal research funding. 

Critics say the approach is using antisemitism as a pretense to punish universities for promoting a liberal worldview and diversity, equity and inclusion efforts that the Trump administration opposes.

In March 2025, the UW and dozens of other colleges across the country received letters from the Trump administration warning of “potential enforcement actions” based on alleged antisemitic harassment on campus. This followed a national wave of university protests last year over Israel’s conduct in the war in Gaza, including an encampment on the University of Washington’s Seattle campus.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a First Amendment watchdog, said in a statement Tuesday that, “Holding UW responsible for the actions of an off-campus group would stretch federal civil rights law far past its lawful bounds.”

“The federal government is not empowered to demand universities serve as roving monitors of private off-campus expression,” the group added, pointing to regulations and Supreme Court precedent. “Unless there are other allegations, this investigation should end.”

Dhillon’s short social media post says nothing about potential sanctions for the University of Washington. Nor did it give any specific examples of antisemitism the Department of Justice is investigating. 

The agency didn’t immediately respond to a request for more information.

This article was updated with reaction from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

Eviction filings fell in 2025 for the second straight year in the cities and states tracked in a new report — areas home to roughly a third of the country’s renters — though some of those places saw increases.

Landlords filed more than 1.23 million eviction cases in the 10 states and 38 cities where data was collected by Princeton University’s Eviction Lab, a research center. That’s slightly lower than the 1.25 million in 2024. 

Across those locations, the average eviction filing rate was 7.9%, which means that landlords filed roughly one eviction case for every 13 renter households in 2025.

The areas of Atlanta (25%); Richmond, Virginia (24%); Charleston, South Carolina (17%); and Indianapolis (14%) had filing rates that were at least double the national average, the report said. In Atlanta, landlords filed 144,000 eviction cases, a 4% drop from previous years. 

Eviction filings were up in 13 of the 48 sites relative to the typical number of eviction cases filed annually in 2023 and 2024 — with the highest increase at 30% in the greater Austin, Texas, area. Miami recorded far fewer cases, with the largest drop in Bridgeport, Connecticut, where landlords filed 20% fewer cases than average.

New York City had a comparatively low eviction filing rate, at 5%. Researchers credit strong tenant protections such as universal access of lawyers for eviction cases in court despite high-rents and a competitive real estate market. 

The report also found that Black renters are significantly overrepresented in eviction filing cases. Despite making up 28% of the renter population, 39% of eviction filings tracked by Eviction Lab named a Black defendant. In contrast, 37% of eviction filings were against white defendants, lower than their 45% of the renter population.

Like previous years, the report also found that eviction cases are concentrated among a small number of landlords.

Stateline reporter Robbie Sequeira can be reached at rsequeira@stateline.org.

This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Washington State Standard, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

A long-vacant office building on the Washington state Capitol campus will soon be no more. 

The state is demolishing the General Administration Building on the northwest side of the campus. 

The six-story, 283,865-square-foot structure has sat empty since 2018. It’s no longer up to code, and a survey found materials containing asbestos, lead paint and fluorescent light ballasts containing toxic chemicals. The state has said that entry is “hazardous to human health.”

State officials say renovating the building would be more expensive than replacing it. The budget for the current demolition project is $16.5 million, according to the state Department of Enterprise Services. Earlier forecasts had pegged the total cost at $18.5 million.

Major demolition is expected to begin in mid-August. Work is scheduled to wrap up in November, according to the state agency. In recent days, crews have been tearing pieces from inside the building through a hole in its north side and removing some exterior elements.

The building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and is regarded as an “outstanding example” of post-World War II modernist architecture, according to its nomination for the register. Completed in 1956, it was designed by Tacoma architect A. Gordon Lumm. He also designed buildings at Western State Hospital and the County-City Building in Tacoma.

“It is built in the International Style, distinctive for its horizontal cubical form and spare ornamentation,” the nomination reads. “There are few examples in Olympia, and this is the only one associated with the Capitol Campus.”

The property, located at 210 11th Avenue SW, had been tabbed to house a temporary 293-stall parking lot after the building came down. This week, a Department of Enterprise Services spokesperson said it would be paved over as a laydown area to store construction materials and equipment. The vacant property’s permanent use will be up to the Legislature.

The state is working to preserve the building’s more historic elements.

A 315-square-foot mosaic mural made up of more than 150,000 squares of glass, marble and granite had been installed in the building since 1959. But the state moved it to the Helen Sommers Building next door in 2018.

