By:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/danielle-j-brown/">Danielle J. Brown</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/sam-gauntt/">Sam Gauntt</a>

The U.S. Supreme Court late Tuesday lifted lower court injunctions that had blocked attempts by President Donald Trump and his DOGE Service to restructure the federal government.

Labor unions, advocates and local governments that sued to block the cuts said the president exceeded his authority with the executive order by moving to dismantle the federal government without congressional approval.

A U.S. District Court judge in Northern California agreed and issued a preliminary injunction to stall the executive order while the case was heard. A divided 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision.

But the White House pressed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing that Trump’s&nbsp;<a href="https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-14210-implementing-the-presidents-department-government-efficiency" target="_blank">executive order</a>&nbsp;did not restructure the government but merely called for reductions in force, which it said is within the president’s power.

The Supreme Court agreed in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1174_h3ci.pdf" target="_blank">a one-page order</a>&nbsp;Tuesday, saying the government was likely to prevail on its claim and the injunction should be stayed while the case proceeded.

In a sharp, 15-page dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the district court judge had determined that the administration plan would not just cut jobs but would “fundamentally restructure” the federal government. He made a “reasoned determination” that the order should be stayed while the case was heard, she wrote.

“But that temporary, practical, harm-reducing preservation of the status quo was no match for this Court’s demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this President’s legally dubious actions in an emergency posture,” she wrote.

“At bottom, this case is about whether that action amounts to a structural overhaul that usurps Congress’s policymaking prerogatives — and it is hard to imagine deciding that question in any meaningful way after those changes have happened,” she wrote. “Yet, for some reason, this Court sees fit to step in now and release the President’s wrecking ball at the outset of this litigation.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a brief concurrence, said she agreed with Jackson that the president does not have the authority to remake government without congressional approval.&nbsp; But she said the executive order and an&nbsp;<a href="https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/latest-memos/guidance-on-agency-rif-and-reorganization-plans-requested-by-implementing-the-president-s-department-of-government-efficiency-workforce-optimization-initiative.pdf" target="_blank">implementing memo</a>&nbsp;from the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management call for the changes to be “consistent with applicable law,” and it’s for lower courts to determine if they are.

A White House spokesperson called the decision “another definitive victory” for the Trump administration.

“It clearly rebukes the continued assaults on the President’s constitutionally authorized executive powers by leftist judges who are trying to prevent the President from achieving government efficiency across the federal government,” the spokesperson, Harrison Fields, said in a written statement.

But labor unions, advocates and political leaders say that the decision undermines the value of federal employees, threatens the operation of federal services, and could even endanger American citizens.

In a statement Tuesday evening, the American Federation of Government Employees, along with the rest of the coalition of unions, nonprofits and municipalities bringing the suit against the administration, decried the Supreme Court’s decision as a “serious blow to our democracy.”

The coalition said the decision put “services that the American people rely on in grave jeopardy.”

“This decision does not change the simple and clear fact that reorganizing government functions and laying off federal workers en masse haphazardly without any congressional approval is not allowed by our Constitution,” the statement read. “While we are disappointed in this decision, we will continue to fight on behalf of the communities we represent and argue this case to protect critical public services that we rely on to stay

Gov. Wes Moore (D) said that as a state with a high concentration of federal workers, “any action against our federal employees is a direct strike against Maryland’s people and economy.”

“Today’s Supreme Court ruling on AFGE v. Trump will embolden President Trump in his mission to dismantle the federal government and threatens to upend the lives of countless public servants who wake up every day to deliver essential services and benefits that people rely on,” Moore said in a written statement. He noted that thousands of Maryland residents have already been laid off from federal agencies under the Trump administration.

In a post to X on Tuesday evening, U.S. Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-5th) wrote that Trump and OMB Director Russell Vought are continuing to “vilify and traumatize the patriots serving our nation, unconstitutionally reorganizing the federal government.”

“The Supreme Court’s decision today demonstrates that federal employees, their families and livelihoods, and the vital services they provide to the American people are of no concern to the Trump Administration,” Hoyer wrote. “I stand with our federal employees against these attacks.”

U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-8th) said in an&nbsp;<a href="https://x.com/RepRaskin/status/1942722560413601828" target="_blank">X post</a>&nbsp;that the ruling “will give Trump’s wrecking crew more awful ideas about sacking critical federal workers,” referencing layoffs at the National Weather Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who help notify state and local agencies about impending dangerous weather.

U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) added that layoffs could also put Americans at risk by “decimating essential public services” like food inspections and Social Security.

“As Justice Jackson put it in her dissent, ‘this was the wrong decision at the wrong moment, especially given what little this Court knows about what is actually happening on the ground,’” Van Hollen said in a statment. “She is right. The Court’s decision to allow this damage to be done before ruling on the merits shows how detached they are from the reality of the moment.”

Van Hollen said the administration’s plan “isn’t about efficiency, it’s about rigging the government to only benefit the wealthy and powerful special interests.”

“We are not done fighting in Congress, in the courts, and in our communities to defend the dedicated public servants who go to work on behalf of the American people day in and day out,” he said.

The Feb. 11 executive order directed federal agencies to prepeare for “large-scale reductions in force” and to work with members of the Department of Government Efficiency — the DOGE Service that was run at the time by billionaire Elon Musk — to develop a plan to reduce the size of the workforce. Military personnel were exempted, but virtually every other federal agency was affected.

The order was quickly challenged in court by labor unions, taxpayer and good government groups and by a half-dozen local governments: Harris County, Texas, Martin Luther King Jr. County, Washington, and San Francisco City and County, California; and the cities of Chicago, Baltimore, and Santa Rosa, California.

They argued that the goals of the executive order far exceeded the president’s authority to reduce the size of agencies. Under the DOGE plan, they argued to the Supreme Court, “functions across the federal government will be abolished, agencies will be radically downsized from what Congress authorized, critical government services will be lost, and hundreds of thousands of federal employees will lose their jobs.”

“There will be no way to unscramble that egg: If the courts ultimately deem the President to have overstepped his authority and intruded upon that of Congress, as a practical matter there will be no way to go back in time to restore those agencies, functions, and services,” their court filing said.

That was echoed by Jackson, who said the district court judge was in the best position to determine if the president’s order consisted of “minor workforce reductions” or whether it was a massive reorganization that overstepped executive authority.

“With scant justification, the majority permits the immediate and potentially devastating aggrandizement of one branch (the Executive) at the expense of another (Congress), and once again leaves the People paying the price for its reckless emergency-docket determinations,” she wrote.

This article was originally published by&nbsp;<a href="https://marylandmatters.org/" target="_blank">Maryland Matters</a>, a part of States Newsroom.

<figure>
                        <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/12/1672235865420.png" alt="Supreme Court Credit: Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States" />
                        <figcaption>Supreme Court Credit: Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States</figcaption>
                    </figure><p>By:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/danielle-j-brown/">Danielle J. Brown</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/sam-gauntt/">Sam Gauntt</a></p><p>The U.S. Supreme Court late Tuesday lifted lower court injunctions that had blocked attempts by President Donald Trump and his DOGE Service to restructure the federal government.</p><p>Labor unions, advocates and local governments that sued to block the cuts said the president exceeded his authority with the executive order by moving to dismantle the federal government without congressional approval.</p><p>A U.S. District Court judge in Northern California agreed and issued a preliminary injunction to stall the executive order while the case was heard. A divided 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision.</p><p>But the White House pressed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing that Trump’s&nbsp;<a href="https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-14210-implementing-the-presidents-department-government-efficiency" target="_blank">executive order</a>&nbsp;did not restructure the government but merely called for reductions in force, which it said is within the president’s power.</p><p>The Supreme Court agreed in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1174_h3ci.pdf" target="_blank">a one-page order</a>&nbsp;Tuesday, saying the government was likely to prevail on its claim and the injunction should be stayed while the case proceeded.</p><p>In a sharp, 15-page dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the district court judge had determined that the administration plan would not just cut jobs but would “fundamentally restructure” the federal government. He made a “reasoned determination” that the order should be stayed while the case was heard, she wrote.</p><p>“But that temporary, practical, harm-reducing preservation of the status quo was no match for this Court’s demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this President’s legally dubious actions in an emergency posture,” she wrote.</p><p>“At bottom, this case is about whether that action amounts to a structural overhaul that usurps Congress’s policymaking prerogatives — and it is hard to imagine deciding that question in any meaningful way after those changes have happened,” she wrote. “Yet, for some reason, this Court sees fit to step in now and release the President’s wrecking ball at the outset of this litigation.”</p><p>Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a brief concurrence, said she agreed with Jackson that the president does not have the authority to remake government without congressional approval.&nbsp; But she said the executive order and an&nbsp;<a href="https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/latest-memos/guidance-on-agency-rif-and-reorganization-plans-requested-by-implementing-the-president-s-department-of-government-efficiency-workforce-optimization-initiative.pdf" target="_blank">implementing memo</a>&nbsp;from the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management call for the changes to be “consistent with applicable law,” and it’s for lower courts to determine if they are.</p><p>A White House spokesperson called the decision “another definitive victory” for the Trump administration.</p><p>“It clearly rebukes the continued assaults on the President’s constitutionally authorized executive powers by leftist judges who are trying to prevent the President from achieving government efficiency across the federal government,” the spokesperson, Harrison Fields, said in a written statement.</p><p>But labor unions, advocates and political leaders say that the decision undermines the value of federal employees, threatens the operation of federal services, and could even endanger American citizens.</p><p>In a statement Tuesday evening, the American Federation of Government Employees, along with the rest of the coalition of unions, nonprofits and municipalities bringing the suit against the administration, decried the Supreme Court’s decision as a “serious blow to our democracy.”</p><p>The coalition said the decision put “services that the American people rely on in grave jeopardy.”</p><p>“This decision does not change the simple and clear fact that reorganizing government functions and laying off federal workers en masse haphazardly without any congressional approval is not allowed by our Constitution,” the statement read. “While we are disappointed in this decision, we will continue to fight on behalf of the communities we represent and argue this case to protect critical public services that we rely on to stay</p><p>Gov. Wes Moore (D) said that as a state with a high concentration of federal workers, “any action against our federal employees is a direct strike against Maryland’s people and economy.”</p><p>“Today’s Supreme Court ruling on AFGE v. Trump will embolden President Trump in his mission to dismantle the federal government and threatens to upend the lives of countless public servants who wake up every day to deliver essential services and benefits that people rely on,” Moore said in a written statement. He noted that thousands of Maryland residents have already been laid off from federal agencies under the Trump administration.</p><p>In a post to X on Tuesday evening, U.S. Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-5th) wrote that Trump and OMB Director Russell Vought are continuing to “vilify and traumatize the patriots serving our nation, unconstitutionally reorganizing the federal government.”</p><p>“The Supreme Court’s decision today demonstrates that federal employees, their families and livelihoods, and the vital services they provide to the American people are of no concern to the Trump Administration,” Hoyer wrote. “I stand with our federal employees against these attacks.”</p><p>U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-8th) said in an&nbsp;<a href="https://x.com/RepRaskin/status/1942722560413601828" target="_blank">X post</a>&nbsp;that the ruling “will give Trump’s wrecking crew more awful ideas about sacking critical federal workers,” referencing layoffs at the National Weather Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who help notify state and local agencies about impending dangerous weather.</p><p>U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) added that layoffs could also put Americans at risk by “decimating essential public services” like food inspections and Social Security.</p><p>“As Justice Jackson put it in her dissent, ‘this was the wrong decision at the wrong moment, especially given what little this Court knows about what is actually happening on the ground,’” Van Hollen said in a statment. “She is right. The Court’s decision to allow this damage to be done before ruling on the merits shows how detached they are from the reality of the moment.”</p><p>Van Hollen said the administration’s plan “isn’t about efficiency, it’s about rigging the government to only benefit the wealthy and powerful special interests.”</p><p>“We are not done fighting in Congress, in the courts, and in our communities to defend the dedicated public servants who go to work on behalf of the American people day in and day out,” he said.</p><p>The Feb. 11 executive order directed federal agencies to prepeare for “large-scale reductions in force” and to work with members of the Department of Government Efficiency — the DOGE Service that was run at the time by billionaire Elon Musk — to develop a plan to reduce the size of the workforce. Military personnel were exempted, but virtually every other federal agency was affected.</p><p>The order was quickly challenged in court by labor unions, taxpayer and good government groups and by a half-dozen local governments: Harris County, Texas, Martin Luther King Jr. County, Washington, and San Francisco City and County, California; and the cities of Chicago, Baltimore, and Santa Rosa, California.</p><p>They argued that the goals of the executive order far exceeded the president’s authority to reduce the size of agencies. Under the DOGE plan, they argued to the Supreme Court, “functions across the federal government will be abolished, agencies will be radically downsized from what Congress authorized, critical government services will be lost, and hundreds of thousands of federal employees will lose their jobs.”</p><p>“There will be no way to unscramble that egg: If the courts ultimately deem the President to have overstepped his authority and intruded upon that of Congress, as a practical matter there will be no way to go back in time to restore those agencies, functions, and services,” their court filing said.</p><p>That was echoed by Jackson, who said the district court judge was in the best position to determine if the president’s order consisted of “minor workforce reductions” or whether it was a massive reorganization that overstepped executive authority.</p><p>“With scant justification, the majority permits the immediate and potentially devastating aggrandizement of one branch (the Executive) at the expense of another (Congress), and once again leaves the People paying the price for its reckless emergency-docket determinations,” she wrote.</p><p>This article was originally published by&nbsp;<a href="https://marylandmatters.org/" target="_blank">Maryland Matters</a>, a part of States Newsroom.</p>

