WASHINGTON— On Monday, U.S. Customs and Border Protection announced the public-facing mobile application, CBP Home. The application has a new feature – Intent to Depart – which offers unlawfully present aliens or those aliens whose parole has been revoked an orderly and defined voluntary process to notify the U.S. Government of their intent to depart the United States. This new feature is a necessary tool to comply with the President’s Executive Order 14159, Protecting the American People Against Invasion.

With the CBP Home Mobile Application, travelers, businesses, and stakeholders will continue to gain access to a single digital solution that streamlines CBP processes, enhances security, and reduces administrative burdens – all from the convenience of a mobile device.&nbsp;

&nbsp;“CBP Home App strengthens our mission to secure the U.S. border by ensuring lawful entry for travelers and supporting effective enforcement,” said Pete Flores, Acting Commissioner, U.S Customs and Border Protection. “The app provides illegal aliens in the United States with a straightforward way to declare their intent to voluntarily depart, offering them the chance to leave before facing harsher consequences. This reinforces our commitment to enforcing U.S. laws and safeguarding national security.”

CBP Home App is a free mobile application available for download by any individual on an Apple or Android device via Apple’s App Store and Google Play, as well from the CBP website.

For more information,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cbp.gov/about/mobile-apps-directory/CBPHome">visit the CBP Home webpage</a>.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/3/1741624392845.png" alt="Image Homeland Security" />
 <figcaption>Image Homeland Security</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON— On Monday, U.S. Customs and Border Protection announced the public-facing mobile application, CBP Home. The application has a new feature – Intent to Depart – which offers unlawfully present aliens or those aliens whose parole has been revoked an orderly and defined voluntary process to notify the U.S. Government of their intent to depart the United States. This new feature is a necessary tool to comply with the President’s Executive Order 14159, Protecting the American People Against Invasion.<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Today we&#39;re introducing the CBP Home app offering a new critical feature, Intent to Depart. This update complies with <a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@POTUS</a>&#39;s Executive Order 14159, Protecting the American People Against Invasion. More Info ➡️ <a href="https://t.co/SStp1ZGI8L">https://t.co/SStp1ZGI8L</a> <a href="https://t.co/yIJl2cdetj">pic.twitter.com/yIJl2cdetj</a>&mdash; CBP (@CBP) <a href="https://twitter.com/CBP/status/1899150187240591689?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 10, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>With the CBP Home Mobile Application, travelers, businesses, and stakeholders will continue to gain access to a single digital solution that streamlines CBP processes, enhances security, and reduces administrative burdens – all from the convenience of a mobile device.&nbsp;&nbsp;“CBP Home App strengthens our mission to secure the U.S. border by ensuring lawful entry for travelers and supporting effective enforcement,” said Pete Flores, Acting Commissioner, U.S Customs and Border Protection. “The app provides illegal aliens in the United States with a straightforward way to declare their intent to voluntarily depart, offering them the chance to leave before facing harsher consequences. This reinforces our commitment to enforcing U.S. laws and safeguarding national security.”Other functions include:<ul>
 <li>I-94: Apply for and pay for an I-94 up to seven days before arriving in the United States&nbsp;</li><li>Inspection appointments: Request inspections for perishable cargo entering the United States&nbsp;</li><li>Border wait times: Check wait times at the border&nbsp;</li><li>Bus Manifest: Submit a manifest for bus operators</li>
 </ul>CBP Home App is a free mobile application available for download by any individual on an Apple or Android device via Apple’s App Store and Google Play, as well from the CBP website.For more information,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cbp.gov/about/mobile-apps-directory/CBPHome">visit the CBP Home webpage</a>.

DHS  launches new app to encourage illegals to self-deport

<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2025/03/10/bill-to-catalog-nebraska-school-tools-of-mass-surveillance-hits-roadblock/">Nebraska Examiner</a>

LINCOLN — A state lawmaker’s attempt to publicly catalog “tools of mass surveillance” in Nebraska public school districts is on pause, at least for now, as she finds an alternate path forward.

<a href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=59450&amp;docnum=LB31&amp;leg=109" target="_blank">Legislative Bill 31</a>, from State Sen. Danielle Conrad of Lincoln, would require all of Nebraska’s 245 public school districts to&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2025/02/06/nebraska-bills-to-catalog-school-mass-surveillance-tools-library-books-advance-from-ed-committee/">publicly inventory and catalog student surveillance, monitoring and tracking technology tools</a>&nbsp;used by or contracted for use in each district. The bill was debated Feb. 21 and Feb. 24 before not returning to the legislative agenda, at Conrad’s request.

Conrad has pledged to find a path forward for her bill with some bipartisan support, such as through a different bill or by working with the State Board of Education, the Nebraska Department of Education or specific school districts.

The bill faced stiff opposition from some senators who feared the bill could require schools to disclose sensitive information or impose unfunded burdens to compile the necessary information.

Conrad, a past executive director of the ACLU of Nebraska, described the bill as a “simple transparency measure” that wouldn’t ban the technology she said was coming from “big tech.”

Instead, she argued that the bill could lead to cost savings over time, possibly leading to increased teacher salaries. Conrad repeatedly marked her bill as a “true right-left coalition” that she, a pragmatic progressive, had built with students, parents and taxpayers.&nbsp;

Some conservatives, in written comments for the bill, noted they’ve rarely been on the same side as the Lincoln Democrat but identified the bill as a top priority. Supportive testifiers at the hearing for the bill included Sue Greenwald of Kearney, a prominent conservative advocate for parents’ rights bills.

“If they don’t have information to know what tools of surveillance or data collection or survey are being utilized by their schools, they cannot insert and understand and be empowered to utilize that control,” Conrad said of families during debate.

State Sen. Dave Murman of Glenvil, chair of the Education Committee, which advanced LB 31 with no opposition, said he has put an extra emphasis on parental rights in his three years as chair. He said Conrad’s bill advanced those efforts.

“Parents should, and deserve, to be put in the driver’s seat of their child’s education,” Murman said. “Senator Conrad has brought a way to give parents some more information and transparency without putting too much of an additional burden on the work that our great schools have to do.”

State Board of Education members Lisa Schonhoff of Bennington and Kirk Penner of Aurora have also voiced favor for LB 31. Schonhoff&nbsp;<a href="https://x.com/LSchonhoff4NE/status/1894403887446077816" target="_blank">thanked Conrad</a>&nbsp;for “being on the side of parents.”

“This is a nonpartisan, common sense bill,” she wrote in a Feb. 25 post on X, formerly Twitter.

Many senators who ultimately opposed the legislation said they agreed with Conrad’s goal that schools should not be collecting data on students and selling it.

However, State Sen. Brad von Gillern of the Elkhorn area noted the bill received opposition from major organizations, such as the Nebraska Council of School Administrators, Schools Taking Action for Nebraska Children’s Education, Greater Nebraska Schools Association, Nebraska Rural Community Schools Association and the Nebraska State Education Association.

“I believe it’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing,” von Gillern said. “It’s a Trojan horse to carry things forward that we do not want to advance in our school systems.”

LB 31 would require the State Board of Education to draft a model policy around the targeted technology, requiring school districts to disclose certain information about the tools.

State Sen. Bob Hallstrom of Syracuse offered an amendment to make the surveillance tool inventory voluntary and not require it to be posted online.&nbsp;

He similarly pushed back on a finding in the bill stipulating that schools were using the “tools of mass surveillance … under the guise of advancing security or efficiency goals.”

“I think it’s offensive to suggest that the schools would be doing that under some type of guise,” Hallstrom said. “They truly do have the best interest in the safety of the students at heart.”

Von Gillern repeatedly asked whether the bill could require public disclosure of sensitive security details that someone plotting a “nefarious act” could use. He said gathering data for the protection of students and staff is a “worthwhile venture” but that Conrad’s bill, portrayed as advancing that goal, could do “exactly the opposite.”

State Sen. Jana Hughes of Seward said digital cameras, for example, can help when students offer differing stories after incidents. But she voiced similar concerns as von Gillern that disclosing specific technology vendor names and contact information could be dangerous.

Conrad said the plain language of her bill would not require any publication of sensitive information but that she could clarify that intention if needed. Von Gillern said senators also need to consider what isn’t in the bill but that many districts had voiced concerns about.

“If we do anything to deteriorate the security of our children in schools then shame on us,” von Gillern said.

State Sen. Megan Hunt of Omaha said that suggesting Conrad’s bill could reduce school safety was a “ridiculous and absurd extrapolation to arrive at.”

Hunt said if that was the true concern, she said von Gillern and others should maybe “lift a finger” on gun safe storage or other safety regulations, or increase mental health support.