The 11-foot-wide bronze seal on the building’s facade was removed this week. It’s being preserved for use elsewhere in the future.

Elements of the sandstone and granite exterior will also be stored. Signage, doors or wall panels will be stored or sold at surplus.

Salvageable items have been removed. Now crews are working on removal of hazardous materials.

In its heyday, the building represented the growth of state government and its recentralization in Olympia, as many agencies had been housed in Seattle. 

In 1952, four Olympia property developers sued then-Gov. Arthur Langlie to get offices moved to the capital, according to the building’s nomination for the National Register of Historic Places from the state’s Historic Preservation Office. 

The case eventually made its way to the state Supreme Court. In a 5-4 ruling, the justices decided the state constitution’s framers intended that government departments be based in the capital.

The state office building’s development in the mid-1950s was not well received by all. The First United Methodist Church had eyed the location for its new sanctuary, according to the nomination. The church was instead built at Legion Way and Boundary Street. 

Neighboring parking lots to the building’s north and west will be closed during the demolition.

Surly public comments are a staple of Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission meetings, revealing the deeply personal stakes of those fighting over how far the state should go in protecting various species or allowing for hunting or fishing. 

But last week’s session carried a slightly harsher tone, fueled by an investigation into whether commissioners violated open meetings and public records statutes ahead of a decision in 2022 to ban spring bear hunts, and a federal civil rights lawsuit filed against the agency’s director by a commissioner targeted by the probe.

The meeting took place Thursday to Saturday in Olympia. Speakers vented grievances with decisions of the citizen panel, actions of individual members and leaders of the Department of Fish and Wildlife, which the commission oversees. Some called for commissioners to resign, others for agency Director Kelly Susewind to be fired.

Carl Barner of King County, a lifelong outdoorsman, directed his comments Friday at the four sitting commissioners who voted to ban the bear hunt and whose compliance with state laws is under scrutiny.

“There are two words the four of you should never utter again. One is ethics, and the other is trust,” he said. “You have shown you have no ethics, and you have to tell the truth to have trust. The only way this commission can regain trust is to cut out the rot and rebuild anew. Once the four of you resign or are removed, then and only then can we trust and start to rebuild again.”

Francisco Santiago-Ávila, science and advocacy director for Washington Wildlife First, said the problem commissioners must address is removing Susewind. The organization is one of the plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit.

The conflict at hand, he said, is not “the same old story” about hunters versus wildlife advocates. 

“It’s about whether government officials should be able to use their authority to intimidate, punish and silence those who disagree with them,” he told the panel. “It is your duty to take action so either individually or as a group, ask the Governor to investigate this abuse of power and replace him without delay.”

On Friday, Dan Wilson of Spokane County, a hunter and active participant in policy debates for several years, urged all parties to take a deep breath and refocus on the commission’s work to better manage wildlife and fisheries, and their habitat.

“We can’t let the Legislature and the governor think that this entire agency is broken because we can’t figure out how to be adults in this room, and we all own that,” he said. “The road ahead is very hard, and it’s only going to get worse if we can’t figure out how to do this better together.” 

‘Trust has been eroded’

The nine-member commission convened days after Gov. Bob Ferguson received an investigator’s final report into whether commissioners had violated state laws on preserving records and conducting public meetings. The report has not been released and the governor’s office has declined to say when it will be made public.

Ferguson greenlit the probe last August. It came after Susewind forwarded a department attorney’s scathing memo on two commissioners’ actions. Those findings were based on a review of records getting released to the Sportsmen’s Alliance, a national hunters’ group.

That memo concluded the behavior of commissioners Lorna Smith and Melanie Rowland presented “serious risks” to the department, “especially when it comes to avoiding a conflict of interest and favoritism.”

It also said the two appeared to have colluded with the leader of Washington Wildlife First on policy matters. It suggested the governor may want to consider pursuing their removal.

Then, earlier this month, Smith filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against Susewind and Deputy Director Amy Windrope, accusing them of manufacturing allegations of misconduct in retaliation for her criticism of them, and to incite the governor’s investigation.

The suit also accuses Susewind and Windrope of making defamatory statements and unfounded allegations against attorney Claire Davis, who leads Washington Wildlife First, in an alleged rebuke for her critical comments and the group’s numerous lawsuits against the department. Davis and Washington Wildlife First are plaintiffs alongside Smith in the suit.

Davis was among the nearly three dozen speakers Friday.

“Director Susewind’s use of the word collusion tells you a lot about the Trumpian way he views the world. In his mind, it seems anyone who disagrees with him is guilty of a crime,” she said. “Fortunately, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution sees it differently.”