Supreme Court opens door to large-scale federal layoffs

<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">First, Talwani said the most important attribute for a judge is a &quot;deep and sincere&quot; &quot;fairness.&quot; Yet, in this case, she unambiguously undermined the integrity of her decision by issuing an unreasoned TRO (an emergency order halting action pending a hearing). <a href="https://t.co/VKHA4YuVAa">pic.twitter.com/VKHA4YuVAa</a></p>&mdash; Senator Eric Schmitt (@SenEricSchmitt) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenEricSchmitt/status/1942692469256118315?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 8, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">2. If judges want to play politics, Congress should pass laws that insulate executive decisions on sensitive matters like immigration from judicial second-guessing by partisan judges.</p>&mdash; Senator Eric Schmitt (@SenEricSchmitt) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenEricSchmitt/status/1942692493964738736?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 8, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>

Mo. U.S. Senator rips judge who blocked spending cuts affecting Planned Parenthood

KANSAS CITY —Authorities are investigating a partial building collapse in downtown Kansas City.

Just before 8:30p.m. Tuesday, the Kansas City Fire Department crews&nbsp;responded to reports of a building collapse in the 1200 block of Wyandotte Street, according to Battalion Chief Riley Nolan.

Crews reported that parts of the brick facade and some of the parapet had separated from the building and fallen to the sidewalk and street below. An exclusion zone was established on the south and west sides of the building to keep pedestrians from getting near the building.

KCPD assisted by blocking Wyandotte Street in both directions. DRONE 1 was ordered for aerial views of the structure, as well as to provide an interior search, which came back all clear.  Dangerous Buildings was ordered and was on scene. Wyandotte Street will remain closed from 12th Street to 13th Street throughout the night. No injuries were reported at this incident.&nbsp;

<figure>
                        <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/7/1752057034367.png" alt="Photo KCFD" />
                        <figcaption>Photo KCFD</figcaption>
                    </figure><p>KANSAS CITY —Authorities are investigating a partial building collapse in downtown Kansas City.</p><p>Just before 8:30p.m. Tuesday, the Kansas City Fire Department crews&nbsp;responded to reports of a building collapse in the 1200 block of Wyandotte Street, according to Battalion Chief Riley Nolan.</p><figure>
                        <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/7/1752057051867.png" alt="Photos KCFD" />
                        <figcaption>Photos KCFD</figcaption>
                    </figure><p>Crews reported that parts of the brick facade and some of the parapet had separated from the building and fallen to the sidewalk and street below. An exclusion zone was established on the south and west sides of the building to keep pedestrians from getting near the building.</p><p>KCPD assisted by blocking Wyandotte Street in both directions. DRONE 1 was ordered for aerial views of the structure, as well as to provide an interior search, which came back all clear.  Dangerous Buildings was ordered and was on scene. Wyandotte Street will remain closed from 12th Street to 13th Street throughout the night. No injuries were reported at this incident.&nbsp;</p>

Crews respond to partial building collapse in downtown Kansas City 

KANSAS CITY —Two Kansas City Fire Department firefighters have deployed as part of Missouri Task Force 1 (MO-TF1), a specialized 50-member search and rescue team activated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), according to KCFD&nbsp;Battalion Chief Riley Nolan.

The team departed from Boone County Fire Protection District Headquarters in Columbia, Missouri July 7 and are traveling to Kerr County, Texas.

MO-TF1 is being deployed in response to widespread flooding in the region. Their mission will focus on swift water rescue operations and Human Remains Detection (HRD). Upon arrival, the team is expected to join Colorado Task Force 1 and begin operations later this afternoon. The deployment is anticipated to last up to 14 days.

Missouri Task Force 1 is an elite FEMA urban search and rescue team made up of firefighters, paramedics, physicians, structural engineers, canine handlers, and technical experts from across Missouri. These highly trained professionals are capable of deploying anywhere in the country at a moment’s notice to assist with disaster response, including floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, and man-made incidents. Equipped to operate in challenging and hazardous environments, the team provides capabilities in search, rescue, medical care, logistics, wide area search and incident management.

<figure>
                        <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/7/1752055247686.png" alt="Photo courtesy KCTV" />
                        <figcaption>Photo courtesy KCTV</figcaption>
                    </figure><p>KANSAS CITY —Two Kansas City Fire Department firefighters have deployed as part of Missouri Task Force 1 (MO-TF1), a specialized 50-member search and rescue team activated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), according to KCFD&nbsp;Battalion Chief Riley Nolan.</p><p>The team departed from Boone County Fire Protection District Headquarters in Columbia, Missouri July 7 and are traveling to Kerr County, Texas.</p><div><iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?height=476&href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FBooneCountyFire%2Fvideos%2F1412065403415608%2F&show_text=false&width=267&t=0" width="267" height="476" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="true" allow="autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowFullScreen="true"></iframe></div><p>MO-TF1 is being deployed in response to widespread flooding in the region. Their mission will focus on swift water rescue operations and Human Remains Detection (HRD). Upon arrival, the team is expected to join Colorado Task Force 1 and begin operations later this afternoon. The deployment is anticipated to last up to 14 days.</p><p>Missouri Task Force 1 is an elite FEMA urban search and rescue team made up of firefighters, paramedics, physicians, structural engineers, canine handlers, and technical experts from across Missouri. These highly trained professionals are capable of deploying anywhere in the country at a moment’s notice to assist with disaster response, including floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, and man-made incidents. Equipped to operate in challenging and hazardous environments, the team provides capabilities in search, rescue, medical care, logistics, wide area search and incident management.</p>

KC first responders deploy to Texas following deadly floods

KANSAS CITY —A Kansas City man faces murder for the death of his brother over the past weekend.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.jacksoncountyprosecutor.com/DocumentCenter/View/2666/Ackerman-Redacted-Complaint-1">Jacob Ackerman</a>, 44,&nbsp;&nbsp;faces 2nd Degree Murder and Armed Criminal Action, according to&nbsp;Jackson County Prosecutor Melesa Johnson.&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.jacksoncountyprosecutor.com/DocumentCenter/View/2667/Ackerman-Probable-Cause-1]">Click here to read the probable cause s</a>tatement in the case.

On July 5, Sugar Creek, Missouri officers were dispatched to the area of M-291 and 210 Highway on a welfare check and found the victim lying on his back on the bank of a pond. He had a wound on the back of his head.&nbsp;

Detectives received reports that the victim’s brother was responsible for his death. The defendant later admitted in an interview with detectives that he stood behind the victim and shot him in the head after they got into an argument.&nbsp;

The defendant is being held on a $300,000 cash-only bond.&nbsp;

<figure>
                        <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/7/1751925759476.png" alt="Ackerman photo Jackson County" />
                        <figcaption>Ackerman photo Jackson County</figcaption>
                    </figure><p>KANSAS CITY —A Kansas City man faces murder for the death of his brother over the past weekend.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.jacksoncountyprosecutor.com/DocumentCenter/View/2666/Ackerman-Redacted-Complaint-1">Jacob Ackerman</a>, 44,&nbsp;&nbsp;faces 2nd Degree Murder and Armed Criminal Action, according to&nbsp;Jackson County Prosecutor Melesa Johnson.&nbsp;</p><p><a href="https://www.jacksoncountyprosecutor.com/DocumentCenter/View/2667/Ackerman-Probable-Cause-1]">Click here to read the probable cause s</a>tatement in the case.</p><p>On July 5, Sugar Creek, Missouri officers were dispatched to the area of M-291 and 210 Highway on a welfare check and found the victim lying on his back on the bank of a pond. He had a wound on the back of his head.&nbsp;</p><p>Detectives received reports that the victim’s brother was responsible for his death. The defendant later admitted in an interview with detectives that he stood behind the victim and shot him in the head after they got into an argument.&nbsp;</p><p>The defendant is being held on a $300,000 cash-only bond.&nbsp;</p>

Read the probable cause statement: KC man shot his brother in the head

<figure>
                        <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/1/1704330351229.png" alt="Jeffrey Epstein New York Sex Offender Registry" />
                        <figcaption>Jeffrey Epstein New York Sex Offender Registry</figcaption>
                    </figure><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">President Trump: &quot;Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein?!?...I can&#39;t believe you&#39;re asking a question on Epstein at a time like this where we&#39;re having some of the greatest success and also tragedy with what happened in Texas. It just seems like a desecration.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/VlTGeEAfmC">pic.twitter.com/VlTGeEAfmC</a></p>&mdash; CSPAN (@cspan) <a href="https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1942623670423158984?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 8, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>

🎥President Trump goes off on reporter for asking about Jeffrey Epstein

For the first time years, travelers no longer are required to take off their shoes during security screenings at U.S. airports.

<p>For the first time years, travelers no longer are required to take off their shoes during security screenings at U.S. airports.</p><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem (<a href="https://twitter.com/Sec_Noem?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Sec_Noem</a>): &quot;TSA will no longer require travelers to remove their shoes when they go through our security checkpoints.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/BlGmEJRcNY">pic.twitter.com/BlGmEJRcNY</a></p>&mdash; CSPAN (@cspan) <a href="https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1942696991298846746?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 8, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>

🎥TSA explains new no shoe removal policy at airport security

Hospitals stand to lose hundreds of millions of dollars under the GOP’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

By:&nbsp;<a href="https://stateline.org/author/avollers/">Anna Claire Vollers</a>

The giant tax and spending bill President Donald Trump signed into law over the weekend includes&nbsp;<a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/who-would-be-affected-by-health-care-cuts-in-senate-version-of-trumps-budget-bill#:~:text=This%20would%20be%20the%20biggest%20cut%20to%20Medicaid%2C%20in%20fact%2C%20the%20biggest%20cut%20to%20health%20care%20in%20history." target="_blank">the biggest health care spending cuts</a>&nbsp;in U.S. history. In response, states are scrambling to shield their hospitals from the looming loss of hundreds of millions in federal funding.