“All this does is put on the books that this is our expectation in Nebraska,” Hunt said. “That our kids are not the product, that we’re not selling our kids’ information, and that we have transparency around the process.”

State Sen. Machaela Cavanaugh of Omaha said it shouldn’t be “too cumbersome” to tell parents whether their children’s data is being sold.

State Sen. Kathleen Kauth of the Millard area said she agreed with the aim of the bill and supported it, but she also wanted some guardrails in place, such as possibly exempting physical security information.

Lawmakers signaled they might be moving away from Conrad’s goals after voting 27-16 against “stylistic changes” in an amendment she offered, largely focused on small tweaks in the bill that opponents had pointed out. Kauth and Hughes were the only Republicans to support those changes.

Lawmakers had not yet gotten to a vote on Hallstrom’s amendment or LB 31 overall.

Hughes said many school districts have technology vendors sign a student data privacy agreement explicitly saying what will happen with the data. She suggested making such agreements a requirement, to help in the case of data hacks or breaches.

State Sen. Terrell McKinney of Omaha agreed with Conrad about the ease of implementing the bill. He said, “It’s always too much work when you should just do the right thing.”

“This should be simple, unless there’s like a million surveillance tools they’re using, and student surveys they’re using, or they, like, got some double oh seven, I Spy, MI6 type of stuff going on,” he said.

State Sen. Bob Andersen, whose Sarpy County district includes Gretna Public Schools, read a letter from his superintendent questioning a lack of definitions in the bill, such as “tracking system” or what tools are of “legitimate use,” could lead to subjectivity in implementing the bill.

Conrad repeatedly pushed back on her colleagues and told them to not use “straw man” or “red herring” arguments and not to get “toiled up in personal battles or misinformation.”

She told her colleagues that, if needed, she would step out of the way.

“Friends, if the problem is perhaps me or you don’t like my politics, or you’re upset about my work on other bills, I understand that, and I will work if need be to find a substitute sponsor for this legislation because I don’t care to get the credit,” Conrad said. “I care that this important issue moves forward.”

School ‘tools of mass surveillance’ disclosures proposed under Legislative Bill 31 (2025)

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/3/1741623329199.jpeg" alt="State Sen. Danielle Conrad of Lincoln. Jan. 8, 2025 (Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner)" />
 <figcaption>State Sen. Danielle Conrad of Lincoln. Jan. 8, 2025 (Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner)</figcaption>
 </figure>Zach Wendling<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2025/03/10/bill-to-catalog-nebraska-school-tools-of-mass-surveillance-hits-roadblock/">Nebraska Examiner</a>LINCOLN — A state lawmaker’s attempt to publicly catalog “tools of mass surveillance” in Nebraska public school districts is on pause, at least for now, as she finds an alternate path forward.<a href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=59450&amp;docnum=LB31&amp;leg=109" target="_blank">Legislative Bill 31</a>, from State Sen. Danielle Conrad of Lincoln, would require all of Nebraska’s 245 public school districts to&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2025/02/06/nebraska-bills-to-catalog-school-mass-surveillance-tools-library-books-advance-from-ed-committee/">publicly inventory and catalog student surveillance, monitoring and tracking technology tools</a>&nbsp;used by or contracted for use in each district. The bill was debated Feb. 21 and Feb. 24 before not returning to the legislative agenda, at Conrad’s request.Conrad has pledged to find a path forward for her bill with some bipartisan support, such as through a different bill or by working with the State Board of Education, the Nebraska Department of Education or specific school districts.The bill faced stiff opposition from some senators who feared the bill could require schools to disclose sensitive information or impose unfunded burdens to compile the necessary information.<h2>Civil rights and transparency</h2>Conrad, a past executive director of the ACLU of Nebraska, described the bill as a “simple transparency measure” that wouldn’t ban the technology she said was coming from “big tech.”Instead, she argued that the bill could lead to cost savings over time, possibly leading to increased teacher salaries. Conrad repeatedly marked her bill as a “true right-left coalition” that she, a pragmatic progressive, had built with students, parents and taxpayers.&nbsp;Some conservatives, in written comments for the bill, noted they’ve rarely been on the same side as the Lincoln Democrat but identified the bill as a top priority. Supportive testifiers at the hearing for the bill included Sue Greenwald of Kearney, a prominent conservative advocate for parents’ rights bills.“If they don’t have information to know what tools of surveillance or data collection or survey are being utilized by their schools, they cannot insert and understand and be empowered to utilize that control,” Conrad said of families during debate.State Sen. Dave Murman of Glenvil, chair of the Education Committee, which advanced LB 31 with no opposition, said he has put an extra emphasis on parental rights in his three years as chair. He said Conrad’s bill advanced those efforts.“Parents should, and deserve, to be put in the driver’s seat of their child’s education,” Murman said. “Senator Conrad has brought a way to give parents some more information and transparency without putting too much of an additional burden on the work that our great schools have to do.”State Board of Education members Lisa Schonhoff of Bennington and Kirk Penner of Aurora have also voiced favor for LB 31. Schonhoff&nbsp;<a href="https://x.com/LSchonhoff4NE/status/1894403887446077816" target="_blank">thanked Conrad</a>&nbsp;for “being on the side of parents.”“This is a nonpartisan, common sense bill,” she wrote in a Feb. 25 post on X, formerly Twitter.<h2>‘A wolf in sheep’s clothing’</h2>Many senators who ultimately opposed the legislation said they agreed with Conrad’s goal that schools should not be collecting data on students and selling it.However, State Sen. Brad von Gillern of the Elkhorn area noted the bill received opposition from major organizations, such as the Nebraska Council of School Administrators, Schools Taking Action for Nebraska Children’s Education, Greater Nebraska Schools Association, Nebraska Rural Community Schools Association and the Nebraska State Education Association.“I believe it’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing,” von Gillern said. “It’s a Trojan horse to carry things forward that we do not want to advance in our school systems.”LB 31 would require the State Board of Education to draft a model policy around the targeted technology, requiring school districts to disclose certain information about the tools.State Sen. Bob Hallstrom of Syracuse offered an amendment to make the surveillance tool inventory voluntary and not require it to be posted online.&nbsp;He similarly pushed back on a finding in the bill stipulating that schools were using the “tools of mass surveillance … under the guise of advancing security or efficiency goals.”“I think it’s offensive to suggest that the schools would be doing that under some type of guise,” Hallstrom said. “They truly do have the best interest in the safety of the students at heart.”<h2>School safety and security</h2>Von Gillern repeatedly asked whether the bill could require public disclosure of sensitive security details that someone plotting a “nefarious act” could use. He said gathering data for the protection of students and staff is a “worthwhile venture” but that Conrad’s bill, portrayed as advancing that goal, could do “exactly the opposite.”State Sen. Jana Hughes of Seward said digital cameras, for example, can help when students offer differing stories after incidents. But she voiced similar concerns as von Gillern that disclosing specific technology vendor names and contact information could be dangerous.Conrad said the plain language of her bill would not require any publication of sensitive information but that she could clarify that intention if needed. Von Gillern said senators also need to consider what isn’t in the bill but that many districts had voiced concerns about.“If we do anything to deteriorate the security of our children in schools then shame on us,” von Gillern said.State Sen. Megan Hunt of Omaha said that suggesting Conrad’s bill could reduce school safety was a “ridiculous and absurd extrapolation to arrive at.”Hunt said if that was the true concern, she said von Gillern and others should maybe “lift a finger” on gun safe storage or other safety regulations, or increase mental health support.“All this does is put on the books that this is our expectation in Nebraska,” Hunt said. “That our kids are not the product, that we’re not selling our kids’ information, and that we have transparency around the process.”<h2>Lawmakers reject ‘stylistic changes’</h2>State Sen. Machaela Cavanaugh of Omaha said it shouldn’t be “too cumbersome” to tell parents whether their children’s data is being sold.State Sen. Kathleen Kauth of the Millard area said she agreed with the aim of the bill and supported it, but she also wanted some guardrails in place, such as possibly exempting physical security information.Lawmakers signaled they might be moving away from Conrad’s goals after voting 27-16 against “stylistic changes” in an amendment she offered, largely focused on small tweaks in the bill that opponents had pointed out. Kauth and Hughes were the only Republicans to support those changes.Lawmakers had not yet gotten to a vote on Hallstrom’s amendment or LB 31 overall.Hughes said many school districts have technology vendors sign a student data privacy agreement explicitly saying what will happen with the data. She suggested making such agreements a requirement, to help in the case of data hacks or breaches.<h2>Conrad vows to continue fight</h2>State Sen. Terrell McKinney of Omaha agreed with Conrad about the ease of implementing the bill. He said, “It’s always too much work when you should just do the right thing.”“This should be simple, unless there’s like a million surveillance tools they’re using, and student surveys they’re using, or they, like, got some double oh seven, I Spy, MI6 type of stuff going on,” he said.State Sen. Bob Andersen, whose Sarpy County district includes Gretna Public Schools, read a letter from his superintendent questioning a lack of definitions in the bill, such as “tracking system” or what tools are of “legitimate use,” could lead to subjectivity in implementing the bill.Conrad repeatedly pushed back on her colleagues and told them to not use “straw man” or “red herring” arguments and not to get “toiled up in personal battles or misinformation.”She told her colleagues that, if needed, she would step out of the way.“Friends, if the problem is perhaps me or you don’t like my politics, or you’re upset about my work on other bills, I understand that, and I will work if need be to find a substitute sponsor for this legislation because I don’t care to get the credit,” Conrad said. “I care that this important issue moves forward.”<h2>School ‘tools of mass surveillance’ disclosures proposed under Legislative Bill 31 (2025)</h2><ul>
 <li>The name and contact information for each private company, vendor or governmental entity providing such technology.</li><li>The cost to purchase or maintain each surveillance, monitoring or tracking tool.</li><li>A description of each tool, including privacy protection measures and data collection or sharing and usage activities.</li><li>Whether a parent can opt their child out of being subjected to the tool.</li><li>If and how the collected data will be shared with law enforcement or implicate punitive actions under the state’s Student Discipline Act.</li><li>How such tools ensure proper accommodation for students with disabilities or individualized education programs.</li><li>How biometric or personally identifiable information is stored, shared or sold with the entity providing such tools.</li><li>Clearly delineate what remedies are available to students and parents for possible privacy violations related to the tools, including the state’s Consumer Protection Act and the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act (to possibly sue schools).</li>
 </ul>