“This is about so much more than wildlife policy. It’s about fundamental freedoms, and who is willing to stand up for them. Are you?” she said.

Susewind, on Friday, said “I am not in a position to have a statement at this time. I look forward to the process.”

Many hunters voiced support for Susewind and blasted the lawsuit, saying it validates their concerns that some commissioners operated outside the lines.

“Over the last four years, trust has been eroded,” said Cory Maxwell of Kitsap County, a fourth-generation hunter. “You are sitting here based on the lobbyists that are sitting in this room. Everybody knows it.”

Smith speaks out

On Friday, after 90 tense and passion-filled minutes, Commissioner Lorna Smith responded with a prepared statement explaining her reasons for suing.

“This was far from an easy decision for me to make,” began Smith, whose term runs through the end of the year. “I believe deeply that members of this commission must be able to speak openly about matters affecting wildlife management and the public trust without fear of retaliation from within.”

Continuing, she said her focus would remain on making decisions guided by “sound science and the public trust. I ask that we all respect the legal process as it moves forward, and that’s my final word on the subject.”

WASHINGTON — Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer will step down from her post, the Trump administration announced Monday, following multiple reports alleging work misconduct including misuse of funds and more.

Chavez-DeRemer, a Republican from Oregon who lost her U.S. House reelection bid in 2024, will take a role in the private sector, White House Director of Communications Steven Cheung wrote in a social media post. 

“She has done a phenomenal job in her role by protecting American workers, enacting fair labor practices, and helping Americans gain additional skills to improve their lives,” Cheung said. 

Keith Sonderling will lead the agency as acting secretary of Labor, he added. Sonderling also worked at the Department of Labor during the first Trump administration, in the Wage and Hour Division. 

Chavez-DeRemer is the most recent member of the Donald Trump Cabinet to be ousted, following former Attorney General Pam Bondi and former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.

The Department of Labor’s independent watchdog started an investigation into Chavez-DeRemer and her top aides over allegations of sending inappropriate messages to young staffers at the department, according to the New York Times. 

The department’s inspector general was also investigating reports of misuse of department funds for personal travel and into allegations Chavez-DeRemer had an extramarital affair with a member of her security detail.

Separately, her husband, Dr. Shawn DeRemer, was barred from entering the Department of Labor after female staffers said he touched them inappropriately, according to the Times. 

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear another case from Colorado involving the balance of state anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ people and religious exemptions. 

The Archdiocese of Denver and two Catholic preschools allege in a lawsuit that they were unable to participate in Colorado’s universal preschool program, known as UPK Colorado, because the state will not allow the religious educational institutions to exclude LGBTQ+ children and parents. 

The St. Mary Catholic Parish in Littleton and the St. Bernadette Catholic Parish in Lakewood both operate preschool programs that were not part of UPK since the state requires providers to accept applicants without regard to the family’s religion, sexual orientation or gender identity. 

The schools applied for public funding through the universal preschool program and were denied when they requested religious exemptions from the statutory equal-opportunity requirement. They claimed their rights under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment were violated by their exclusion. 

A U.S. District Court of Colorado judge ruled in June 2024 that the UPK requirement that prohibits discrimination against LGBTQ+ families is valid. The Denver-based 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s decision in October. 

​In the case, the Supreme Court will weigh in on aspects of a 1990 ruling in another case that raised the question of religious exemptions to state laws. The court held in Employment Division v. Smith that a person’s religious beliefs are not an exemption from compliance with a law against conduct the state is free to regulate.

Public funding carries public responsibility, and that basic contract cannot be selectively applied.

– Mardi Moore, CEO of Rocky Mountain Equality

The lawsuit is filed against Lisa Roy, executive director of the Colorado Department of Early Childhood. 

Mardi Moore, CEO of LGBTQ+ advocacy organization Rocky Mountain Equality, said it “should be clear” that taxpayers should not fund discrimination. 

“Public funding carries public responsibility, and that basic contract cannot be selectively applied,” Moore said in a statement. “Rocky Mountain Equality stands firmly with the Colorado families fighting to uphold the nondiscrimination protections that Colorado has enshrined in law, and we urge the Court to affirm that equal rights and public funding are inseparable.”

Eric Maruyama, spokesperson for Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, said the state will continue to defend the UPK program that supports more than 45,000 children.