In Georgia,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ajc.com/news/2025/06/georgia-hurries-to-amp-up-medicaid-hospital-funding-by-2-billion/" target="_blank">a key state panel late last month</a>&nbsp;took steps to send more state Medicaid money to hospitals, hoping to maximize federal matching dollars before the cuts take effect. Other states are considering new grant programs that would funnel additional money to rural hospitals. Some state legislatures likely will reconvene to discuss how to fill holes in their Medicaid budgets.

The tax and spending bill&nbsp;<a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5375991-gop-tax-bill-health-cuts/#:~:text=The%20legislation%20would%20also%20cut%20federal%20spending%20on%20Medicaid%2C%20Medicare%20and%20ObamaCare%20by%20%241.1%20trillion%2C%20with%20more%20than%20%241%20trillion%20coming%20from%20Medicaid.%C2%A0" target="_blank">cuts more than $1 trillion</a>&nbsp;from Medicaid, the public health insurance program for people with low incomes that’s jointly funded by states and the federal government. Under the measure, payments to hospitals or nursing facilities would probably&nbsp;<a href="https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/reconciliation-language-could-lead-to-cuts-in-medicaid-state-directed-payments-to-hospitals-and-nursing-facilities/#:~:text=If%20Congress%20passes%20the%20reconciliation%20bill%20with%20the%20Finance%20Committee%E2%80%99s%20requirements%20for%20SDPs%2C%20the%20required%20payments%20to%20hospitals%20or%20nursing%20facilities%20would%20likely%20decrease%20in%2029%20states%2C%20and%20possibly%2C%20in%20more%20than%2031." target="_blank">decrease in at least 29 states</a>, according to an analysis by KFF, a nonprofit health policy group.

Facing such budget shortfalls, states may have to stop offering optional Medicaid benefits such as vision and dental, reduce the rates they pay providers — which could shrink access for Medicaid enrollees — and change eligibility requirements so that fewer people qualify for coverage.

State policymakers and health experts worry the loss of funding also will endanger hospitals, particularly those in rural areas, driving up uncompensated care and forcing them to cut services or close entirely.

“Ultimately, when these hospitals close, what happens? People have to now travel longer for care. They might not even make it,” Dr. Anahita Dua, a vascular surgeon at Massachusetts General Hospital and Southern New Hampshire Medical Center, told reporters last week during a news conference hosted by Defend America Action, a group launched to oppose Trump administration policies.

“This is ultimately not only going to affect the lives of the people that are not going to get the care, but also the majority of the hospitals that provide this care, and the people that are employed by those locations,” she said.

Earlier this month, an analysis by the State Health and Value Strategies program at Princeton University estimated that hospitals would lose 18% of their Medicaid funding,&nbsp;<a href="https://shvs.org/resource/senate-passed-h-r-1-updated-estimates-on-impact-to-state-medicaid-coverage-and-expenditures-hospital-expenditures-including-impacts-by-congressional-district/" target="_blank">nearly $665 billion over the next 10 years</a>.

Republicans have hailed the megabill — officially titled the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — as one that will cut waste, fraud and abuse in federal programs, secure the U.S. border and spur economic growth. The measure will&nbsp;<a href="https://www.npr.org/2025/07/02/nx-s1-5454598/the-gops-massive-bill-would-add-trillions-of-dollars-to-the-countrys-debt" target="_blank">add</a>&nbsp;at least $3 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and has been scored by some independent economists as likely having little impact on growth. Dollars diverted from Medicaid will go toward the tax cuts prioritized by Trump, along with new spending on immigration control and defense projects.

Health policy experts anticipate at least some states will have to pull their legislatures back into session to address gaping budget holes due to the Medicaid cuts.

States can expect to lose&nbsp;<a href="https://shvs.org/resource/senate-passed-h-r-1-updated-estimates-on-impact-to-state-medicaid-coverage-and-expenditures-hospital-expenditures-including-impacts-by-congressional-district/" target="_blank">3%-18%</a>&nbsp;of their federal Medicaid funding over 10 years under the law, according to the State Health and Value Strategies program report. Arizona, Kentucky and Virginia would see the largest shares of their Medicaid dollars evaporate.

Colorado Democratic Gov. Jared Polis&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/dust-barely-settled-colorados-2025-legislative-session-talk-special-session/#:~:text=Polis%20says%2C%20if%20Congressional%20Republicans%20follow%20through%20on%20proposed%20spending%20cuts%2C%20he%20will%20likely%20reconvene%20the%20legislature%20to%20deal%20with%20impacts%20to%20programs%20such%20as%20Medicaid%2C%20which%20covers%20about%20one%20in%20five%20Coloradans." target="_blank">has said</a>&nbsp;he’s likely to reconvene the legislature.

“Almost certainly if some of these big cuts to Medicaid go through … we would likely need to reconvene, depending on what Congress does,” Polis said at a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13k_fuNbbAA" target="_blank">news conference</a>&nbsp;in May.

Policymakers in some states have tried to get ahead of expected shortfalls.

In late June, the Georgia Department of Community Health’s advisory board held&nbsp;<a href="https://dch.georgia.gov/events/2025-06-27/dch-board-meeting-special-call" target="_blank">an emergency meeting</a>. In a unanimous vote, the board approved several measures aimed at increasing the state’s federal Medicaid reimbursement rate.

For example, the state wants to significantly increase Medicaid payments to hospitals that achieve certain goals, such as training Georgia doctors and delivering babies. The move would draw down an additional $2.1 billion per year in federal money.

“We’re doing our best to be responsive to the Medicaid conversations in Washington,” department Commissioner Russel Carlson told the board at the meeting. “Not overreacting in this 24/7 news cycle, but gathering the best information we can, reading the political environment the best we can, and acting responsibly.”

Other states have&nbsp;<a href="https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/managed-care/guidance/state-directed-payments/approved-state-directed-payment-preprints?q=&amp;filter%5Bfield_review_type%5D%5Bin%5D%5B%5D=8271&amp;filter%5Bfield_approval_date%5D%5Bgte%5D=&amp;filter%5Bfield_approval_date%5D%5Blte%5D=&amp;filter%5Bfield_state_rating_period%5D%5Bgte%5D=&amp;filter%5Bfield_state_rating_period_2%5D%5Blte%5D=&amp;limit=10&amp;sort=field_approval_date%3Adesc" target="_blank">filed similar requests</a>&nbsp;with the federal Centers for Medicare &amp; Medicaid Services, and received approval in recent months.

“Of all the Medicaid discussions happening in Washington,” Carlson said, “one of the policy decisions that could potentially, depending on how it ultimately lands, impact Georgians the most is the discussion surrounding directed payment programs.”

Some of the biggest federal savings in the new law come from limiting states’ use of a financing tool,&nbsp;<a href="https://stateline.org/2025/05/27/republicans-target-a-tax-that-keeps-state-medicaid-programs-running/">known as a provider tax</a>, that enables them to draw down more federal dollars. States use the extra money to boost reimbursement rates for hospitals and to expand coverage.

Some congressional Republicans have decried the maneuver as a “<a href="https://roy.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-roy-statement-house-passage-one-big-beautiful-bill-act-0#:~:text=Froze%20the%20state%20provider%20taxes%20to%20ensure%20states%20don%E2%80%99t%20grow%20their%20money%20laundering%20schemes." target="_blank">money laundering scheme</a>,” but lowering provider taxes will likely&nbsp;<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/17/upshot/medicaid-cuts-republicans-senate.html#:~:text=Cutting%20provider%20taxes%20would%20probably%20mean%20funding%20shortfalls%20of%20hundreds%20of%20billions%20of%20dollars%20for%20states%20over%20the%20next%20decade%2C%20leaving%20them%20with%20budget%20holes%20to%20fill." target="_blank">punch big holes</a>&nbsp;in state Medicaid budgets.

Meanwhile, some state legislatures are looking at alternate ways to shore up funding for hospitals. A bipartisan bill still under consideration in Pennsylvania would&nbsp;<a href="https://penncapital-star.com/government-politics/general-assembly/grant-program-for-rural-hospitals-advances-in-pa-house/" target="_blank">create a rural health care grant program</a>&nbsp;to help pay off student loans for rural doctors, nurses and dentists.&nbsp;<a href="https://legiscan.com/IN/bill/HB1274/2025" target="_blank">Indiana</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://legiscan.com/OK/bill/HB2754/2025" target="_blank">Oklahoma</a>&nbsp;also considered bills this session to create grant programs for rural hospitals.

In April, Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott announced the state would release&nbsp;<a href="https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-announces-over-6-million-in-grant-funding-for-rural-hospitals" target="_blank">more than $6 million</a>&nbsp;in grants to support struggling rural hospitals.

Stateline reporter Anna Claire Vollers can be reached at&nbsp;<a href="mailto:avollers@stateline.org">avollers@stateline.org</a>.