Bill to catalog Nebraska school ‘tools of mass surveillance’ hits roadblock

When the Girls State Basketball Tournament tipped off in Lincoln, it was the official start of March Madness in Nebraska. It’s one of the best, buzzer-beating times of the year.

For all the champions that will be crowned this month, we know that those winners spent years practicing and competing for an opportunity to earn a trophy. We also know that many more

ended their season in defeat. But through it all (and this is why youth sports are awesome) our kids are learning life-long lessons.

Occasionally sports offer a chance to chase college scholarships. More often, they’re just a way to have some fun with friends or get healthy. But, almost always, sports create unity in our

The truth is: sports matter – a ton – to us Nebraskans.

No, sports don’t feed the world or solve society’s problems – but they help create people who will.

Physically, participating in sports helps girls and boys build strength, endurance, and coordination while promoting overall health – reducing the risk of obesity, diabetes, and other health issues later in life. Mentally, sports boost self-esteem and confidence. When kids master new skills, drain a shot, or contribute to a team, they feel a sense of accomplishment that

carries over into other areas of life. It also teaches flexibility – learning to handle a loss or setback builds grit and valuable perspective.

Data show that youth sports are a gold mine for those that participate. Student athletes are more likely to excel academically and graduate at a higher rate than non-athletes. They learn teamwork, communication, and leadership skills that are hard to replicate in just about any classroom. They become more disciplined by juggling practices and schoolwork. They form friendships and find role models, like coaches, who can inspire.

Youth sports have especially benefited girls, who before the enactment of Title IX in the 1970s, had many fewer sports opportunities than boys. Now, those benefits are threatened by the rise of a movement to allow biological boys to participate in girls’ sports.

Just like most Nebraskans, I want to keep politics as far from the field as possible, but this conversation – taken over by a vocal minority – needs a dose of common sense and

straightforward policy. The reality is that this issue is NOT political – it’s simply about protecting our girls and standing up for our values.&nbsp;

Anyone watching our state basketball tournaments can see that letting boys compete against girls is a bad idea – both unfair and unsafe. The majority of people agree on this issue too. In a Gallup survey of adults conducted in May 2023, nearly 70 percent of respondents said that athletes should only compete on sports teams that correspond with their birth sex.

This is one reason why I testified in favor of the Stand With Women Act (LB89), introduced by Senator Kathleen Kauth at my request. It is also why I established the Nebraska Women’s Bill of Rights by executive order and proudly stood in the White House with President Trump when he signed his own, similar order into federal law.&nbsp;

The four focus areas of my administration are: Kids, Taxes, Agriculture, and Values. This legislation hits on two of those priorities – our Nebraska values and standing up for our kids.

It is necessary to inject normalcy into this area and protect sports for Nebraska girls and young women. We know the positive impact sports can have on an athlete’s life. We need to make sure every Nebraska girl has privacy in her locker room and has a safe and fair playing field. There is no better place to learn from the sting of a hard-fought loss or – even better – the thrill of a well-earned victory.

Govenor Jim PillenWhen the Girls State Basketball Tournament tipped off in Lincoln, it was the official start of March Madness in Nebraska. It’s one of the best, buzzer-beating times of the year.For all the champions that will be crowned this month, we know that those winners spent years practicing and competing for an opportunity to earn a trophy. We also know that many moreended their season in defeat. But through it all (and this is why youth sports are awesome) our kids are learning life-long lessons.Occasionally sports offer a chance to chase college scholarships. More often, they’re just a way to have some fun with friends or get healthy. But, almost always, sports create unity in ourschools and communities.The truth is: sports matter – a ton – to us Nebraskans.No, sports don’t feed the world or solve society’s problems – but they help create people who will.Physically, participating in sports helps girls and boys build strength, endurance, and coordination while promoting overall health – reducing the risk of obesity, diabetes, and other health issues later in life. Mentally, sports boost self-esteem and confidence. When kids master new skills, drain a shot, or contribute to a team, they feel a sense of accomplishment thatcarries over into other areas of life. It also teaches flexibility – learning to handle a loss or setback builds grit and valuable perspective.Data show that youth sports are a gold mine for those that participate. Student athletes are more likely to excel academically and graduate at a higher rate than non-athletes. They learn teamwork, communication, and leadership skills that are hard to replicate in just about any classroom. They become more disciplined by juggling practices and schoolwork. They form friendships and find role models, like coaches, who can inspire.Sports are Life 101.Youth sports have especially benefited girls, who before the enactment of Title IX in the 1970s, had many fewer sports opportunities than boys. Now, those benefits are threatened by the rise of a movement to allow biological boys to participate in girls’ sports.Just like most Nebraskans, I want to keep politics as far from the field as possible, but this conversation – taken over by a vocal minority – needs a dose of common sense andstraightforward policy. The reality is that this issue is NOT political – it’s simply about protecting our girls and standing up for our values.&nbsp;Anyone watching our state basketball tournaments can see that letting boys compete against girls is a bad idea – both unfair and unsafe. The majority of people agree on this issue too. In a Gallup survey of adults conducted in May 2023, nearly 70 percent of respondents said that athletes should only compete on sports teams that correspond with their birth sex.This is one reason why I testified in favor of the Stand With Women Act (LB89), introduced by Senator Kathleen Kauth at my request. It is also why I established the Nebraska Women’s Bill of Rights by executive order and proudly stood in the White House with President Trump when he signed his own, similar order into federal law.&nbsp;The four focus areas of my administration are: Kids, Taxes, Agriculture, and Values. This legislation hits on two of those priorities – our Nebraska values and standing up for our kids.It is necessary to inject normalcy into this area and protect sports for Nebraska girls and young women. We know the positive impact sports can have on an athlete’s life. We need to make sure every Nebraska girl has privacy in her locker room and has a safe and fair playing field. There is no better place to learn from the sting of a hard-fought loss or – even better – the thrill of a well-earned victory.

 Legislative Update: The Values Sports Teach Our Kids

DAMASCUS —U.S. forces continue to battle terrorist cells in Syria.

On Friday,&nbsp;Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), enabled by U.S. forces, conducted a raid and captured Salah Mohammad Al-Abdullah, an ISIS cell leader in the vicinity of Shahil, Syria, according to a statement from the U.S. Central Command.



During the operation, the Syrian Democratic Forces recovered multiple weapons to include a 12.7mm (.50 cal) Sniper rifle, an AK-47, hand grenades, and various weapons and ammunition.



The SDF-led operation is part of the ongoing Defeat-ISIS campaign to degrade ISIS networks and prevent the resurgence of the terrorist group in the region. CENTCOM forces enabled SDF during the operation by providing technical support and intelligence.

DAMASCUS —U.S. forces continue to battle terrorist cells in Syria.On Friday,&nbsp;Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), enabled by U.S. forces, conducted a raid and captured Salah Mohammad Al-Abdullah, an ISIS cell leader in the vicinity of Shahil, Syria, according to a statement from the U.S. Central Command.