“We value the role of all preschool providers in our state, including religious providers, and have consistently welcomed all providers into the UPK program, so long as all families — no matter who you love, who you are or how you worship — may also participate in any preschool receiving state taxpayer dollars,” Maruyama said in a statement.

Several court cases related to LGBTQ+ discrimination in Colorado have made their way to the nation’s highest court. Most recently, the court sided with a Christian counselor against Colorado’s law that bans licensed providers from conducting “conversion therapy,” a discredited practice of trying to change a person’s sexual orientation, such as to eliminate same-sex attraction, or gender identity. Other cases include one in which the Supreme Court said a Colorado web designer does not have to make websites for same-sex couples, and another in which the court said a cake shop owner could deny a same-sex couple a wedding cake based on religious beliefs. 

Nick Reaves, an attorney with Becket Fund for Religious Liberty who represents the plaintiffs in the UPK case, said the state promised free preschool for all, but “slammed the door” on families who selected a religious preschool.

“After three losses in religious freedom cases at the Supreme Court, Colorado should know better,” Reaves said in a statement. “The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that states cannot exclude families from government benefits because of their faith. We’re confident the Court will say the same thing here and put a stop to Colorado’s no-Catholics-need-apply rules.”

Attorney General Phil Weiser, a Democrat running for Colorado governor, declined to comment. The attorney general’s office argues on behalf of the state when it is a defendant before the Supreme Court. 

Editor’s note: This story was updated at 3:34 p.m., April 20, 2026, to include comment from a spokesperson for Colorado Gov. Jared Polis.

This story was originally produced by Colorado Newsline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Washington State Standard, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

Mel Tonasket says the modern history of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation is defined by a single turning point: the decision to reject federal termination, and the decades of work that followed to rebuild tribal sovereignty and influence.

In a wide-ranging interview with Austin Jenkins on TVW’s “Inside Olympia,” the former Colville chairman traced his path from a young activist to a national tribal leader, crediting mentor Lucy Covington — the tribe’s first woman chair — for setting him on that course. After observing inequities while working for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Tonasket began questioning local institutions, which caught Covington’s attention.

“She almost single-handedly saved our tribe,” he said. “I’m just lucky enough that I got to hang on to her apron strings and follow her and take her orders.”

That mentorship quickly put him at the center of a defining moment. On his first day on the tribal council in 1970, Tonasket made a motion to remove a BIA superintendent sent to strip the tribe of federal recognition and its sovereign status or, in the language of the day, terminate it. A second motion opposed termination outright, setting the stage for a narrow and strategic fight to preserve tribal status.

“We’re a tribe. Not a corporation,” he said.

Tonasket said rejecting termination was only the beginning. Leaders had to reopen access to housing, education and other federal programs, while also learning how to navigate state government. Covington sent him to Olympia to learn how state government worked, and he began building relationships that would later shape state-tribal policy.

The Centennial Accord, adopted in 1989, formalized a government-to-government relationship between Washington state and its federally recognized tribes, creating a framework for consultation, cooperation and recognition of tribal sovereignty.

The accord started as a “what if” conversation among tribal leaders, an effort to keep disagreements from overwhelming cooperation between tribes and the state, Tonasket said. “We spent like three hours just daydreaming about what if,” before the group memorialized the idea on an early personal computer, he said.

The next step happened almost immediately in the governor’s office. “We brought it over to Booth Gardner’s office and gave it to his chief of staff the next morning and said, here, here’s an idea on how we can work together.”

His work soon extended nationally. Despite his relative youth, Tonasket was elected president of the National Congress of American Indians during a period of intense debate over sovereignty. On a national TV appearance in 1977, he defined that concept in fundamental terms: “We had leaders. We controlled the actions of our people and our resources.”

Over time, he said, those efforts helped transform relationships with the state to a nation-to-nation footing. “There was a time when politicians wouldn’t talk to us,” he said. “And today they’re coming and knocking on our doors.”

But Tonasket warned that those gains could be misunderstood or taken for granted by younger leaders who did not experience those struggles firsthand.

“They better study their history because they’ve got handed what we got today, but they never had to fight the fight to get to it,” he said. “Understand the legal and the legislative history of how we got here because there’s strength in that understanding.”

From land claims and fishing and hunting rights to disputes over taxation and jurisdiction, Tonasket said future leaders risk losing sight of the legal foundations of sovereignty without that grounding.

Reflecting on his own career, Tonasket said simply: “I’m like the Indian Forrest Gump. If you name it, I was there.”