<figure>
                        <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/7/1751996899942.png" alt="Google image" />
                        <figcaption>Google image</figcaption>
                    </figure><h2>Hospitals stand to lose hundreds of millions of dollars under the GOP’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act.</h2><p>By:&nbsp;<a href="https://stateline.org/author/avollers/">Anna Claire Vollers</a></p><p>The giant tax and spending bill President Donald Trump signed into law over the weekend includes&nbsp;<a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/who-would-be-affected-by-health-care-cuts-in-senate-version-of-trumps-budget-bill#:~:text=This%20would%20be%20the%20biggest%20cut%20to%20Medicaid%2C%20in%20fact%2C%20the%20biggest%20cut%20to%20health%20care%20in%20history." target="_blank">the biggest health care spending cuts</a>&nbsp;in U.S. history. In response, states are scrambling to shield their hospitals from the looming loss of hundreds of millions in federal funding.</p><p>In Georgia,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ajc.com/news/2025/06/georgia-hurries-to-amp-up-medicaid-hospital-funding-by-2-billion/" target="_blank">a key state panel late last month</a>&nbsp;took steps to send more state Medicaid money to hospitals, hoping to maximize federal matching dollars before the cuts take effect. Other states are considering new grant programs that would funnel additional money to rural hospitals. Some state legislatures likely will reconvene to discuss how to fill holes in their Medicaid budgets.</p><p>The tax and spending bill&nbsp;<a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5375991-gop-tax-bill-health-cuts/#:~:text=The%20legislation%20would%20also%20cut%20federal%20spending%20on%20Medicaid%2C%20Medicare%20and%20ObamaCare%20by%20%241.1%20trillion%2C%20with%20more%20than%20%241%20trillion%20coming%20from%20Medicaid.%C2%A0" target="_blank">cuts more than $1 trillion</a>&nbsp;from Medicaid, the public health insurance program for people with low incomes that’s jointly funded by states and the federal government. Under the measure, payments to hospitals or nursing facilities would probably&nbsp;<a href="https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/reconciliation-language-could-lead-to-cuts-in-medicaid-state-directed-payments-to-hospitals-and-nursing-facilities/#:~:text=If%20Congress%20passes%20the%20reconciliation%20bill%20with%20the%20Finance%20Committee%E2%80%99s%20requirements%20for%20SDPs%2C%20the%20required%20payments%20to%20hospitals%20or%20nursing%20facilities%20would%20likely%20decrease%20in%2029%20states%2C%20and%20possibly%2C%20in%20more%20than%2031." target="_blank">decrease in at least 29 states</a>, according to an analysis by KFF, a nonprofit health policy group.</p><p>Facing such budget shortfalls, states may have to stop offering optional Medicaid benefits such as vision and dental, reduce the rates they pay providers — which could shrink access for Medicaid enrollees — and change eligibility requirements so that fewer people qualify for coverage.</p><p>State policymakers and health experts worry the loss of funding also will endanger hospitals, particularly those in rural areas, driving up uncompensated care and forcing them to cut services or close entirely.</p><p>“Ultimately, when these hospitals close, what happens? People have to now travel longer for care. They might not even make it,” Dr. Anahita Dua, a vascular surgeon at Massachusetts General Hospital and Southern New Hampshire Medical Center, told reporters last week during a news conference hosted by Defend America Action, a group launched to oppose Trump administration policies.</p><p>“This is ultimately not only going to affect the lives of the people that are not going to get the care, but also the majority of the hospitals that provide this care, and the people that are employed by those locations,” she said.</p><p>Earlier this month, an analysis by the State Health and Value Strategies program at Princeton University estimated that hospitals would lose 18% of their Medicaid funding,&nbsp;<a href="https://shvs.org/resource/senate-passed-h-r-1-updated-estimates-on-impact-to-state-medicaid-coverage-and-expenditures-hospital-expenditures-including-impacts-by-congressional-district/" target="_blank">nearly $665 billion over the next 10 years</a>.</p><p>Republicans have hailed the megabill — officially titled the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — as one that will cut waste, fraud and abuse in federal programs, secure the U.S. border and spur economic growth. The measure will&nbsp;<a href="https://www.npr.org/2025/07/02/nx-s1-5454598/the-gops-massive-bill-would-add-trillions-of-dollars-to-the-countrys-debt" target="_blank">add</a>&nbsp;at least $3 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and has been scored by some independent economists as likely having little impact on growth. Dollars diverted from Medicaid will go toward the tax cuts prioritized by Trump, along with new spending on immigration control and defense projects.</p><h2>Reconvening legislatures</h2><p>Health policy experts anticipate at least some states will have to pull their legislatures back into session to address gaping budget holes due to the Medicaid cuts.</p><p>States can expect to lose&nbsp;<a href="https://shvs.org/resource/senate-passed-h-r-1-updated-estimates-on-impact-to-state-medicaid-coverage-and-expenditures-hospital-expenditures-including-impacts-by-congressional-district/" target="_blank">3%-18%</a>&nbsp;of their federal Medicaid funding over 10 years under the law, according to the State Health and Value Strategies program report. Arizona, Kentucky and Virginia would see the largest shares of their Medicaid dollars evaporate.</p><p>Colorado Democratic Gov. Jared Polis&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/dust-barely-settled-colorados-2025-legislative-session-talk-special-session/#:~:text=Polis%20says%2C%20if%20Congressional%20Republicans%20follow%20through%20on%20proposed%20spending%20cuts%2C%20he%20will%20likely%20reconvene%20the%20legislature%20to%20deal%20with%20impacts%20to%20programs%20such%20as%20Medicaid%2C%20which%20covers%20about%20one%20in%20five%20Coloradans." target="_blank">has said</a>&nbsp;he’s likely to reconvene the legislature.</p><p>“Almost certainly if some of these big cuts to Medicaid go through … we would likely need to reconvene, depending on what Congress does,” Polis said at a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13k_fuNbbAA" target="_blank">news conference</a>&nbsp;in May.</p><p>Policymakers in some states have tried to get ahead of expected shortfalls.</p><p>In late June, the Georgia Department of Community Health’s advisory board held&nbsp;<a href="https://dch.georgia.gov/events/2025-06-27/dch-board-meeting-special-call" target="_blank">an emergency meeting</a>. In a unanimous vote, the board approved several measures aimed at increasing the state’s federal Medicaid reimbursement rate.</p><p>For example, the state wants to significantly increase Medicaid payments to hospitals that achieve certain goals, such as training Georgia doctors and delivering babies. The move would draw down an additional $2.1 billion per year in federal money.</p><p>“We’re doing our best to be responsive to the Medicaid conversations in Washington,” department Commissioner Russel Carlson told the board at the meeting. “Not overreacting in this 24/7 news cycle, but gathering the best information we can, reading the political environment the best we can, and acting responsibly.”</p><p>Other states have&nbsp;<a href="https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/managed-care/guidance/state-directed-payments/approved-state-directed-payment-preprints?q=&amp;filter%5Bfield_review_type%5D%5Bin%5D%5B%5D=8271&amp;filter%5Bfield_approval_date%5D%5Bgte%5D=&amp;filter%5Bfield_approval_date%5D%5Blte%5D=&amp;filter%5Bfield_state_rating_period%5D%5Bgte%5D=&amp;filter%5Bfield_state_rating_period_2%5D%5Blte%5D=&amp;limit=10&amp;sort=field_approval_date%3Adesc" target="_blank">filed similar requests</a>&nbsp;with the federal Centers for Medicare &amp; Medicaid Services, and received approval in recent months.</p><p>“Of all the Medicaid discussions happening in Washington,” Carlson said, “one of the policy decisions that could potentially, depending on how it ultimately lands, impact Georgians the most is the discussion surrounding directed payment programs.”</p><h2>Grants for hospitals</h2><p>Some of the biggest federal savings in the new law come from limiting states’ use of a financing tool,&nbsp;<a href="https://stateline.org/2025/05/27/republicans-target-a-tax-that-keeps-state-medicaid-programs-running/">known as a provider tax</a>, that enables them to draw down more federal dollars. States use the extra money to boost reimbursement rates for hospitals and to expand coverage.</p><p>Some congressional Republicans have decried the maneuver as a “<a href="https://roy.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-roy-statement-house-passage-one-big-beautiful-bill-act-0#:~:text=Froze%20the%20state%20provider%20taxes%20to%20ensure%20states%20don%E2%80%99t%20grow%20their%20money%20laundering%20schemes." target="_blank">money laundering scheme</a>,” but lowering provider taxes will likely&nbsp;<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/17/upshot/medicaid-cuts-republicans-senate.html#:~:text=Cutting%20provider%20taxes%20would%20probably%20mean%20funding%20shortfalls%20of%20hundreds%20of%20billions%20of%20dollars%20for%20states%20over%20the%20next%20decade%2C%20leaving%20them%20with%20budget%20holes%20to%20fill." target="_blank">punch big holes</a>&nbsp;in state Medicaid budgets.</p><p>Meanwhile, some state legislatures are looking at alternate ways to shore up funding for hospitals. A bipartisan bill still under consideration in Pennsylvania would&nbsp;<a href="https://penncapital-star.com/government-politics/general-assembly/grant-program-for-rural-hospitals-advances-in-pa-house/" target="_blank">create a rural health care grant program</a>&nbsp;to help pay off student loans for rural doctors, nurses and dentists.&nbsp;<a href="https://legiscan.com/IN/bill/HB1274/2025" target="_blank">Indiana</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://legiscan.com/OK/bill/HB2754/2025" target="_blank">Oklahoma</a>&nbsp;also considered bills this session to create grant programs for rural hospitals.</p><p>In April, Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott announced the state would release&nbsp;<a href="https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-announces-over-6-million-in-grant-funding-for-rural-hospitals" target="_blank">more than $6 million</a>&nbsp;in grants to support struggling rural hospitals.</p><p>Stateline reporter Anna Claire Vollers can be reached at&nbsp;<a href="mailto:avollers@stateline.org">avollers@stateline.org</a>.</p>

States scramble to shield hospitals from GOP Medicaid cuts

<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">President Trump: &quot;I&#39;m not happy with Putin. I can tell you that much right now because he&#39;s killing a lot of people and a lot of them are his soldiers.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/QK7ENcQKvg">pic.twitter.com/QK7ENcQKvg</a></p>&mdash; CSPAN (@cspan) <a href="https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1942621038908489905?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 8, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">President Trump: &quot;We get a lot of bullshit thrown at us by Putin, if you want to know the truth. He&#39;s very nice all the time, but it turns out to be meaningless.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/VMnXSTuCiK">pic.twitter.com/VMnXSTuCiK</a></p>&mdash; CSPAN (@cspan) <a href="https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1942621413250121955?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 8, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>

🎥 President Trump shows anger about Putin during Cabinet meeting

WOODSON COUNTY —A Kansas man died in an accident just after 7a.m. Tuesday in Woodson County.

The Kansas Highway. Patrol reported a 2016 Honda 4-wheeler driven by Clint Allen Tracy, 82, Toronto, Kansas, moving cattle in a field at 1263 Apache four and one half miles North of U.S. 54. The driver was thrown from the vehicle when it struck ravine.&nbsp;

Tracy was pronounced dead at the scene and was transported to&nbsp;Campbell Funeral Home - Yates Center.&nbsp;&nbsp;

<p>WOODSON COUNTY —A Kansas man died in an accident just after 7a.m. Tuesday in Woodson County.</p><p>The Kansas Highway. Patrol reported a 2016 Honda 4-wheeler driven by Clint Allen Tracy, 82, Toronto, Kansas, moving cattle in a field at 1263 Apache four and one half miles North of U.S. 54. The driver was thrown from the vehicle when it struck ravine.&nbsp;</p><p>Tracy was pronounced dead at the scene and was transported to&nbsp;Campbell Funeral Home - Yates Center.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>

Kansas man dies in 4-wheeler accident

By:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/ariana-figueroa/">Ariana Figueroa</a>&nbsp;

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s massive tax and spending cut bill signed on Friday has as its centerpiece $170 billion for the administration’s immigration crackdown, helping fulfill the president’s 2024 campaign promise of mass deportations of people without permanent legal status.

The measure, passed by the House 218-214, would fulfill several of Trump’s key immigration priorities, such as bolstering border security, increasing immigration detention capacity and adding fees to legal pathways for immigration, among other things. Thousands more Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers are slated to be hired.

While most of the immigration-related provisions in the massive bill would vastly expand immigration enforcement, it also aims to limit benefits currently extended to some immigrants with legal status.

Immigrants with a lawful status, including asylum, under the bill would be ineligible to receive food assistance through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. Immigrants without legal status or authorization to be in the country are already ineligible for SNAP benefits, which roughly 42 million people rely on.

The bill could also cut off tax benefits from mixed-status families, in which family members have different immigration statuses.

For example, while Republicans would raise the child tax credit to $2,200 per eligible child, the bill would exclude that benefit to U.S. citizen children who are born to immigrant parents without legal status. The proposal would require that the parent applying for the child tax credit also have a Social Security number.

The&nbsp;<a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1/text" target="_blank">870-page</a>&nbsp;megabill was passed by the Senate&nbsp;<a href="https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1191/vote_119_1_00372.htm" target="_blank">51-50&nbsp;</a>on Tuesday, with Vice President JD Vance casting a tie-breaking vote.

Here’s an overview of what else the bill will do:

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement would be the highest-funded law enforcement agency in the country, at nearly $30 billion through September 2029.

Those funds would go toward hiring 10,000 ICE officers within five years. The money would also pay for retention bonuses, transportation of immigrants, upgrades of ICE facilities, detainment of families, and the hiring of ICE immigration lawyers for enforcement and removal proceedings in immigration court.

An ICE signing bonus would be given to those hired after the bill is signed into law, and as a retention bonus if an ICE agent has five years of service specifically dealing with immigration enforcement. The bill does not specify how much a signing bonus or retention bonus should be.

The Senate’s version provides ICE with added flexibility in which areas to allocate the nearly $30 billion.

Separately from ICE, the bill would include $1 billion for the Department of Defense to deploy military personnel for border-related operations, construction and temporary detention on military installations.

<a href="https://lailluminator.com/2025/04/11/repub/military-border-2/" target="_blank">Trump in April&nbsp;</a>directed several agencies to start militarizing a stretch of the southern border as he continues to intertwine the U.S. military with his administration’s immigration crackdown.

Created was a military buffer zone along the U.S.-Mexico border in Arizona, California and New Mexico. It means that any migrant crossing into the United States would be trespassing on a military base, and therefore allows active-duty troops to hold them until U.S. Border Patrol agents arrive.