During the operation, the Syrian Democratic Forces recovered multiple weapons to include a 12.7mm (.50 cal) Sniper rifle, an AK-47, hand grenades, and various weapons and ammunition.

The SDF-led operation is part of the ongoing Defeat-ISIS campaign to degrade ISIS networks and prevent the resurgence of the terrorist group in the region. CENTCOM forces enabled SDF during the operation by providing technical support and intelligence.

U.S. forces help capture ISIS cell leader in Syria

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/jennifer-shutt/">JENNIFER SHUTT</a>

WASHINGTON — A report released Thursday by Democrats details how many people in each state would lose access to Medicaid if Republicans in Congress were to cut the program by one-third — a scenario some GOP lawmakers have floated as an option to help pay for tax cuts, though one so sweeping it would struggle to get the votes needed to become law.

The Joint Economic Committee – Minority report, shared first with States Newsroom, projects that 25 million people throughout the country would lose access to Medicaid if Republicans were to enact a law cutting funding to the health care program for lower income Americans by one-third.

Among them, 3 million would be rural residents and 10 million would be children. Additionally, 1 in 5 seniors could lose Medicaid coverage of their nursing home care, according to the report.

The&nbsp;<a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25553748-jec-medicaid-cuts/" target="_blank">state-by-state breakdown in the JEC report</a>&nbsp;shows that California, Florida, Illinois, New York and Texas would have the highest numbers of residents harmed by the potential cuts. Each of those states could have more than 1 million residents potentially kicked off the program.

The Joint Economic Committee includes members of both chambers of Congress and both political parties. It’s designed “to review economic conditions and to recommend improvements in economic policy,” according to its website.

New Hampshire Democratic Sen. Maggie Hassan, ranking member on the Joint Economic Committee, said in a statement that House Republicans’ plans “could take health care away from up to 25 million Americans.”

“This new Joint Economic Committee analysis sheds light on the number of people who could lose health care coverage because of President Trump and Congressional Republicans — and the devastating impacts that their budget could have specifically on the ability of children, seniors, and people living in rural areas across the country to access health care,” Hassan said.

Republicans in Congress are trying to figure out how to pass several of their core policy goals, including extending the 2017 tax law, through&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/youre-hearing-lot-about-budget-reconciliation-congress-what-does-mean" target="_blank">the budget reconciliation process.</a>

The House&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-house-republicans-overcome-own-members-doubts-push-through-sweeping-budget" target="_blank">approved a budget resolution</a>&nbsp;in late February that would clear the way for lawmakers to increase the deficit by as much as $4.5 trillion to accomplish their tax goals. But that budget resolution also proposes several committees find savings, including the Energy and Commerce Committee.

That panel, tasked with finding at least $880 billion in spending cuts, oversees several federal programs, including Medicare and Medicaid.

Republicans and President Donald Trump have been clear they will not be touching the Medicare program, which provides health insurance for retired Americans and some people with disabilities.

But GOP lawmakers are debating how exactly to find savings in the Medicaid program, though they could face intense blowback given&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/gop-tax-cut-plans-may-depend-savings-medicaid-what-it-and-who-relies-it" target="_blank">how many of their own voters rely on the program</a>&nbsp;for health care. Medicaid is a joint federal-state program that helps cover medical costs for some people with limited incomes.

Republicans in Congress cannot actually advance a reconciliation bill until after the House and Senate agree to adopt the same budget resolution, which has yet to happen.

The Senate&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-senate-adopts-plan-b-budget-gop-seeks-billions-border-security" target="_blank">voted in mid-February to approve its own budget resolution&nbsp;</a>that proposes a two-bill strategy for enacting Republican campaign promises.

Under the Senate budget resolution, which House leaders have vowed not to take up, Congress would first pass a bill to boost defense and border security spending by hundreds of billions of dollars as well as remaking the country’s energy policy.

The Senate strategy would then have Congress adopt a second budget resolution later this year, setting up a pathway for Republicans to extend the 2017 tax law.

The Senate is expected to take up the House’s budget resolution at some point and make changes to the document, though when exactly they’ll do that is an open-ended question. The budget resolution would then have to go back to the House for final approval.

The Joint Economic Committee – Minority report made public Thursday came out just one day after the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2025-03/61235-Boyle-Pallone.pdf" target="_blank">released a letter&nbsp;</a>detailing how much federal funding the House Energy and Commerce Committee oversees.

CBO Director Phillip L. Swagel wrote that the letter was in response to a request from House Budget Committee ranking member Brendan F. Boyle, D-Pa., and Energy and Commerce Committee ranking member Frank Pallone, D-N.J.

The Energy and Commerce Committee, Swagel wrote, oversees $8.8 trillion in spending over the 10-year budget window when Medicare spending is excluded, which is what Boyle and Pallone requested.

Of that total, $8.2 trillion, or 93%, goes toward Medicaid, Swagel wrote.

The Energy and Commerce Committee, which House Republicans expect to find at least $880 billion in spending cuts, oversees just $381 billion over the 10‑year budget window that doesn’t go toward Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, or CHIP.&nbsp;

Those CBO numbers would indicate that if Republicans stick to the goals in the House budget resolution, which very well could change in the Senate, they would likely have to cut hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicaid.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/3/1741311899018.png" alt="Medicaid sign at U.S. Senate Democrats’ press conference on Feb. 19 (Shauneen Miranda/States Newsroom)." />
 <figcaption>Medicaid sign at U.S. Senate Democrats’ press conference on Feb. 19 (Shauneen Miranda/States Newsroom).</figcaption>
 </figure>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/jennifer-shutt/">JENNIFER SHUTT</a>WASHINGTON — A report released Thursday by Democrats details how many people in each state would lose access to Medicaid if Republicans in Congress were to cut the program by one-third — a scenario some GOP lawmakers have floated as an option to help pay for tax cuts, though one so sweeping it would struggle to get the votes needed to become law.The Joint Economic Committee – Minority report, shared first with States Newsroom, projects that 25 million people throughout the country would lose access to Medicaid if Republicans were to enact a law cutting funding to the health care program for lower income Americans by one-third.Among them, 3 million would be rural residents and 10 million would be children. Additionally, 1 in 5 seniors could lose Medicaid coverage of their nursing home care, according to the report.The&nbsp;<a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25553748-jec-medicaid-cuts/" target="_blank">state-by-state breakdown in the JEC report</a>&nbsp;shows that California, Florida, Illinois, New York and Texas would have the highest numbers of residents harmed by the potential cuts. Each of those states could have more than 1 million residents potentially kicked off the program.The Joint Economic Committee includes members of both chambers of Congress and both political parties. It’s designed “to review economic conditions and to recommend improvements in economic policy,” according to its website.New Hampshire Democratic Sen. Maggie Hassan, ranking member on the Joint Economic Committee, said in a statement that House Republicans’ plans “could take health care away from up to 25 million Americans.”“This new Joint Economic Committee analysis sheds light on the number of people who could lose health care coverage because of President Trump and Congressional Republicans — and the devastating impacts that their budget could have specifically on the ability of children, seniors, and people living in rural areas across the country to access health care,” Hassan said.<h2>$880 billion in spending cuts</h2>Republicans in Congress are trying to figure out how to pass several of their core policy goals, including extending the 2017 tax law, through&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/youre-hearing-lot-about-budget-reconciliation-congress-what-does-mean" target="_blank">the budget reconciliation process.</a>The House&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-house-republicans-overcome-own-members-doubts-push-through-sweeping-budget" target="_blank">approved a budget resolution</a>&nbsp;in late February that would clear the way for lawmakers to increase the deficit by as much as $4.5 trillion to accomplish their tax goals. But that budget resolution also proposes several committees find savings, including the Energy and Commerce Committee.That panel, tasked with finding at least $880 billion in spending cuts, oversees several federal programs, including Medicare and Medicaid.Republicans and President Donald Trump have been clear they will not be touching the Medicare program, which provides health insurance for retired Americans and some people with disabilities.But GOP lawmakers are debating how exactly to find savings in the Medicaid program, though they could face intense blowback given&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/gop-tax-cut-plans-may-depend-savings-medicaid-what-it-and-who-relies-it" target="_blank">how many of their own voters rely on the program</a>&nbsp;for health care. Medicaid is a joint federal-state program that helps cover medical costs for some people with limited incomes.Republicans in Congress cannot actually advance a reconciliation bill until after the House and Senate agree to adopt the same budget resolution, which has yet to happen.<h2>Senate two-bill plan</h2>The Senate&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-senate-adopts-plan-b-budget-gop-seeks-billions-border-security" target="_blank">voted in mid-February to approve its own budget resolution&nbsp;</a>that proposes a two-bill strategy for enacting Republican campaign promises.Under the Senate budget resolution, which House leaders have vowed not to take up, Congress would first pass a bill to boost defense and border security spending by hundreds of billions of dollars as well as remaking the country’s energy policy.The Senate strategy would then have Congress adopt a second budget resolution later this year, setting up a pathway for Republicans to extend the 2017 tax law.The Senate is expected to take up the House’s budget resolution at some point and make changes to the document, though when exactly they’ll do that is an open-ended question. The budget resolution would then have to go back to the House for final approval.<h2>CBO report</h2>The Joint Economic Committee – Minority report made public Thursday came out just one day after the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2025-03/61235-Boyle-Pallone.pdf" target="_blank">released a letter&nbsp;</a>detailing how much federal funding the House Energy and Commerce Committee oversees.CBO Director Phillip L. Swagel wrote that the letter was in response to a request from House Budget Committee ranking member Brendan F. Boyle, D-Pa., and Energy and Commerce Committee ranking member Frank Pallone, D-N.J.The Energy and Commerce Committee, Swagel wrote, oversees $8.8 trillion in spending over the 10-year budget window when Medicare spending is excluded, which is what Boyle and Pallone requested.Of that total, $8.2 trillion, or 93%, goes toward Medicaid, Swagel wrote.The Energy and Commerce Committee, which House Republicans expect to find at least $880 billion in spending cuts, oversees just $381 billion over the 10‑year budget window that doesn’t go toward Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, or CHIP.&nbsp;Those CBO numbers would indicate that if Republicans stick to the goals in the House budget resolution, which very well could change in the Senate, they would likely have to cut hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicaid.