This article was first published by TVW, a media nonprofit that provides comprehensive coverage of state government. TVW broadcasts unedited gavel-to-gavel coverage on statewide cable and at tvw.org, and produces original current affairs and education shows, including “Inside Olympia” and “The Impact”. TVW’s mission is to give Washingtonians access to their state government, increase civic access and engagement, and foster an informed citizenry.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Customs and Border Protection tariff refund system went live Monday, marking what small business advocates call a “complex” first step for entrepreneurs to recoup $166 billion in import taxes accrued under President Donald Trump’s emergency tariffs, which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down in February. 

Importers and brokers can now upload a detailed list of each tariff paid under Trump’s now illegal order to charge duties under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, or IEEPA. 

Customs officials estimate 330,000 importers paid the duties. Refunds are expected within 60 to 90 days, according to CBP.

The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision earlier this year found Trump’s steep global tariffs exceeded his presidential powers.

Following the high court’s decision, U.S. Court of International Trade Judge Richard Eaton ordered the government to stop charging the tariffs and establish a refund system.

A handful of small businesses and Democratic state attorneys general led the legal challenge to Trump’s 2025 “Liberation Day” tariffs. 

Small business owners angry, frustrated

States Newsroom documented the experiences of several small businesses across the U.S. who faced increased costs following Trump’s change in international trade policy.

Now many are experiencing a “confusing mix of relief,” Richard Trent, executive director of Main Street Alliance, told States Newsroom in an interview Monday.

Trent, whose organization advocates on behalf of small businesses said “our entrepreneurs, many of whom were angry that they had to pay tariffs in the first place, and were frustrated by the back-and-forth over the last year, opened up the portal this morning only to see that it had crashed. It just feels like the uncertainty just keeps popping up.”

Trent, who spoke to “five or six” businesses Monday morning who experienced technical issues, said the portal was up and running again by afternoon.

Customs and Border Protection did not confirm for States Newsroom whether the system had crashed, but rather provided a written statement.

“U.S. Customs and Border Protection has developed a new tool, the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE), to efficiently process refunds, pursuant to court order, for importers and brokers who paid IEEPA duties,” according to an agency spokesperson. 

“CBP has issued guidance to the trade community to help them prepare to use the new CAPE tool. Importers and brokers can visit CBP’s website for resources and step-by-step guidance,” the statement continued. 

Monday’s launch is the first part of a four-step process in refunding the taxes paid by American businesses of all sizes.

Trent said the “complex” process is yet another hurdle for small operations.

“This is progress, but it’s not yet justice,” Trent said in an earlier statement Monday. “Small business owners should not have to jump through hoops to get back money they never should have had to pay. We need a refund process that is simple, accessible, and fast.”

Guides for refunds

The Liberty Justice Center, the libertarian legal advocacy group that represented small business plaintiffs before the Supreme Court, has established the Tariff Equity Refund Resource for America. The platform offers online guides for how to properly submit documentation for the refunds.

“We took this fight all the way to the Supreme Court on behalf of small businesses, and we’re not stopping now,” Sara Albrecht, chair of the Liberty Justice Center, said in a statement Monday. “We are a nonprofit law firm — our only goal is to help businesses recover every dollar they are owed, not to take a percentage of it. At a time when others are looking to profit off confusion, we are making this process clear, accessible and free.”

Trump declared international trade a national emergency just over a year ago, citing a trade imbalance on imports and exports between the United States and several other countries. The president imposed a 10% blanket tariff on all global imports and steeper double-digit taxes on products from some of the top U.S. trading partners.

The president delayed and changed the rates on numerous occasions. 

Following his Supreme Court loss, Trump imposed a new round of universal, temporary tariffs under a separate statute. The Liberty Justice Center is again representing small businesses in court to fight the new import taxes.

This article was first published by Writers on the Range.

When I led the Bureau of Land Management under President Biden, the hardest part of my job was reassembling the agency after the first Trump administration had scattered its headquarters from our nation’s capital. The move crippled the agency — as intended. 

That experience led me to understand that the current Trump administration’s unpopular plan to move the U.S. Forest Service headquarters will be every bit as destructive. It will hurt forests, wildlife and communities that rely upon our public lands and waters. 

In 2020, almost 90% of the BLM employees ordered to move West chose not to, forcing them out the door. With those seasoned employees went years of wisdom and knowledge of how things are supposed to work, of how to deliver for the American people. 

Today’s Forest Service plan goes further, aiming to close regional offices and shutter dozens of the agency’s research centers, as we face what some say will be a horrific wildfire season.  