<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/trump-administration-reported-consider-expanding-military-role-along-southern-border" target="_blank">National and military experts have raised concerns&nbsp;</a>that militarizing that strip of land could violate the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 law that generally prohibits the military from being used in domestic law enforcement.

Additionally, the Trump administration last month&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/trump-keeps-control-california-national-guard-la-now-after-appeals-court-order" target="_blank">deployed 4,000 National Guard members and 700 Marines to Los Angeles</a>, amid major protests that arose after immigration agents began targeting day laborers at Home Depots for immigration enforcement.

The bill sets aside $45 billion for building new centers to detain immigrants, from single individuals to families. It’s a more than 300% increase from ICE’s fiscal year 2024 budget for detaining immigrants, which was about $9 billion.&nbsp;

Building new detention centers takes time, so private prison companies such as CoreCivic and GEO Group are likely to enter into more contracts with ICE.

Those companies have begun expanding detention capacity. CoreCivic last month acquired a 736-bed facility in Virginia and GEO this month purchased a 770-bed facility in western California.

The bill would allocate $46.6 billion for U.S. Customs and Border Protection to construct a wall along the U.S. Mexico border, as well as make any repairs. That would be more than three times what the first Trump administration spent on barriers at the southern border, at roughly $15 billion.

Some of the technology that would be added on the border includes cameras, lights, sensors, and other detection improvements. The funds would be used beginning in fiscal year 2025 until Sept. 30, 2029.

Another $4.1 billion would go toward hiring CBP personnel, until the end of September 2029. Another $2 billion would go toward retention and bonuses for CBP personnel.

The bill would also set aside $855 million for the repair of vehicles that CBP officers use. Republicans included $5 billion for upgrades and repairs at CBP facilities.

Additionally, $6.1 billion would go toward buying nonintrusive equipment to detect illicit narcotics at ports of entry along the southwest, northern and maritime borders.

Also, any immigrant without legal authorization and who is apprehended at a port of entry would be subject to a $5,000 fine.

There is currently a civil fine ranging from $50 to $250. Asylum-seekers typically surrender themselves at ports of entry.

Legal immigration pathways, application fees

The bill would give the Department of Justice roughly $3.3 billion for the Executive Office for Immigration Review to prosecute immigration matters, such as noncitizen voting – something that is extremely rare – and violations of the Alien Registration Act.

<a href="https://lailluminator.com/2025/04/11/repub/immigrant-document/" target="_blank">In April, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem announced</a>&nbsp;that immigrants in the country without legal authorization were required to register with the agency or face jail time and a fine of up to $5,000.

The bill would also provide funding for the hiring of immigration judges, but will cap the number of judges at 800. There are roughly 700 now, amid a 3.5 million case backlog in immigration court,&nbsp;<a href="https://tracreports.org/phptools/immigration/backlog/https://tracreports.org/phptools/immigration/backlog/" target="_blank">according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, or TRAC</a>.

The bill would also overhaul immigration fees and application fees for immigrants seeking legal pathways, both permanent and temporary.

For the first time, there would be a fee to apply for asylum, set at $100. There are no fee waivers for nearly every new fee set or increased by the bill, except for applications dealing with unaccompanied minors. All fees would also be subject to adjustment for inflation.&nbsp;

Asylum-seekers who want to apply for initial work permits would also have to pay another fee of $550, something that is currently free.

For an asylum applicant wanting to renew work permits, the bill would lower the cost to $275, where it is currently $470 to renew online and $520 to mail in the paperwork.

For immigrants on Temporary Protected Status, meaning the DHS secretary has deemed the immigrant’s home country too dangerous to return to, the fee to apply would be $500. It’s currently $50.

The fee to apply for humanitarian relief would increase to $1,000, where it is currently $630.

The bill would slightly increase the initial work application fee for TPS holders and those with humanitarian status to $550, up from a $470 fee for submitting online and $520 to mail in the paperwork.

To renew those work permits, the bill would lower the cost to $275, down from $470 for online and $520 for mail.

The nonimmigrant visa, which is currently free and handled by the State Department, would now cost $250 under the bill. This visa is typically used for international students, agricultural workers and other special skilled immigrant labor.

Some of the $2 billion in funding for DHS would go toward removing unaccompanied children under certain circumstances. That includes if the child is found by a port of entry, is not a victim of human trafficking, and does not fear returning to their home country.

The bill would also provide a $300 million fund for the Office of Refugee Resettlement, which handles unaccompanied children, to conduct background checks and home studies on any potential sponsor of an unaccompanied child.

There would also be funding to check children in ORR custody for their potential criminal and gang history. Those 12 and older would be subject to examinations “for gang-related tattoos and other gang-related markings,” according to the bill.

The special juvenile immigrant visa, which is for immigrant children who are either abandoned or abused by a parent, and allows them to apply for lawful permanent resident status,&nbsp;would now cost $250 under the bill, but the fee could be waived. It’s currently free.

The bill would also give some states $450 million for the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.homelandsecuritygrants.info/Grant-Details/gid/21875" target="_blank">Operation Stonegarden Grant Program,</a>&nbsp;which gives funding to states and local governments that participate in border enforcement.

The bill would help states that are hosting major sporting events such as the World Cup in 2026 and the Olympics in 2028.

The bill allocates $625 million for security and other costs related to the FIFA World Cup and $1 billion for security and planning costs for the Olympics,<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/amid-la-protests-senators-raise-questions-about-safety-olympics-world-cup" target="_blank">&nbsp;which Los Angeles is hosting in 2028.&nbsp;</a>

<p>By:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/ariana-figueroa/">Ariana Figueroa</a>&nbsp;</p><p>WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s massive tax and spending cut bill signed on Friday has as its centerpiece $170 billion for the administration’s immigration crackdown, helping fulfill the president’s 2024 campaign promise of mass deportations of people without permanent legal status.</p><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">If you are in this country illegally: LEAVE NOW and self-deport using the CBP Home app. If you don’t, you will face the consequences.<br> <br>The CBP Home app is now available in English, Spanish, Haitian Creole, Simplified Chinese, and Hindi.<br> <a href="https://t.co/zRcQr3ujef">https://t.co/zRcQr3ujef</a> <a href="https://t.co/v265tKUvKN">pic.twitter.com/v265tKUvKN</a></p>&mdash; Homeland Security (@DHSgov) <a href="https://twitter.com/DHSgov/status/1940793844221858020?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 3, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div><p>The measure, passed by the House 218-214, would fulfill several of Trump’s key immigration priorities, such as bolstering border security, increasing immigration detention capacity and adding fees to legal pathways for immigration, among other things. Thousands more Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers are slated to be hired.</p><p>While most of the immigration-related provisions in the massive bill would vastly expand immigration enforcement, it also aims to limit benefits currently extended to some immigrants with legal status.</p><p>Immigrants with a lawful status, including asylum, under the bill would be ineligible to receive food assistance through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. Immigrants without legal status or authorization to be in the country are already ineligible for SNAP benefits, which roughly 42 million people rely on.</p><p>The bill could also cut off tax benefits from mixed-status families, in which family members have different immigration statuses.</p><p>For example, while Republicans would raise the child tax credit to $2,200 per eligible child, the bill would exclude that benefit to U.S. citizen children who are born to immigrant parents without legal status. The proposal would require that the parent applying for the child tax credit also have a Social Security number.</p><p>The&nbsp;<a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1/text" target="_blank">870-page</a>&nbsp;megabill was passed by the Senate&nbsp;<a href="https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1191/vote_119_1_00372.htm" target="_blank">51-50&nbsp;</a>on Tuesday, with Vice President JD Vance casting a tie-breaking vote.</p><p>Here’s an overview of what else the bill will do:</p><h2>Immigration enforcement</h2><p>The U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement would be the highest-funded law enforcement agency in the country, at nearly $30 billion through September 2029.</p><p>Those funds would go toward hiring 10,000 ICE officers within five years. The money would also pay for retention bonuses, transportation of immigrants, upgrades of ICE facilities, detainment of families, and the hiring of ICE immigration lawyers for enforcement and removal proceedings in immigration court.</p><p>An ICE signing bonus would be given to those hired after the bill is signed into law, and as a retention bonus if an ICE agent has five years of service specifically dealing with immigration enforcement. The bill does not specify how much a signing bonus or retention bonus should be.</p><p>The Senate’s version provides ICE with added flexibility in which areas to allocate the nearly $30 billion.</p><h2>DOD funding</h2><p>Separately from ICE, the bill would include $1 billion for the Department of Defense to deploy military personnel for border-related operations, construction and temporary detention on military installations.</p><p><a href="https://lailluminator.com/2025/04/11/repub/military-border-2/" target="_blank">Trump in April&nbsp;</a>directed several agencies to start militarizing a stretch of the southern border as he continues to intertwine the U.S. military with his administration’s immigration crackdown.</p><p>Created was a military buffer zone along the U.S.-Mexico border in Arizona, California and New Mexico. It means that any migrant crossing into the United States would be trespassing on a military base, and therefore allows active-duty troops to hold them until U.S. Border Patrol agents arrive.</p><p><a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/trump-administration-reported-consider-expanding-military-role-along-southern-border" target="_blank">National and military experts have raised concerns&nbsp;</a>that militarizing that strip of land could violate the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 law that generally prohibits the military from being used in domestic law enforcement.</p><p>Additionally, the Trump administration last month&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/trump-keeps-control-california-national-guard-la-now-after-appeals-court-order" target="_blank">deployed 4,000 National Guard members and 700 Marines to Los Angeles</a>, amid major protests that arose after immigration agents began targeting day laborers at Home Depots for immigration enforcement.</p><h2>Detention</h2><p>The bill sets aside $45 billion for building new centers to detain immigrants, from single individuals to families. It’s a more than 300% increase from ICE’s fiscal year 2024 budget for detaining immigrants, which was about $9 billion.&nbsp;</p><p>Building new detention centers takes time, so private prison companies such as CoreCivic and GEO Group are likely to enter into more contracts with ICE.</p><p>Those companies have begun expanding detention capacity. CoreCivic last month acquired a 736-bed facility in Virginia and GEO this month purchased a 770-bed facility in western California.</p><h2>Border security</h2><p>The bill would allocate $46.6 billion for U.S. Customs and Border Protection to construct a wall along the U.S. Mexico border, as well as make any repairs. That would be more than three times what the first Trump administration spent on barriers at the southern border, at roughly $15 billion.</p><p>Some of the technology that would be added on the border includes cameras, lights, sensors, and other detection improvements. The funds would be used beginning in fiscal year 2025 until Sept. 30, 2029.</p><p>Another $4.1 billion would go toward hiring CBP personnel, until the end of September 2029. Another $2 billion would go toward retention and bonuses for CBP personnel.</p><p>The bill would also set aside $855 million for the repair of vehicles that CBP officers use. Republicans included $5 billion for upgrades and repairs at CBP facilities.</p><p>Additionally, $6.1 billion would go toward buying nonintrusive equipment to detect illicit narcotics at ports of entry along the southwest, northern and maritime borders.</p><p>Also, any immigrant without legal authorization and who is apprehended at a port of entry would be subject to a $5,000 fine.</p><p>There is currently a civil fine ranging from $50 to $250. Asylum-seekers typically surrender themselves at ports of entry.</p><h2>Legal immigration pathways, application fees</h2><p>The bill would give the Department of Justice roughly $3.3 billion for the Executive Office for Immigration Review to prosecute immigration matters, such as noncitizen voting – something that is extremely rare – and violations of the Alien Registration Act.</p><p><a href="https://lailluminator.com/2025/04/11/repub/immigrant-document/" target="_blank">In April, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem announced</a>&nbsp;that immigrants in the country without legal authorization were required to register with the agency or face jail time and a fine of up to $5,000.</p><p>The bill would also provide funding for the hiring of immigration judges, but will cap the number of judges at 800. There are roughly 700 now, amid a 3.5 million case backlog in immigration court,&nbsp;<a href="https://tracreports.org/phptools/immigration/backlog/https://tracreports.org/phptools/immigration/backlog/" target="_blank">according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, or TRAC</a>.</p><p>The bill would also overhaul immigration fees and application fees for immigrants seeking legal pathways, both permanent and temporary.</p><p>For the first time, there would be a fee to apply for asylum, set at $100. There are no fee waivers for nearly every new fee set or increased by the bill, except for applications dealing with unaccompanied minors. All fees would also be subject to adjustment for inflation.&nbsp;</p><p>Asylum-seekers who want to apply for initial work permits would also have to pay another fee of $550, something that is currently free.</p><p>For an asylum applicant wanting to renew work permits, the bill would lower the cost to $275, where it is currently $470 to renew online and $520 to mail in the paperwork.</p><p>For immigrants on Temporary Protected Status, meaning the DHS secretary has deemed the immigrant’s home country too dangerous to return to, the fee to apply would be $500. It’s currently $50.</p><p>The fee to apply for humanitarian relief would increase to $1,000, where it is currently $630.</p><p>The bill would slightly increase the initial work application fee for TPS holders and those with humanitarian status to $550, up from a $470 fee for submitting online and $520 to mail in the paperwork.</p><p>To renew those work permits, the bill would lower the cost to $275, down from $470 for online and $520 for mail.</p><p>The nonimmigrant visa, which is currently free and handled by the State Department, would now cost $250 under the bill. This visa is typically used for international students, agricultural workers and other special skilled immigrant labor.</p><h2>Unaccompanied immigrant children</h2><p>Some of the $2 billion in funding for DHS would go toward removing unaccompanied children under certain circumstances. That includes if the child is found by a port of entry, is not a victim of human trafficking, and does not fear returning to their home country.</p><p>The bill would also provide a $300 million fund for the Office of Refugee Resettlement, which handles unaccompanied children, to conduct background checks and home studies on any potential sponsor of an unaccompanied child.</p><p>There would also be funding to check children in ORR custody for their potential criminal and gang history. Those 12 and older would be subject to examinations “for gang-related tattoos and other gang-related markings,” according to the bill.</p><p>The special juvenile immigrant visa, which is for immigrant children who are either abandoned or abused by a parent, and allows them to apply for lawful permanent resident status,&nbsp;would now cost $250 under the bill, but the fee could be waived. It’s currently free.</p><h2>State grants, World Cup and Olympics</h2><p>The bill would also give some states $450 million for the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.homelandsecuritygrants.info/Grant-Details/gid/21875" target="_blank">Operation Stonegarden Grant Program,</a>&nbsp;which gives funding to states and local governments that participate in border enforcement.</p><p>The bill would help states that are hosting major sporting events such as the World Cup in 2026 and the Olympics in 2028.</p><p>The bill allocates $625 million for security and other costs related to the FIFA World Cup and $1 billion for security and planning costs for the Olympics,<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/amid-la-protests-senators-raise-questions-about-safety-olympics-world-cup" target="_blank">&nbsp;which Los Angeles is hosting in 2028.&nbsp;</a></p>