State-by-state report by Dems projects millions could lose Medicaid coverage

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://stateline.org/author/thenderson/">TIM HENDERSON</a> <a href="https://stateline.org/">Stateline</a>

As the Trump administration seeks more partners to help round up immigrants living in the United States illegally, some states and cities are eager to step up, despite risks of racial profiling.

Florida, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Texas, Virginia and even Arizona’s Democratic governor are pursuing statewide plans to help find immigrants for possible deportation.

And the number of state and local agencies planning “task force” agreements with the feds to do street-level immigration enforcement has reached 121 departments in 12 states: Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma and Texas.

The sudden ramping up of the local task force agreements — which led to racial profiling lawsuits 20 years ago when they were common in Republican and Democratic states — is a sign that the Trump administration wants more deportations, said Tom Wong, an associate professor and director of the U.S. Immigration Policy Center at the University of California, San Diego.

“These agreements are intended to be the force multiplier they need in order to enact mass deportations. The Trump administration is using all the tools at its disposal to try to ramp up the identification and detention of undocumented immigrants,” Wong said.

President Donald Trump wants to move quickly: He recently&nbsp;<a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/trump-administration-reassigning-acting-ice-director-rcna193225" target="_blank">reassigned</a>&nbsp;Caleb Vitello, the acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, to a different post because immigration arrests and deportations weren’t as robust as Trump wanted. The United States would&nbsp;<a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/trump-angry-deportation-numbers-are-not-higher-rcna191273" target="_blank">need</a>&nbsp;to deport more than 2,700 people a day to meet his goal of 1 million a year.

Doris Meissner, who held top positions in the former Immigration and Naturalization Service in the Reagan and Clinton administrations, said the task force agreements had “basically disappeared in recent years” because of their reputation for leading to “racial profiling and over-policing in immigrant communities.” The agreements were discontinued in 2012 during the Obama administration.

“That has changed dramatically and quickly with the new Trump administration,” Meissner said in an interview. “[The agreements] are now on a list of ramping-up actions we’re seeing in pursuit of mass deportations.”

The administration is increasingly pressuring state and local authorities to help with immigration arrests traditionally reserved for federal agents, according to a February&nbsp;<a href="https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/trump-mass-deportation-priority?eType=EmailBlastContent&amp;eId=2043f21f-2eea-411a-a070-66d7ac706b02" target="_blank">report</a>&nbsp;by the Migration Policy Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank where Meissner is now director of the U.S. immigration policy program.

Along with state and local law enforcement agencies, the Trump administration has enlisted federal agencies that have never before played a role in immigration enforcement: the Internal Revenue Service, the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the Migration Policy Institute report found.

One result of local involvement, according to a&nbsp;<a href="https://usipc.ucsd.edu/publications/usipc-working-paper-1.pdf" target="_blank">report</a>&nbsp;Wong authored in 2019, is that once residents know that local police could question and arrest them on immigration charges, they are less likely to report crimes when they are victims or witnesses.

The new task force agreements allow local law enforcement, after training, to investigate immigration violations during day-to-day patrol duties. Sheriff Larry Kendrick in Owyhee County, Idaho, said he opted for it because voters in the county want it.

“My constituents support President Trump,” Kendrick said. “And of course me. I support the president’s mission 100%. I will do anything in my power to assist him.”

Kendrick said he doesn’t expect non-criminal immigrants, such as those staffing local dairy farms, to get any trouble from his deputies.

“We haven’t had any crime, really, out of that,” Kendrick said. “The main thing that bothers me is fentanyl.”

Wong said it’s typical for counties such as Owyhee County, which&nbsp;<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owyhee_County,_Idaho" target="_blank">voted</a>&nbsp;almost 83% for Trump last year, to be eager to join forces on immigration. But non-criminal immigrants are still likely to pay a price, he said.

“It is naïve for local officials to think they will only focus on things like fentanyl, when most of the immigration enforcement functions are going to identify undocumented immigrants, likely with no criminal history,” Wong said.

Most officials do stress the importance of removing criminals when calling for more task force agreements.

In announcing the revived task force program, border czar Tom Homan said he planned to “prioritize” criminals but also expected to deport people living here illegally even if they had no criminal record.

“We promised a mass deportation and that’s exactly what we’re going to do,” Homan told sheriffs at a February conference.

New Hampshire Gov. Kelly Ayotte, a Republican, said in a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.governor.nh.gov/news/governor-ayotte-statement-new-hampshire-law-enforcement-cooperating-ice" target="_blank">statement</a>&nbsp;she supports state and local law enforcement agencies applying for the new task force cooperation agreements. “Criminals who are in our country illegally and pose a danger should be apprehended and removed,” she wrote.

Some areas that made use of the agreements decades ago are not interested in trying it again. In&nbsp;<a href="https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/publications/287g-divergence.pdf" target="_blank">2010</a>&nbsp;there were 40 such agreements in 19 states, including nine in Virginia and seven in Arizona.

To date there are no agreements in Virginia or Arizona, though Arizona’s Democratic governor, Katie Hobbs, signed an&nbsp;<a href="https://azgovernor.gov/office-arizona-governor/news/2025/02/governor-katie-hobbs-signs-executive-order-secure-border" target="_blank">executive order</a>&nbsp;Feb. 25 calling for an unspecified partnership with federal authorities in the state’s four border counties. The goal is stopping more fentanyl and human trafficking and not to “indiscriminately round people up,” according to Hobbs’ statement.

Arizona sheriffs have not heard anything specific about the governor’s plan, said David Rhodes, the Republican sheriff of Yavapai County and president of the Arizona Sheriffs’ Association. Yavapai County voted&nbsp;<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yavapai_County,_Arizona" target="_blank">heavily for Trump</a>. And much of the nation’s fentanyl supply is smuggled over Arizona’s highways, Rhodes said, so he’s happy to cooperate with federal authorities on immigration.

But he’s not sure he wants the task force model if it means he and his deputies will have to single people out based on appearance to ask about immigration status.

“I don’t know how you could even tell from looking at somebody that they’re here illegally or not. So we don’t do that. That’s very risky, very close to racial profiling there,” Rhodes said.

ICE guidelines issued in February say “racial profiling is simply not something that will be tolerated” under the new task force agreements.

In Virginia, which had the most task force agreements of any state in 2010, no sheriff has yet shown interest, said John Jones, executive director of the Virginia Sheriffs’ Association. However Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin signed an executive order Feb. 27 requiring state police to sign a task force agreement and local jails to cooperate with the state task force.

In North Carolina, a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ncleg.gov/BillLookUp/2025/S153" target="_blank">bill</a>&nbsp;progressing in the state Senate would mandate state agencies cooperate with federal immigration authorities, but does not include specifics.

In Hudson County, New Jersey, one of the few urban, immigrant-friendly Democratic areas that had a task force agreement in 2010, leaders have no interest in trying it again, said county spokesperson Mark Cygan. Since 2018, the state has had an&nbsp;<a href="https://www.njoag.gov/trust/" target="_blank">“immigrant trust directive”</a>&nbsp;directing local authorities not to cooperate with federal immigration authorities or ask about immigration status during routine police work.