The Forest Service and the BLM combined manage 20% of our country’s lands and waters. These public lands, the places we camp, hike, watch birds, hunt and simply wander in nature, are truly one of America’s best ideas. For Westerners, they are a deep part of our identity.

There is a reason Forest Service headquarters are based in Washington, D.C. It’s where our nation’s leaders work. Believe me, I did not want to move to the capital from my home in Montana to run the BLM, but to be able to fight for Western people and places, I had to go to the seat of our nation’s power.  

I was often in the Interior Secretary’s offices. I frequently walked to work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service director, talking through thorny problems such as how to protect wildlife while permitting transmission lines. Washington is where people manage relationships with Congress, where budgets get made. 

The administration says all their changes are about bringing leadership closer to where the work happens. That’s a political talking point, and it’s false. 

If DOGE’s dismantling of government agencies last year provides any lesson, then cruelty and disruption are the real point. These changes aim to create chaos, deliver the administration’s stated goal of traumatizing employees, and imperil the very existence of public lands — lands that belong to all Americans. We improve the management of our forests by giving foresters the resources they need and letting them make decisions based on sound science and collaboration, not by gutting their agency.  

Over the course of the last year, the Forest Service forced or coerced roughly a quarter of its approximately 30,000 employees to leave. In this latest round of engineered chaos, thousands of people will be reassigned and ordered to move. If BLM history is any guide, almost all will leave their positions rather than uproot their families. The agency could soon be left with roughly half its former ranks. 

Think of your job. Now, think of half of your colleagues gone. Would your organization be able to recover from the loss and demoralization to do its work? 

There are inevitable repercussions to this radical attack on our public land management agencies: Campgrounds will close. Trails won’t be maintained. High fuel loads near communities will go unaddressed. Wildfires will become even harder to fight. More sawmills will close. The health of our land, waters and wildlife will decline. With things going wrong on the ground, some will demand that these lands be transferred to states or sold to private industry.  

That’s exactly what the people in power today want. The choice of Utah for the Forest Service headquarters — home to Senator Mike Lee, who leads the charge on public land selloff, as well as to the state that is suing to try to take over millions of your public lands — reveals the administration’s true agenda. 

The inevitable does not need to happen. There is one power to stop our public lands from being mismanaged to the point of selloff: It’s the outrage of the American people. 

Americans overwhelmingly support public lands and want future generations to enjoy the freedoms found in them. Our public forests, rivers and deserts deserve to be treated better, and the federal land managers who work tirelessly deserve better. It’s up to us to demand it.  

Democratic state Rep. Larry Springer of Kirkland, who provided a moderating voice in his caucus for two decades, announced Sunday he will not seek re-election.

Springer, 79, was elected in 2004 to the Washington Legislature and has served as deputy majority leader since 2014. He spent a decade on the Kirkland City Council prior to winning his seat in the 45th Legislative District in suburban King County.

He said in a statement that when he entered legislative office, he made a promise “to work hard, listen closely, and never stop fighting for the families and small businesses that make our communities strong. I am proud of what I have accomplished over these many years, and grateful for the partnerships and friendships made along the way.”

Throughout his tenure, Springer has been a moderate known for seeking common ground with Republicans on contentious policy matters. But increasingly, he’s taken heat for his centrist approach from progressive Democrats who view it as too conservative.

He fought off an intraparty challenge in 2024. This year, two Democrats are already campaigning to unseat him. 

“Tough problems take time and perseverance. I’ve never believed in quick fixes or political theater,” he said in a statement. “I saw my role as being a voice for both cooperation and common sense.

“I am grateful that my colleagues trusted me to do both from a leadership position, helping shape legislation and always doing so with positive outcomes in mind, not political posturing,” he continued.

Among his top achievements, Springer cited passage of landmark legislation in 2021, which pledged $500 million over eight years to the state Department of Natural Resources for wildfire preparedness and response. 

In the course of 11 terms, he backed policies to expand affordable housing, increase early childhood education and strengthen firearm safety rules. This past session, he surprised some when he voted to approve an income tax on households that earn more than a million dollars a year.

“The work that matters, funding our schools, protecting reproductive rights, addressing the affordable housing crisis, keeping our communities safe, requires showing up session after session and doing the unglamorous work of governing,” he said.

At an event in Bellevue in March, Springer said the past two sessions were “two of the most difficult” since he was elected because of the back-to-back budget shortfalls. 

The House Democratic caucus struggled at times because so few members had ever dealt with a deficit, let alone gaps in successive years. “We were woefully unprepared for how contentious the internal debates” would be, he said.