How the megabill allows Trump to expand mass deportations, curb immigrant benefits

By:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/kelcie-moseley-morris/">Kelcie Moseley-Morris</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/sofia-resnick/">Sofia Resnick</a>

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

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

The<a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.286600/gov.uscourts.mad.286600.1.0.pdf" target="_blank">&nbsp;complaint</a>, filed in U.S. District Court of Massachusetts against U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Medicaid and Medicare administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz, challenges a provision on<a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1/text" target="_blank">&nbsp;page 597</a>&nbsp;of the reconciliation bill. It prohibits Medicaid funding from going to any sexual and reproductive health clinics that provide abortions and received more than $800,000 in federal and state Medicaid funding in fiscal year 2023. That prohibition will last one year from the date the bill was signed.

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

“This case is about making sure that patients who use Medicaid as their insurance to get birth control, cancer screenings, and STI testing and treatment can continue to do so at their local Planned Parenthood health center, and we will make that clear in court,” said Planned Parenthood Federation of America president and CEO Alexis McGill Johnson in a<a href="https://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/planned-parenthood-federation-of-america-planned-parenthood-league-of-massachusetts-and-planned-parenthood-association-of-utah-sue-over-congressional-action-defunding-planned-parenthood-health-centers" target="_blank">&nbsp;public statement</a>.

The organization<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/planned-parenthood-risk-closing-hundreds-clinics-drastically-limiting-abortion-access" target="_blank">&nbsp;identified 200 of its clinics</a>&nbsp;in 24 states that are at risk of closure with the cuts, and said nearly all of those clinics — 90% — are in states where abortion is legal. In 12 states, approximately 75% of abortion-providing Planned Parenthood health centers could close. Because of that, some reproductive health advocates have called it a backdoor nationwide abortion ban.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<figure>
                        <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/7/1751969293370.png" alt=" Planned Parenthood has about 600 clinics in 48 states, and according to their calculations, more than 1.1 million patients could lose access to care because of a provision in the massive budget bill signed by President Donald Trump last week. (Photo by McKenzie Romero/Utah News Dispatch)" />
                        <figcaption> Planned Parenthood has about 600 clinics in 48 states, and according to their calculations, more than 1.1 million patients could lose access to care because of a provision in the massive budget bill signed by President Donald Trump last week. (Photo by McKenzie Romero/Utah News Dispatch)</figcaption>
                    </figure><p>By:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/kelcie-moseley-morris/">Kelcie Moseley-Morris</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/sofia-resnick/">Sofia Resnick</a></p><p>Days after President Donald Trump signed a massive budget bill, attorneys for Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its state members in Massachusetts and Utah filed a lawsuit Monday challenging a provision they say will affect more than 1 million patients who use their clinics across the U.S.</p><p>Planned Parenthood says if the defund provision stands, those targeted will be patients who use Medicaid as their insurance at its centers for services including birth control and cancer screenings. The organization says it only uses federal Medicaid funding for abortion in the very narrow cases allowed, including rape, incest, and to save a pregnant person’s life.</p><p>The<a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.286600/gov.uscourts.mad.286600.1.0.pdf" target="_blank">&nbsp;complaint</a>, filed in U.S. District Court of Massachusetts against U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Medicaid and Medicare administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz, challenges a provision on<a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1/text" target="_blank">&nbsp;page 597</a>&nbsp;of the reconciliation bill. It prohibits Medicaid funding from going to any sexual and reproductive health clinics that provide abortions and received more than $800,000 in federal and state Medicaid funding in fiscal year 2023. That prohibition will last one year from the date the bill was signed.</p><p>While there may be a few independent clinics with operating budgets that high, it effectively singles out Planned Parenthood clinics. The entire organization has about 600 clinics in 48 states, and according to their calculations, more than 1.1 million patients could lose access to care because of the change in the law.</p><p>“This case is about making sure that patients who use Medicaid as their insurance to get birth control, cancer screenings, and STI testing and treatment can continue to do so at their local Planned Parenthood health center, and we will make that clear in court,” said Planned Parenthood Federation of America president and CEO Alexis McGill Johnson in a<a href="https://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/planned-parenthood-federation-of-america-planned-parenthood-league-of-massachusetts-and-planned-parenthood-association-of-utah-sue-over-congressional-action-defunding-planned-parenthood-health-centers" target="_blank">&nbsp;public statement</a>.</p><p>The organization<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/planned-parenthood-risk-closing-hundreds-clinics-drastically-limiting-abortion-access" target="_blank">&nbsp;identified 200 of its clinics</a>&nbsp;in 24 states that are at risk of closure with the cuts, and said nearly all of those clinics — 90% — are in states where abortion is legal. In 12 states, approximately 75% of abortion-providing Planned Parenthood health centers could close. Because of that, some reproductive health advocates have called it a backdoor nationwide abortion ban.</p><p>The nonprofit also warned that eliminating Planned Parenthood centers from the Medicaid program would likely also impact patients who use other forms of insurance, if centers are forced to cut their services or close.&nbsp;</p><p>Planned Parenthood argued this section of the bill is unconstitutional because it specifies and punishes them, saying it violates equal protection laws and qualifies as retaliation against free speech rights.&nbsp;</p><p>“The Defund Provision is a naked attempt to leverage the government’s spending power to attack and penalize Planned Parenthood and impermissibly single it out for unfavorable treatment,” the complaint says. “It does so not only because of Planned Parenthood members’ long history of providing legal abortions to patients across the country, but also because of Planned Parenthood’s unique role in advocating for policies to protect and expand access to sexual and reproductive health care, including abortion.”</p><p>The complaint also details numerous instances when Trump said he was committed to defunding Planned Parenthood in 2016 and 2017, during his first presidential term, and it highlighted the provisions of Project 2025 that called for the defunding of Planned Parenthood. Project 2025 is the blueprint document drafted by the conservative Heritage Foundation, and the administration has followed many of its directives so far.</p><p>According to the lawsuit, Planned Parenthood members have “structural independence,” meaning no member “has control over the operations or decision-making processes of another.” It’s argued in the complaint that 10 members, including plaintiff Planned Parenthood Association of Utah, don’t meet the definition of prohibited entity under the new law, because they do not provide abortion services or did not receive over $800,000 in Medicaid funds during fiscal year 2023. They say these members are not “affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, or clinics” of any prohibited entity because they are separately incorporated and independently governed.</p><p>“But these Non-Qualifying Members can take no comfort in the plain text of the statute,” reads the lawsuit. “Defendants will willfully misinterpret the statute to disqualify them from receiving federal Medicaid funding, based solely on their association with PPFA and other Planned Parenthood Members.”</p><p>“As the Trump administration guts our public health care system, we know millions will suffer and struggle to get care. We will not tolerate these attacks,” said Shireen Ghorbani, interim president of Planned Parenthood Association of Utah, in a statement. “For over 55 years, we have proudly cared for generations of Utahns, and we will always find ways to meet the health care needs of our communities. Here in Utah, we are used to politicians trying to strip away our rights for political gain. We haven’t backed down before, and we won’t now.”</p><h2>Defunding will harm general wellness, not abortion care, Arizona clinic owner says</h2><p>Planned Parenthood also noted in its complaint that the harms could be especially devastating because “even where alternative providers are theoretically available, those providers, who are already stretched to capacity, often do not offer the same comprehensive sexual and reproductive health service options, have long wait times for patients, and cannot accommodate the huge influx of patients who would need to find a new provider of care.”</p><p>Some clinics that operate independently of Planned Parenthood will be affected by the law as well. George Hill, president and CEO of Maine Family Planning, said they receive nearly $2 million from Medicaid funds (MaineCare) on a yearly basis, and about half of their patients are enrolled in some form of Medicaid. Hill said they plan to sue as well, but the timing is uncertain at this point. Abortion care makes up about 15% of their overall services, while the rest is routine gynecological and preventative health care, he said.</p><p>In the meantime, Hill plans to solicit as much support as possible from individual donors to keep the doors to their 19 clinics open and serving Medicaid patients.</p><p>“Whether or how long we’ll be able to do that is another question,” Hill said.</p><p>In Arizona, Dr. DeShawn Taylor operates the independent clinic Desert Star Institute for Family Planning. About 75% of the services at Desert Star are abortion related, and while Medicaid (AHCCCS in Arizona) dollars can’t be used for the procedure, Taylor said they could often at least get the initial consultation appointment covered by Medicaid.</p><p>The cuts that are coming, Taylor said, will not stop people from obtaining an abortion somehow. But there will be other downstream effects.</p><p>“People are already economically depressed,” she said. “What we’re going to see is people are still going to do what’s necessary to get (abortion) care, but what’s going to fall off is their ability to get their preventative care, their contraception, their wellness exams, those types of things.”</p>