“With the sort of abuses there have been, and listening to our constituents and advocates that work on immigrant right here in Hudson County, we realized this policy just wasn’t going to work out for our county anymore. So we dropped out of the agreement,” Cygan said.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/2/1740147958319.png" alt="U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrest a man from Venezuela in Miami in February after a wire fraud conviction. As the Trump administration attacks local sanctuary policies, some states and local governments continue to do what little they can to protect some immigrants from deportation. (Courtesy of Miami ICE Enforcement &amp; Removal Operations office)" />
 <figcaption>U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrest a man from Venezuela in Miami in February after a wire fraud conviction. As the Trump administration attacks local sanctuary policies, some states and local governments continue to do what little they can to protect some immigrants from deportation. (Courtesy of Miami ICE Enforcement &amp; Removal Operations office)</figcaption>
 </figure>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://stateline.org/author/thenderson/">TIM HENDERSON</a> <a href="https://stateline.org/">Stateline</a>As the Trump administration seeks more partners to help round up immigrants living in the United States illegally, some states and cities are eager to step up, despite risks of racial profiling.Florida, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Texas, Virginia and even Arizona’s Democratic governor are pursuing statewide plans to help find immigrants for possible deportation.And the number of state and local agencies planning “task force” agreements with the feds to do street-level immigration enforcement has reached 121 departments in 12 states: Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma and Texas.The sudden ramping up of the local task force agreements — which led to racial profiling lawsuits 20 years ago when they were common in Republican and Democratic states — is a sign that the Trump administration wants more deportations, said Tom Wong, an associate professor and director of the U.S. Immigration Policy Center at the University of California, San Diego.“These agreements are intended to be the force multiplier they need in order to enact mass deportations. The Trump administration is using all the tools at its disposal to try to ramp up the identification and detention of undocumented immigrants,” Wong said.President Donald Trump wants to move quickly: He recently&nbsp;<a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/trump-administration-reassigning-acting-ice-director-rcna193225" target="_blank">reassigned</a>&nbsp;Caleb Vitello, the acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, to a different post because immigration arrests and deportations weren’t as robust as Trump wanted. The United States would&nbsp;<a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/trump-angry-deportation-numbers-are-not-higher-rcna191273" target="_blank">need</a>&nbsp;to deport more than 2,700 people a day to meet his goal of 1 million a year.Doris Meissner, who held top positions in the former Immigration and Naturalization Service in the Reagan and Clinton administrations, said the task force agreements had “basically disappeared in recent years” because of their reputation for leading to “racial profiling and over-policing in immigrant communities.” The agreements were discontinued in 2012 during the Obama administration.“That has changed dramatically and quickly with the new Trump administration,” Meissner said in an interview. “[The agreements] are now on a list of ramping-up actions we’re seeing in pursuit of mass deportations.”The administration is increasingly pressuring state and local authorities to help with immigration arrests traditionally reserved for federal agents, according to a February&nbsp;<a href="https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/trump-mass-deportation-priority?eType=EmailBlastContent&amp;eId=2043f21f-2eea-411a-a070-66d7ac706b02" target="_blank">report</a>&nbsp;by the Migration Policy Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank where Meissner is now director of the U.S. immigration policy program.<h2>Focus on crime</h2>Along with state and local law enforcement agencies, the Trump administration has enlisted federal agencies that have never before played a role in immigration enforcement: the Internal Revenue Service, the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the Migration Policy Institute report found.One result of local involvement, according to a&nbsp;<a href="https://usipc.ucsd.edu/publications/usipc-working-paper-1.pdf" target="_blank">report</a>&nbsp;Wong authored in 2019, is that once residents know that local police could question and arrest them on immigration charges, they are less likely to report crimes when they are victims or witnesses.The new task force agreements allow local law enforcement, after training, to investigate immigration violations during day-to-day patrol duties. Sheriff Larry Kendrick in Owyhee County, Idaho, said he opted for it because voters in the county want it.“My constituents support President Trump,” Kendrick said. “And of course me. I support the president’s mission 100%. I will do anything in my power to assist him.”Kendrick said he doesn’t expect non-criminal immigrants, such as those staffing local dairy farms, to get any trouble from his deputies.“We haven’t had any crime, really, out of that,” Kendrick said. “The main thing that bothers me is fentanyl.”Wong said it’s typical for counties such as Owyhee County, which&nbsp;<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owyhee_County,_Idaho" target="_blank">voted</a>&nbsp;almost 83% for Trump last year, to be eager to join forces on immigration. But non-criminal immigrants are still likely to pay a price, he said.“It is naïve for local officials to think they will only focus on things like fentanyl, when most of the immigration enforcement functions are going to identify undocumented immigrants, likely with no criminal history,” Wong said.Most officials do stress the importance of removing criminals when calling for more task force agreements.In announcing the revived task force program, border czar Tom Homan said he planned to “prioritize” criminals but also expected to deport people living here illegally even if they had no criminal record.“We promised a mass deportation and that’s exactly what we’re going to do,” Homan told sheriffs at a February conference.New Hampshire Gov. Kelly Ayotte, a Republican, said in a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.governor.nh.gov/news/governor-ayotte-statement-new-hampshire-law-enforcement-cooperating-ice" target="_blank">statement</a>&nbsp;she supports state and local law enforcement agencies applying for the new task force cooperation agreements. “Criminals who are in our country illegally and pose a danger should be apprehended and removed,” she wrote.<h2>No renewed interest</h2>Some areas that made use of the agreements decades ago are not interested in trying it again. In&nbsp;<a href="https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/publications/287g-divergence.pdf" target="_blank">2010</a>&nbsp;there were 40 such agreements in 19 states, including nine in Virginia and seven in Arizona.To date there are no agreements in Virginia or Arizona, though Arizona’s Democratic governor, Katie Hobbs, signed an&nbsp;<a href="https://azgovernor.gov/office-arizona-governor/news/2025/02/governor-katie-hobbs-signs-executive-order-secure-border" target="_blank">executive order</a>&nbsp;Feb. 25 calling for an unspecified partnership with federal authorities in the state’s four border counties. The goal is stopping more fentanyl and human trafficking and not to “indiscriminately round people up,” according to Hobbs’ statement.Arizona sheriffs have not heard anything specific about the governor’s plan, said David Rhodes, the Republican sheriff of Yavapai County and president of the Arizona Sheriffs’ Association. Yavapai County voted&nbsp;<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yavapai_County,_Arizona" target="_blank">heavily for Trump</a>. And much of the nation’s fentanyl supply is smuggled over Arizona’s highways, Rhodes said, so he’s happy to cooperate with federal authorities on immigration.But he’s not sure he wants the task force model if it means he and his deputies will have to single people out based on appearance to ask about immigration status.“I don’t know how you could even tell from looking at somebody that they’re here illegally or not. So we don’t do that. That’s very risky, very close to racial profiling there,” Rhodes said.ICE guidelines issued in February say “racial profiling is simply not something that will be tolerated” under the new task force agreements.In Virginia, which had the most task force agreements of any state in 2010, no sheriff has yet shown interest, said John Jones, executive director of the Virginia Sheriffs’ Association. However Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin signed an executive order Feb. 27 requiring state police to sign a task force agreement and local jails to cooperate with the state task force.In North Carolina, a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ncleg.gov/BillLookUp/2025/S153" target="_blank">bill</a>&nbsp;progressing in the state Senate would mandate state agencies cooperate with federal immigration authorities, but does not include specifics.In Hudson County, New Jersey, one of the few urban, immigrant-friendly Democratic areas that had a task force agreement in 2010, leaders have no interest in trying it again, said county spokesperson Mark Cygan. Since 2018, the state has had an&nbsp;<a href="https://www.njoag.gov/trust/" target="_blank">“immigrant trust directive”</a>&nbsp;directing local authorities not to cooperate with federal immigration authorities or ask about immigration status during routine police work.“With the sort of abuses there have been, and listening to our constituents and advocates that work on immigrant right here in Hudson County, we realized this policy just wasn’t going to work out for our county anymore. So we dropped out of the agreement,” Cygan said.

Despite profiling concerns, more law agencies are joining street-level immigration enforcement

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/jennifer-shutt/">JENNIFER SHUTT</a>&nbsp;

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the Food and Drug Administration refused to commit to keeping access to medication abortion as it is now, or changing prescribing guidelines, in response to questions from both Democrats and Republicans during his confirmation hearing Thursday.&nbsp;

Martin Makary testified that if confirmed as FDA commissioner, which appeared likely, he will review data on mifepristone and follow the research where it leads him.