Springer’s announcement comes weeks after another veteran Democratic lawmaker, Rep. Timm Ormsby of Spokane, announced he’ll retire at the end of his term in January. Ormsby, who represents the 3rd Legislative District, is chair of the House Appropriations Committee.

More than a dozen current members of the House are either retiring or running for another office in November.

More than a third of state ballot measures that voters will be asked to consider this year relate to democracy, with questions on voting rights, election processes, redistricting and similar issues.

“It’s the redistricting fights that are really getting heated after the Trump administration began pressuring Republican-led states to shore up the GOP majority in Congress in preparation for the midterm election,” said Quentin Savwoir, director of programs and strategy at the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, a progressive policy organization that tracks ballot initiatives.

For example, next week Virginians will be asked whether they want to temporarily allow the state to redraw its congressional districts, in response to aggressive congressional map changes in other states that have been encouraged by President Donald Trump. If approved, the proposal could create four Democrat-leaning districts and affect the balance of power in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Early voting on the referendum is already underway, with polls showing it has a narrow margin of support.

Meanwhile in Missouri, supporters of a citizen-led referendum that challenges the state’s recently gerrymandered congressional map say they have enough signatures to get their measure on the November ballot. The map, passed last year by Missouri’s Republican-majority legislature at Trump’s urging, carves an area around Kansas City — currently represented by a Black Democrat — into three Republican-favored districts.

As of March 31, 83 ballot measures have already qualified for the ballot this year in states across the country, though that number could rise as residents continue to gather signatures and legislators vote to add their proposals, according to the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center. Another 341 measures are in the process of qualifying.

Currently, 31 of those 83 measures are democracy related, with another 87 democracy-related proposals in the works.

Some of this year’s democracy-related initiatives also focus on requiring identification to vote. In Nevada and North Carolina, for example, voters will be asked to consider constitutional amendments that would require voters to present photo identification.

Ballot measures are questions put before voters on local or statewide ballots. They typically land on a ballot in one of two ways: Either citizens write a proposed law and gather enough signatures to get it on the ballot, or the state legislature proposes a measure and asks voters to approve it. Citizen-led ballot initiatives are allowed in 19 states.

In recent years, as more voters have approved initiatives around progressive causes such as raising the minimum wage, legalizing abortion or expanding Medicaid, conservative legislators in states such as Florida and Missouri have tried to limit such citizen-led ballot initiatives.

Already this year, dozens of bills have been proposed that would create more obstacles to citizen-led initiatives. The bills would impose hurdles such as adding restrictions for signature gathering, raising the vote threshold required for a ballot measure to pass, or giving lawmakers more power over ballot language, according to The Fairness Project, a nonprofit that advocates for increased use of ballot measures.

This year, a larger share of ballot measures have been referred by state legislators, a shift from 2024 when a wave of citizen-led initiatives dominated the November ballot.

In some states, citizen-led proposals and opposing legislatively referred proposals “are creating a very crowded ballot that may confuse voters,” said Chris Melody Fields Figueredo, executive director at the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center.

“People might be having to run ‘yes’ or ‘no’ campaigns at the same time. So voter education is going to be incredibly important.”

Stateline reporter Anna Claire Vollers can be reached at avollers@stateline.org.

This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Washington State Standard, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

The U.S. Forest Service’s plan to close scores of research stations could threaten the nation’s wildfire readiness, many foresters fear, and erode decades of work to understand timber production, soil health, pests and diseases, watersheds and wildlife.

Late last month, the Forest Service announced plans to close 57 of its 77 research stations, located across 31 states, merging them into a single organization in Fort Collins, Colorado.

The agency described the move as a way to consolidate, not cut, the agency’s scientific work, and “unify research priorities.”

It’s unclear how many scientists will be affected by the transition, but it comes as part of a larger agency reorganization that is expected to move roughly 5,000 employees to new outposts. Forest Service leaders have framed the closures as a way to reduce the agency’s real estate footprint, citing a facilities budget Congress has shrunk, as opposed to curtailing its scientific work.

But many longtime foresters fear the closures will threaten vital research that has been the backbone of forest management for state agencies, timber companies and tribes. Many of the research stations slated for closure study fire behavior, forecast smoke dispersal and help inform evacuation decisions.

“The research arm of the Forest Service is one of the unsung heroes in forest management around the world,” said Mike Dombeck, who served as chief of the Forest Service under President Bill Clinton and remains a vocal conservation advocate. “It is the premier forest research entity in the world, on everything from invasive species to wildland fire risk, watershed protection, basic silviculture and harvest methods.”