Planned Parenthood sues Trump admin. over ‘defunding’ provision in budget bill

<figure>
                        <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/7/1751933748288.png" alt="Image courtesy CSPAN" />
                        <figcaption>Image courtesy CSPAN</figcaption>
                    </figure><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu presents President Trump with a letter nominating him for the Nobel Peace Prize <a href="https://t.co/JUzpU2ZPYz">pic.twitter.com/JUzpU2ZPYz</a></p>&mdash; Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1942366276329914397?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 7, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>

🎥Surprise: Israeli PM nominates Trump for Nobel Peace Prize 

<figure>
                        <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/1/1704330351229.png" alt="Jeffrey Epstein New York Sex Offender Registry" />
                        <figcaption>Jeffrey Epstein New York Sex Offender Registry</figcaption>
                    </figure><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">.<a href="https://twitter.com/pdoocy?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@pdoocy</a>: What happened to the Epstein client list that the Attorney General said she had on her desk?<br><br>.<a href="https://twitter.com/PressSec?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@PressSec</a>: She was saying the entirety of all of the paper work all of the paper in relation to Jeffrey Epstein&#39;s crimes, that&#39;s what the Attorney General was referring to. <a href="https://t.co/tarThtKDCX">pic.twitter.com/tarThtKDCX</a></p>&mdash; CSPAN (@cspan) <a href="https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1942280181890023756?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 7, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>

🎥White House responds to DOJ report Epstein 'client list' doesn't exist

<b>By&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/tim-carpenter/">TIM CARPENTER</a><br></b><a href="https://kansasreflector.com/2025/02/24/gov-laura-kelly-skeptical-kansas-houses-anti-tenure-legislation-will-reach-her-desk/"><i>Kansas Reflector</i></a>

TOPEKA — A bipartisan council of Kansas lawmakers voted Monday to extend by six months the deadline for the Missouri-based Kansas City Royals or the Kansas City Chiefs to accept economic development incentives from Kansas for construction of sports stadiums.

The Legislative Coordinating Council unanimously agreed to grant the reprieve so the Kansas Department of Commerce could present options for stadium deals to the LCC until Dec. 31, 2025.

A 2024 law that set the framework for issuance of STAR bonds to cover 70% of construction costs for one or both stadiums and support structures had a deadline of June 30, 2025. The statute gave the LCC authority to add another year to the timeline.

House Speaker Dan Hawkins, a Wichita Republican, recommended adoption of a six-month alternative for the presentation of formal proposals by the Department of Commerce to the LCC. He said he didn’t want the stadium issue to bleed into the 2026 session of the Legislature, which would convene in early January.

“We have had this law out there for a year now and each team has had a year to come to some type of conclusion,” Hawkins said. “Neither team has and quite frankly for the last month and a half, I have been very consistent across the board saying, ‘Let’s get it done.’ ”

He said he was persuaded to endorse a half-year extension because one of the teams waited from November to February for responses from the administration of Gov. Laura Kelly. Also, he said, the Kelly administration didn’t answer a proposal from a team — previously reported to be the Chiefs — for seven weeks.

“It doesn’t matter what team it was. That’s not fair to the teams, when they’re making proposals and they’re not getting responses back,” said Hawkins, who is a candidate for state insurance commissioner.

The LCC adopted the six-month extension but also voted to broaden the window of opportunity for stadium deals with Kansas to June 30, 2026. That could be a technicality, because the LCC could decide on behalf of the full House and Senate not to consider recommendations submitted after that date.

Missouri offered to finance up to 50% of the cost to renovate or build new stadiums for the Royals and Chiefs. Both franchises have played at a Jackson County, Missouri, complex since the early 1970s.

Sen. Tim Shallenberger, a Baxter Springs Republican serving as the Senate’s vice president, said he didn’t want to force the Chiefs or Royals to abruptly wrap up a deal with Kansas.

“When I was younger, I was a banker,” Shallenberger said. “Putting a deal like this together is not easy. You have landowners that look at the deadlines that we put out and use that as leverage. You have the teams look at the deadlines we put out and use that as leverage. Approved by the LCC by this December seems a little quick to me.

Senate President Ty Masterson, an Andover Republican, convened the LCC meeting because he recently observed signs of progress during confidential negotiations involving the Chiefs.

“We weren’t interested in being a pawn and extending for no reason at all,” Masterson said. “The sense was as long as there’s legitimate, real conversations about the possibility of that relationship … we could move forward.”

Chiefs president Mark Donovan asked Kansas lawmakers to amend the deadline to continue negotiations with Kansas on building a stadium, team headquarters, practice facility and related business developments.

In the correspondence, Donovan said complexity, importance and scale of the project made it clear “more time is needed to bring the effort to full fruition.”

<figure>
                        <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/7/1751922960434.png" alt="House Speaker Dan Hawkins, shown hear speaking to members of the Kansas House, recommended to colleagues on the Legislative Coordinating Council to change the deadline to Dec. 31, 2025, for presentation by the Kansas City Chiefs or Kansas City Royals of proposals to make use of STAR bonds to build new sports stadiums in Kansas. A 2024 law offering bonds to cover 70% of stadium costs expired June 30, 2025. (Grace Hills/Kansas Reflector)" />
                        <figcaption>House Speaker Dan Hawkins, shown hear speaking to members of the Kansas House, recommended to colleagues on the Legislative Coordinating Council to change the deadline to Dec. 31, 2025, for presentation by the Kansas City Chiefs or Kansas City Royals of proposals to make use of STAR bonds to build new sports stadiums in Kansas. A 2024 law offering bonds to cover 70% of stadium costs expired June 30, 2025. (Grace Hills/Kansas Reflector)</figcaption>
                    </figure><p><b>By&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/tim-carpenter/">TIM CARPENTER</a><br></b><a href="https://kansasreflector.com/2025/02/24/gov-laura-kelly-skeptical-kansas-houses-anti-tenure-legislation-will-reach-her-desk/"><i>Kansas Reflector</i></a></p><p>TOPEKA — A bipartisan council of Kansas lawmakers voted Monday to extend by six months the deadline for the Missouri-based Kansas City Royals or the Kansas City Chiefs to accept economic development incentives from Kansas for construction of sports stadiums.</p><p>The Legislative Coordinating Council unanimously agreed to grant the reprieve so the Kansas Department of Commerce could present options for stadium deals to the LCC until Dec. 31, 2025.</p><p>A 2024 law that set the framework for issuance of STAR bonds to cover 70% of construction costs for one or both stadiums and support structures had a deadline of June 30, 2025. The statute gave the LCC authority to add another year to the timeline.</p><p>House Speaker Dan Hawkins, a Wichita Republican, recommended adoption of a six-month alternative for the presentation of formal proposals by the Department of Commerce to the LCC. He said he didn’t want the stadium issue to bleed into the 2026 session of the Legislature, which would convene in early January.</p><p>“We have had this law out there for a year now and each team has had a year to come to some type of conclusion,” Hawkins said. “Neither team has and quite frankly for the last month and a half, I have been very consistent across the board saying, ‘Let’s get it done.’ ”</p><p>He said he was persuaded to endorse a half-year extension because one of the teams waited from November to February for responses from the administration of Gov. Laura Kelly. Also, he said, the Kelly administration didn’t answer a proposal from a team — previously reported to be the Chiefs — for seven weeks.</p><p>“It doesn’t matter what team it was. That’s not fair to the teams, when they’re making proposals and they’re not getting responses back,” said Hawkins, who is a candidate for state insurance commissioner.</p><p>The LCC adopted the six-month extension but also voted to broaden the window of opportunity for stadium deals with Kansas to June 30, 2026. That could be a technicality, because the LCC could decide on behalf of the full House and Senate not to consider recommendations submitted after that date.</p><p>Missouri offered to finance up to 50% of the cost to renovate or build new stadiums for the Royals and Chiefs. Both franchises have played at a Jackson County, Missouri, complex since the early 1970s.</p><p>Sen. Tim Shallenberger, a Baxter Springs Republican serving as the Senate’s vice president, said he didn’t want to force the Chiefs or Royals to abruptly wrap up a deal with Kansas.</p><p>“When I was younger, I was a banker,” Shallenberger said. “Putting a deal like this together is not easy. You have landowners that look at the deadlines that we put out and use that as leverage. You have the teams look at the deadlines we put out and use that as leverage. Approved by the LCC by this December seems a little quick to me.</p><p>Senate President Ty Masterson, an Andover Republican, convened the LCC meeting because he recently observed signs of progress during confidential negotiations involving the Chiefs.</p><p>“We weren’t interested in being a pawn and extending for no reason at all,” Masterson said. “The sense was as long as there’s legitimate, real conversations about the possibility of that relationship … we could move forward.”</p><p>Chiefs president Mark Donovan asked Kansas lawmakers to amend the deadline to continue negotiations with Kansas on building a stadium, team headquarters, practice facility and related business developments.</p><p>In the correspondence, Donovan said complexity, importance and scale of the project made it clear “more time is needed to bring the effort to full fruition.”</p>

Kan. lawmakers extend deadline for Royals, Chiefs to accept stadium incentives

Tavia Hunt, the wife of Kansas City Chiefs owner Clark Hunt wrote in an Instagram post Monday that she was mourning the loss of those who died in the flooding in Texas including a distant relative of the family.