“I have no preconceived plans on mifepristone policy except to take a solid, hard look at the data and to meet with the professional career scientists who have reviewed the data at the FDA,” Makary said.

Medication abortion is a two-drug regimen consisting of mifepristone and misoprostol that accounts for about 63% of all pregnancy terminations within the United States, according to&nbsp;<a href="https://www.guttmacher.org/2024/03/medication-abortion-accounted-63-all-us-abortions-2023-increase-53-2020" target="_blank">research&nbsp;</a>from the Guttmacher Institute.

The FDA originally approved mifepristone in 2000 and changed its prescribing guidelines in 2016 and 2021.

It is currently approved for use up to 10 weeks gestation and can be prescribed via telehealth and shipped to patients.

Trump&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/trump-unveils-his-lineup-fda-cdc-and-surgeon-general" target="_blank">announced in November</a>&nbsp;that he would nominate Makary, a surgeon at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Maryland, to run the FDA.

Makary’s biography says he “has published over 250 peer-reviewed scientific articles and has served on several editorial boards.”

“Dr. Makary served in leadership at the World Health Organization Patient Safety Program and has been elected to the National Academy of Medicine,” according to his biography. “Clinically, Dr. Makary is the chief of Islet Transplant Surgery at Johns Hopkins. He is the recipient of the Nobility in Science Award from the National Pancreas Foundation and has been a visiting professor at over 25 medical schools.”

Republican members of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, or HELP, Committee asked Makary questions that appeared to recommend he revert prescribing guidelines to what was in place before changes were made during the last decade.

Democrats seemed to suggest he should keep use as it is now during&nbsp;<a href="https://www.c-span.org/program/senate-committee/fda-commissioner-nominee-testifies-at-confirmation-hearing/656394" target="_blank">the nearly two-hour hearing.</a>

Chairman Bill Cassidy, R-La., asked if Makary would reinstate the in-person dispensing requirement that used to exist and require doctors to report all adverse events or medical complications to the FDA.

Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley — whose wife, Erin Morrow Hawley,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-supreme-court-justices-seem-skeptical-limits-access-abortion-medication" target="_blank">argued a case over access to mifepristone before the U.S. Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;— asked Makary if he would require a return to the “pre-political protocol that requires in-person dispensing for chemical abortion drugs.”

Makary replied that he thinks “it makes sense to review the totality of data and ongoing data.”

“I know personally of OB doctors who prefer to insist, even though they have the option to prescribe otherwise, but they choose to insist that mifepristone be taken when necessary, in their office, as they observe the person taking it,” Makary said. “And I think their concern there is that if this drug is in the wrong hands, it could be used for coercion.”

New Hampshire Democratic Sen. Maggie Hassan also asked Makary about his views on mifepristone and whether he would keep the current prescribing guidelines in place.

She said Democrats’ questions about access to the pharmaceuticals that are involved in medication abortion weren’t about him taking an analytical look at the data.

“The concern is whether you are going to unilaterally overrule the data that currently exists for political purposes and for political reasons, and that’s what we’re looking for your reassurance on,” Hassan said.&nbsp;

“You have told us you are an independent scientist. I believe that. You have a very distinguished career as a physician,” Hassan added. “But we need to know that when you say you’re an independent scientist, that’s really what you mean. And then with the politics get heated around abortion, that you won’t abandon that independence.”

Makary repeated his earlier comments that he had “no preconceived plans to make changes to the mifepristone policy” and that he planned to review the data, if confirmed.

Senators from both political parties asked Makary about the Trump administration firing probationary employees at the FDA and whether he would try to reinstate some of those former federal workers.

Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins told Makary that she expects any assessments about staffing at FDA are undertaken by him and not an “outside force.”

“In February, we learned that hundreds of probationary employees at FDA were dismissed. And this really concerns me, because we need a flow of young, new scientists and researchers, especially since we’re seeing retirements and resignations,” Collins said. “And ironically, more than half of the FDA employees are funded under various industry user fee agreements. So there is revenue coming into the FDA to pay for these employees.”

Makary testified he hasn’t been involved in any of the decisions on FDA staffing made so far during the Trump administration.

“But, if confirmed, you have my commitment that I will do an assessment,” he said.

In response to a question from Maryland Democratic Sen. Angela Alsobrooks later in the hearing, Makary said he welcomed “input on efficiencies at the agency.”

“At the same time, I want to make sure that the scientists and food inspectors and staff central to the core mission of the agency have all the resources they need to do their job well,” Makary said.

The food side of FDA didn’t come up often during Makary’s confirmation hearing Thursday, though he did talk about where he thinks the federal agency should focus those efforts during an exchange with Alabama Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville.

Makary committed to have the FDA look at preservatives and other additives in food, saying the country has to “reassess what we’re doing, because we’re not on a good path right now.”

The federal government, he said, should also ensure children’s school lunches are healthier.

“One thing I would like to work on is a school lunch program for some school districts on a pilot basis to transition to healthier foods,” Makary testified. “A lot of school districts want to, but they don’t know how, and they may not have the funds. I’ve been discussing this with Jay Bhattacharya and others in the administration, and I hope that’s something we can do.”

Bhattacharya is Trump’s nominee to lead the National Institutes of Health. He had&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/nominee-head-nih-probed-us-senate-panel-vaccine-autism-research" target="_blank">his confirmation hearing&nbsp;</a>on Wednesday and is awaiting a confirmation vote.

Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski asked about the FDA’s food inspections and pressed Makary not to cut federal funding for state and local governments, which she said “conduct about 60% of food processing facility inspections, 90% of produce safety inspections, 100% of retail food inspections.”

“This impacts us in the state of Alaska, when it comes to our seafood industry and in other areas,” Murkowski said. “So I’m looking for a commitment from you that under the Trump administration, the FDA is going to maintain funding for these contracts with state and local governments. They’ve proven that it’s more cost-effective, more efficient, and it also is what Congress has asked for.”

Makary said he would be “happy” to look at it.&nbsp;