The Forest Service’s revamp also will relocate the agency’s headquarters from Washington, D.C., to Salt Lake City and restructure its regional management system.

The research arm of the Forest Service is one of the unsung heroes in forest management around the world.

– Former U.S. Forest Service Chief Mike Dombeck

The Forest Service did not grant a Stateline interview request. The agency has not said how much money it expects to save by closing the research stations.

Many Western leaders are skeptical that the consolidated operation will be able to replicate the work of the existing research stations. State officials said they’ve been given few details about how the transition will play out and whether existing research will continue.

In Washington state, the Forest Service plans to close research stations in Seattle and Wenatchee, while maintaining a facility in Olympia.

“The station in Seattle does some of the most practical-based research that we use for fire and forest management,” said Washington State Forester George Geissler. “We don’t want to lose that work. They’ve said they’ll keep Olympia open, but we don’t know what that looks like. Are they making sure we don’t lose the ongoing research?”

Forestry veterans say it’s important for the agency to continue its scientific work across a wide variety of forests and climates.

“This is research that’s been going on for decades or even a century or more,” said Kevin Hood, executive director of Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, a nonprofit that advocates for agency workers. “They’re able to see how climate change impacts are playing out in a dry ponderosa forest or a humid hardwood forest. There are research plots and experimental forests that have been diligently studied for decades. This could be a loss of a lot of knowledge.”

The Pacific Wildland Fire Sciences Laboratory, for instance, plays a crucial role in issuing wildfire smoke forecasts that are relied on throughout the Northwest. After a hot, dry winter, that work could be critical as a dangerous wildfire season approaches.

In Vermont, the Burlington research station slated for closure studied maple syrup production and the effects of acid rain on different tree species, according to VTDigger.

And in Mississippi, the Southern Institute of Forest Genetics, also on the chopping block, has guided tree improvement programs that improved growth and pest resistance in Southern timber forests.

Some conservation advocates are concerned that the research station closures are aimed at suppressing studies that might show the environmental harms of logging or mining. President Donald Trump has pledged to increase timber production on federal lands. He has moved to limit environmental reviews and protections for endangered species to speed up logging projects.

In an interview with the Deseret News, Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz said that the move was designed to ensure that the Forest Service’s research “will better align with the priorities of the administration” — minerals, recreation, fire management and “active management” of forests, which can include timber harvests and thinning projects. He said the research would support not just forests but also private landowners.

“It’s not streamlining, it’s dismantling,” said Chandra Rosenthal, Western lands and Rocky Mountain advocate with Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a group that defends whistleblowers in the federal service. “It’s going to really impact how the Forest Service makes decisions on the ground. The way the Trump administration is trying to make a lot of decisions is gut feelings.”

In a webpage set up to respond to news coverage of the move, the Forest Service said it is a “myth” that the station closures will eliminate scientific positions or cancel research programs. But many forestry veterans said that attrition is inevitable, as researchers are asked to move their families across the country to work under a new model with few details.

“There’s concern that we’re going to see a lot of really good individuals who cannot uproot their families that we’ll lose,” said Geissler, the Washington state forester. “It’s taken a long time to develop that kind of expertise. It’s scary.”

Foresters in both conservative and liberal states said they rely heavily on the research the Forest Service provides. Most were unwilling to comment extensively about the closures without seeing more details.

“That work is absolutely important, and I sure hope it continues,” said Wyoming State Forester Kelly Norris. “I don’t think research should stop. It may need to look a little different.”

Some leaders said there may be opportunities for states, through forestry agencies and universities, to pick up the slack and ensure research continues, even if the Forest Service is no longer playing a lead role.

“This is still a little bit of an unknown area, but we’ll have to make sure that if there’s a gap there, that we’re working with our universities and (state) research centers to make sure that is still being provided,” said Utah State Forester Jamie Barnes.

Nick Smith, public affairs director with the American Forest Resource Council, a timber industry group, expressed support for the agency’s effort to consolidate its work, saying he’d had “limited interaction” with the research stations.

While some of the Forest Service’s work is controversial, agency veterans say its research program is valued by loggers and tree-huggers alike.

“Nobody was asking for this,” said Robert Bonnie, who served as undersecretary of agriculture for natural resources and environment during the Obama administration. “There was no call to do anything like this.”

Stateline reporter Alex Brown can be reached at abrown@stateline.org. 

This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Washington State Standard, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.