<p>Tavia Hunt, the wife of Kansas City Chiefs owner Clark Hunt wrote in an Instagram post Monday that she was mourning the loss of those who died in the flooding in Texas including a distant relative of the family.</p><div><blockquote class="instagram-media" data-instgrm-captioned data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/p/DLvT-cIxSIx/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="14" style=" background:#FFF; border:0; border-radius:3px; box-shadow:0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width:540px; min-width:326px; padding:0; width:99.375%; width:-webkit-calc(100% - 2px); width:calc(100% - 2px);"><div style="padding:16px;"> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/DLvT-cIxSIx/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" style=" background:#FFFFFF; line-height:0; padding:0 0; text-align:center; text-decoration:none; width:100%;" target="_blank"> <div style=" display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;"> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;"></div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;"> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;"></div> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;"></div></div></div><div style="padding: 19% 0;"></div> <div style="display:block; height:50px; margin:0 auto 12px; width:50px;"><svg width="50px" height="50px" viewBox="0 0 60 60" version="1.1" xmlns="https://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><g stroke="none" stroke-width="1" fill="none" fill-rule="evenodd"><g transform="translate(-511.000000, -20.000000)" fill="#000000"><g><path d="M556.869,30.41 C554.814,30.41 553.148,32.076 553.148,34.131 C553.148,36.186 554.814,37.852 556.869,37.852 C558.924,37.852 560.59,36.186 560.59,34.131 C560.59,32.076 558.924,30.41 556.869,30.41 M541,60.657 C535.114,60.657 530.342,55.887 530.342,50 C530.342,44.114 535.114,39.342 541,39.342 C546.887,39.342 551.658,44.114 551.658,50 C551.658,55.887 546.887,60.657 541,60.657 M541,33.886 C532.1,33.886 524.886,41.1 524.886,50 C524.886,58.899 532.1,66.113 541,66.113 C549.9,66.113 557.115,58.899 557.115,50 C557.115,41.1 549.9,33.886 541,33.886 M565.378,62.101 C565.244,65.022 564.756,66.606 564.346,67.663 C563.803,69.06 563.154,70.057 562.106,71.106 C561.058,72.155 560.06,72.803 558.662,73.347 C557.607,73.757 556.021,74.244 553.102,74.378 C549.944,74.521 548.997,74.552 541,74.552 C533.003,74.552 532.056,74.521 528.898,74.378 C525.979,74.244 524.393,73.757 523.338,73.347 C521.94,72.803 520.942,72.155 519.894,71.106 C518.846,70.057 518.197,69.06 517.654,67.663 C517.244,66.606 516.755,65.022 516.623,62.101 C516.479,58.943 516.448,57.996 516.448,50 C516.448,42.003 516.479,41.056 516.623,37.899 C516.755,34.978 517.244,33.391 517.654,32.338 C518.197,30.938 518.846,29.942 519.894,28.894 C520.942,27.846 521.94,27.196 523.338,26.654 C524.393,26.244 525.979,25.756 528.898,25.623 C532.057,25.479 533.004,25.448 541,25.448 C548.997,25.448 549.943,25.479 553.102,25.623 C556.021,25.756 557.607,26.244 558.662,26.654 C560.06,27.196 561.058,27.846 562.106,28.894 C563.154,29.942 563.803,30.938 564.346,32.338 C564.756,33.391 565.244,34.978 565.378,37.899 C565.522,41.056 565.552,42.003 565.552,50 C565.552,57.996 565.522,58.943 565.378,62.101 M570.82,37.631 C570.674,34.438 570.167,32.258 569.425,30.349 C568.659,28.377 567.633,26.702 565.965,25.035 C564.297,23.368 562.623,22.342 560.652,21.575 C558.743,20.834 556.562,20.326 553.369,20.18 C550.169,20.033 549.148,20 541,20 C532.853,20 531.831,20.033 528.631,20.18 C525.438,20.326 523.257,20.834 521.349,21.575 C519.376,22.342 517.703,23.368 516.035,25.035 C514.368,26.702 513.342,28.377 512.574,30.349 C511.834,32.258 511.326,34.438 511.181,37.631 C511.035,40.831 511,41.851 511,50 C511,58.147 511.035,59.17 511.181,62.369 C511.326,65.562 511.834,67.743 512.574,69.651 C513.342,71.625 514.368,73.296 516.035,74.965 C517.703,76.634 519.376,77.658 521.349,78.425 C523.257,79.167 525.438,79.673 528.631,79.82 C531.831,79.965 532.853,80.001 541,80.001 C549.148,80.001 550.169,79.965 553.369,79.82 C556.562,79.673 558.743,79.167 560.652,78.425 C562.623,77.658 564.297,76.634 565.965,74.965 C567.633,73.296 568.659,71.625 569.425,69.651 C570.167,67.743 570.674,65.562 570.82,62.369 C570.966,59.17 571,58.147 571,50 C571,41.851 570.966,40.831 570.82,37.631"></path></g></g></g></svg></div><div style="padding-top: 8px;"> <div style=" color:#3897f0; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-weight:550; line-height:18px;">View this post on Instagram</div></div><div style="padding: 12.5% 0;"></div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; margin-bottom: 14px; align-items: center;"><div> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(0px) translateY(7px);"></div> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; height: 12.5px; transform: rotate(-45deg) translateX(3px) translateY(1px); width: 12.5px; flex-grow: 0; margin-right: 14px; margin-left: 2px;"></div> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(9px) translateY(-18px);"></div></div><div style="margin-left: 8px;"> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 20px; width: 20px;"></div> <div style=" width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 2px solid transparent; border-left: 6px solid #f4f4f4; border-bottom: 2px solid transparent; transform: translateX(16px) translateY(-4px) rotate(30deg)"></div></div><div style="margin-left: auto;"> <div style=" width: 0px; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-right: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(16px);"></div> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; flex-grow: 0; height: 12px; width: 16px; transform: translateY(-4px);"></div> <div style=" width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-left: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(-4px) translateX(8px);"></div></div></div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center; margin-bottom: 24px;"> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 224px;"></div> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 144px;"></div></div></a><p style=" color:#c9c8cd; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:17px; margin-bottom:0; margin-top:8px; overflow:hidden; padding:8px 0 7px; text-align:center; text-overflow:ellipsis; white-space:nowrap;"><a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/DLvT-cIxSIx/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" style=" color:#c9c8cd; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-weight:normal; line-height:17px; text-decoration:none;" target="_blank">A post shared by Tavia Hunt (@taviahunt)</a></p></div></blockquote>
<script async src="//www.instagram.com/embed.js"></script></div><h2></h2>

Wife of KC Chiefs owner mourns the loss of lives in Texas flood

Satanic Grotto claims religious discrimination while administration secretary cites safety concerns

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/ghills/">GRACE HILLS</a><br><a href="https://kansasreflector.com/">Kansas Reflector</a>

TOPEKA — The group behind the&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/2025/03/28/loud-boisterous-rival-protests-of-religious-freedom-among-catholics-and-satanists-turn-violent/">black mass in March</a>&nbsp;at the Kansas Statehouse — which drew thousands of counter-protesters and ended in multiple arrests — was denied a permit to hold another protest this summer.

Michael Stewart, the Satanic Grotto leader, says the denial is religious discrimination. Adam Proffitt, the Kansas secretary of administration, says the permit was denied because of safety concerns and violence at the last protest.

Stewart was planning a “witching hour protest” from 9 p.m. to midnight on Aug. 2 with the same sentiment as the black mass: “to end Christian favoritism within our state government,” as the group’s&nbsp;<a href="https://www.facebook.com/TheSatanicGrotto/posts/731538195904812/" target="_blank">Facebook post</a>&nbsp;reads.

“This isn’t just a permit denial; it’s an outright cancellation of our right to protest, fueled by what appears to be a deeply biased agenda,” Stewart said in a news release. “The State of Kansas is actively working to silence voices that challenge the status quo, especially those from minority faiths and marginalized communities.”

Stewart told Kansas Reflector that his permit request was “flat out ignored” for a few weeks, and he only got a response after he showed up in person.

<figure>
                        <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/7/1751902703997.png" alt=" Satanic Grotto president Michael Stewart punches counter-protester Marcus Schroeder after Schroeder attempted to take Stewart’s prayer materials during a black mass inside the Kansas Capitol. (Grace Hills/Kansas Reflector)" />
                        <figcaption> Satanic Grotto president Michael Stewart punches counter-protester Marcus Schroeder after Schroeder attempted to take Stewart’s prayer materials during a black mass inside the Kansas Capitol. (Grace Hills/Kansas Reflector)</figcaption>
                    </figure><h2>Satanic Grotto claims religious discrimination while administration secretary cites safety concerns</h2><p>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/ghills/">GRACE HILLS</a><br><a href="https://kansasreflector.com/">Kansas Reflector</a></p><p>TOPEKA — The group behind the&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/2025/03/28/loud-boisterous-rival-protests-of-religious-freedom-among-catholics-and-satanists-turn-violent/">black mass in March</a>&nbsp;at the Kansas Statehouse — which drew thousands of counter-protesters and ended in multiple arrests — was denied a permit to hold another protest this summer.</p><p>Michael Stewart, the Satanic Grotto leader, says the denial is religious discrimination. Adam Proffitt, the Kansas secretary of administration, says the permit was denied because of safety concerns and violence at the last protest.</p><p>Stewart was planning a “witching hour protest” from 9 p.m. to midnight on Aug. 2 with the same sentiment as the black mass: “to end Christian favoritism within our state government,” as the group’s&nbsp;<a href="https://www.facebook.com/TheSatanicGrotto/posts/731538195904812/" target="_blank">Facebook post</a>&nbsp;reads.</p><p>“This isn’t just a permit denial; it’s an outright cancellation of our right to protest, fueled by what appears to be a deeply biased agenda,” Stewart said in a news release. “The State of Kansas is actively working to silence voices that challenge the status quo, especially those from minority faiths and marginalized communities.”</p><p>Stewart told Kansas Reflector that his permit request was “flat out ignored” for a few weeks, and he only got a response after he showed up in person.</p><p>In response to a Kansas Reflector request for comment, Department of Administration spokesman Samir Arif pointed to a response Proffitt had given to Stewart.</p><p>“The State has increased safety concerns regarding any event occurring on the south steps after sundown, including whether adequate Kansas Highway Patrol resources are available to address these safety concerns after dark,” Proffitt wrote.</p><p>In the new release, Stewart said Capitol Police Chief Brandon Bichsel told him he had “no reservations” about the police’s ability to maintain security. Bichsel did not respond to a Kansas Reflector request for comment.</p><p>“Additionally, I decline to grant a permission to you, on behalf of the organization, due to improper acts that occurred when a previous permit space on the Statehouse grounds was granted to you for an event that occurred in March 2025,” Proffitt wrote, referencing the black mass.</p><p>The permit Stewart obtained for the black mass allowed the Satanic Grotto to protest outside of the Statehouse — but not inside — after Gov. Laura Kelly&nbsp;<a href="https://www.governor.ks.gov/Home/Components/News/News/573/56" target="_blank">banned any protests inside the building</a>&nbsp;on the planned day. Before the black mass, Stewart told&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/2025/03/12/kansas-satanists-plan-to-defy-governor-with-therapeutic-blasphemy-in-black-mass-at-statehouse/">Kansas Reflector</a>&nbsp;he planned to defy Kelly’s directive.</p><figure>
                        <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/7/1751902665131.png" alt=" Satanic Grotto president Michael Stewart begins praying during a black mass ceremony that Statehouse officials had forbidden inside the building. Christians opposing presence of the Satanic Grotto tried to physically stop Stewart, which led to punches being thrown and Stewart’s arrest. (Grace Hills/Kansas Reflector)" />
                        <figcaption> Satanic Grotto president Michael Stewart begins praying during a black mass ceremony that Statehouse officials had forbidden inside the building. Christians opposing presence of the Satanic Grotto tried to physically stop Stewart, which led to punches being thrown and Stewart’s arrest. (Grace Hills/Kansas Reflector)</figcaption>
                    </figure><p>On the day of the black mass, Stewart entered the Statehouse and began a dedication to Satan. Counter-protesters physically intervened, including Marcus Schroeder — a 21-year-old from Wisconsin&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wdtimes.com/news/local/man-who-pleaded-guilty-to-bomb-threat-in-watertown-arrested-again-in-kansas/article_c7f78cf5-f5df-4c6a-b98c-25d093e0bc6e.html" target="_blank">who had been charged with making a false bomb threat on a Pride parade</a>. After Schroeder attempted to grab Stewart’s copy of “The Satanic Bible” two times, Stewart punched Schroeder in the face twice, which resulted in both of their arrests.</p><p>“Your conduct created a risk to public safety, violated the terms of your permit, and caused injury to another person,” Proffitt wrote.</p><p>Shawnee County prosecutors decided&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/2025/05/29/kansas-satanists-plan-new-protest-wont-face-charges-in-catholic-clash-at-statehouse/">not to pursue charges against Stewart</a>.</p><p>Restrictions didn’t stop Stewart at the last protest. But after his arrest, Stewart said he is hesitant to go forward with his planned “witching hour” event.</p><p>“We are going to do everything in our power to ensure the event can take place,” Stewart told Kansas Reflector. “However, after consultation with my criminal lawyer, I’m concerned the state is setting the ground for heavy consequences if we proceed.”</p><p>Stewart said he could face 18 months of incarceration if the prosecutors decide to pursue the charges from his black mass arrest. He said that being incarcerated would prevent him from serving the community.</p><p>“We aren’t done fighting,” he said. “We stepped up to the plate last time when it came to making a point with our safety and freedom. This time we will find other routes that hopefully illustrate the same points.”</p><p>The Department of Administration on July 1 denied Stewart’s request to reconsider its decision.</p><p>“Should your organization wish to reserve a space for its event, the ending time cannot go past sundown, and someone other than you must take responsibility for the application and event,” said Pat Doran, chief counsel for the Department of Administration, in an email to Stewart.</p>