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/3/1741307657776.png" alt="Dr. Makary image courtesy CSPAN" />
 <figcaption>Dr. Makary image courtesy CSPAN</figcaption>
 </figure>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/jennifer-shutt/">JENNIFER SHUTT</a>&nbsp;WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the Food and Drug Administration refused to commit to keeping access to medication abortion as it is now, or changing prescribing guidelines, in response to questions from both Democrats and Republicans during his confirmation hearing Thursday.&nbsp;Martin Makary testified that if confirmed as FDA commissioner, which appeared likely, he will review data on mifepristone and follow the research where it leads him.“I have no preconceived plans on mifepristone policy except to take a solid, hard look at the data and to meet with the professional career scientists who have reviewed the data at the FDA,” Makary said.Medication abortion is a two-drug regimen consisting of mifepristone and misoprostol that accounts for about 63% of all pregnancy terminations within the United States, according to&nbsp;<a href="https://www.guttmacher.org/2024/03/medication-abortion-accounted-63-all-us-abortions-2023-increase-53-2020" target="_blank">research&nbsp;</a>from the Guttmacher Institute.The FDA originally approved mifepristone in 2000 and changed its prescribing guidelines in 2016 and 2021.It is currently approved for use up to 10 weeks gestation and can be prescribed via telehealth and shipped to patients.Trump&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/trump-unveils-his-lineup-fda-cdc-and-surgeon-general" target="_blank">announced in November</a>&nbsp;that he would nominate Makary, a surgeon at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Maryland, to run the FDA.Makary’s biography says he “has published over 250 peer-reviewed scientific articles and has served on several editorial boards.”“Dr. Makary served in leadership at the World Health Organization Patient Safety Program and has been elected to the National Academy of Medicine,” according to his biography. “Clinically, Dr. Makary is the chief of Islet Transplant Surgery at Johns Hopkins. He is the recipient of the Nobility in Science Award from the National Pancreas Foundation and has been a visiting professor at over 25 medical schools.”<h2>Prescription changes?</h2>Republican members of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, or HELP, Committee asked Makary questions that appeared to recommend he revert prescribing guidelines to what was in place before changes were made during the last decade.Democrats seemed to suggest he should keep use as it is now during&nbsp;<a href="https://www.c-span.org/program/senate-committee/fda-commissioner-nominee-testifies-at-confirmation-hearing/656394" target="_blank">the nearly two-hour hearing.</a>Chairman Bill Cassidy, R-La., asked if Makary would reinstate the in-person dispensing requirement that used to exist and require doctors to report all adverse events or medical complications to the FDA.Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley — whose wife, Erin Morrow Hawley,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-supreme-court-justices-seem-skeptical-limits-access-abortion-medication" target="_blank">argued a case over access to mifepristone before the U.S. Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;— asked Makary if he would require a return to the “pre-political protocol that requires in-person dispensing for chemical abortion drugs.”Makary replied that he thinks “it makes sense to review the totality of data and ongoing data.”“I know personally of OB doctors who prefer to insist, even though they have the option to prescribe otherwise, but they choose to insist that mifepristone be taken when necessary, in their office, as they observe the person taking it,” Makary said. “And I think their concern there is that if this drug is in the wrong hands, it could be used for coercion.”New Hampshire Democratic Sen. Maggie Hassan also asked Makary about his views on mifepristone and whether he would keep the current prescribing guidelines in place.She said Democrats’ questions about access to the pharmaceuticals that are involved in medication abortion weren’t about him taking an analytical look at the data.“The concern is whether you are going to unilaterally overrule the data that currently exists for political purposes and for political reasons, and that’s what we’re looking for your reassurance on,” Hassan said.&nbsp;“You have told us you are an independent scientist. I believe that. You have a very distinguished career as a physician,” Hassan added. “But we need to know that when you say you’re an independent scientist, that’s really what you mean. And then with the politics get heated around abortion, that you won’t abandon that independence.”Makary repeated his earlier comments that he had “no preconceived plans to make changes to the mifepristone policy” and that he planned to review the data, if confirmed.<h2>FDA firings</h2>Senators from both political parties asked Makary about the Trump administration firing probationary employees at the FDA and whether he would try to reinstate some of those former federal workers.Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins told Makary that she expects any assessments about staffing at FDA are undertaken by him and not an “outside force.”“In February, we learned that hundreds of probationary employees at FDA were dismissed. And this really concerns me, because we need a flow of young, new scientists and researchers, especially since we’re seeing retirements and resignations,” Collins said. “And ironically, more than half of the FDA employees are funded under various industry user fee agreements. So there is revenue coming into the FDA to pay for these employees.”Makary testified he hasn’t been involved in any of the decisions on FDA staffing made so far during the Trump administration.“But, if confirmed, you have my commitment that I will do an assessment,” he said.In response to a question from Maryland Democratic Sen. Angela Alsobrooks later in the hearing, Makary said he welcomed “input on efficiencies at the agency.”“At the same time, I want to make sure that the scientists and food inspectors and staff central to the core mission of the agency have all the resources they need to do their job well,” Makary said.<h2>Food safety</h2>The food side of FDA didn’t come up often during Makary’s confirmation hearing Thursday, though he did talk about where he thinks the federal agency should focus those efforts during an exchange with Alabama Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville.Makary committed to have the FDA look at preservatives and other additives in food, saying the country has to “reassess what we’re doing, because we’re not on a good path right now.”The federal government, he said, should also ensure children’s school lunches are healthier.“One thing I would like to work on is a school lunch program for some school districts on a pilot basis to transition to healthier foods,” Makary testified. “A lot of school districts want to, but they don’t know how, and they may not have the funds. I’ve been discussing this with Jay Bhattacharya and others in the administration, and I hope that’s something we can do.”Bhattacharya is Trump’s nominee to lead the National Institutes of Health. He had&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/nominee-head-nih-probed-us-senate-panel-vaccine-autism-research" target="_blank">his confirmation hearing&nbsp;</a>on Wednesday and is awaiting a confirmation vote.Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski asked about the FDA’s food inspections and pressed Makary not to cut federal funding for state and local governments, which she said “conduct about 60% of food processing facility inspections, 90% of produce safety inspections, 100% of retail food inspections.”“This impacts us in the state of Alaska, when it comes to our seafood industry and in other areas,” Murkowski said. “So I’m looking for a commitment from you that under the Trump administration, the FDA is going to maintain funding for these contracts with state and local governments. They’ve proven that it’s more cost-effective, more efficient, and it also is what Congress has asked for.”Makary said he would be “happy” to look at it.&nbsp;

Trump nominee to head up FDA made no commitments on abortion pill access

The&nbsp;<a href="http://news.legislature.ne.gov/jud" target="_blank">Judiciary Committee</a>&nbsp;considered a measure March 5 intended to address the unlawful occupation of property.

<a href="http://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/search_by_number.php?DocumentNumber=LB443&amp;Legislature=109th" target="_blank">LB443</a>, as introduced by Elkhorn Sen. R. Brad von Gillern, would create a new criminal offense of unlawful squatting, defined as occupying another person’s property without the owner’s consent when not a resident or tenant. Violations would be a Class I misdemeanor.

An amendment brought by von Gillern to the hearing instead would add squatting to the state’s existing definition of first degree criminal trespassing, which also is a Class I misdemeanor.

Under the amendment, a property owner could request the removal of a person occupying their property without permission by submitting a sworn affidavit to a sheriff. The affidavit must confirm that the individual is not a holdover tenant or immediate family member of the owner or lawful occupant, has been asked to leave and cannot provide documentation proving their residency.

Additionally, the affidavit would affirm that no litigation is pending related to the property or the individual. The sheriff would verify the affidavit’s accuracy and remove the individual, who then could be arrested and cited for criminal trespassing.

The intent of the bill is not to criminalize homelessness, von Gillern said, but to establish a reasonable, timely process for law enforcement to remove an individual unlawfully occupying someone else’s private property.

“The removal process outlined in LB443 has been vetted to ensure that it affords timely relief for people who find themselves in a really distressing situation,” he said.

Lynn Fisher testified in support of the bill on behalf of the Statewide Property Owners Association.

Currently, Fisher said, if law enforcement does not remove an unlawful occupant, a property owner’s only option is the civil court system. That process is expensive and can take weeks, he said, which increases the risk of damage to the property.

“Most owners don’t have much or any financial cushion to absorb this expense,” Fisher said.

Douglas County Sheriff Aaron Hanson also supported the bill, saying squatting, while not widespread in Nebraska, occurs regularly in other states. LB443 would establish a “brighter line” to differentiate between standard landlord and tenant conflicts and individuals who are unlawfully trespassing, he said.

Noah Rasmussen opposed the bill on behalf of Legal Aid of Nebraska’s Housing Justice Project. Nebraska landlords are not required by law to provide written lease agreements or receipt of rental payments, he said, which could make it impossible for some lawful residents to prove that they are legally occupying a space.

“As a result, lawful tenants, especially those with verbal agreements or missing paperwork, could face wrongful arrest and misdemeanor charges simply because they lack paperwork the law does not mandate,” Rasmussen said.

Representing the Omaha nonprofit Together, Alicia Christensen also opposed the measure. Ticketing, fining, arresting or jailing people who are experiencing homelessness worsens outcomes and increases barriers to stable housing, she said, while diverting public resources away from potential solutions.

Isabella Worthing opposed LB443 on behalf of Hope of the Poor and the Society of St. Vincent de Paul Omaha. Worthing, who works with unhoused individuals in downtown Omaha, said the bill may negatively impact some of the people she serves who prefer to stay outside rather than go to a shelter due to safety concerns.

“I believe that we all want to do good and care for the least of these in our communities, but this is not the way to do that,” Worthing said. “Criminalizing homelessness will not reduce the homeless population but will only drive them further away from the resources they need to get off the street.”

The committee took no immediate action on the proposal.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/3/1741367879978.jpeg" alt="Sen. R. Brad von Gillern (Unicameral Update)" />
 <figcaption>Sen. R. Brad von Gillern (Unicameral Update)</figcaption>
 </figure>Unicameral UpdateThe&nbsp;<a href="http://news.legislature.ne.gov/jud" target="_blank">Judiciary Committee</a>&nbsp;considered a measure March 5 intended to address the unlawful occupation of property.<a href="http://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/search_by_number.php?DocumentNumber=LB443&amp;Legislature=109th" target="_blank">LB443</a>, as introduced by Elkhorn Sen. R. Brad von Gillern, would create a new criminal offense of unlawful squatting, defined as occupying another person’s property without the owner’s consent when not a resident or tenant. Violations would be a Class I misdemeanor.An amendment brought by von Gillern to the hearing instead would add squatting to the state’s existing definition of first degree criminal trespassing, which also is a Class I misdemeanor.Under the amendment, a property owner could request the removal of a person occupying their property without permission by submitting a sworn affidavit to a sheriff. The affidavit must confirm that the individual is not a holdover tenant or immediate family member of the owner or lawful occupant, has been asked to leave and cannot provide documentation proving their residency.Additionally, the affidavit would affirm that no litigation is pending related to the property or the individual. The sheriff would verify the affidavit’s accuracy and remove the individual, who then could be arrested and cited for criminal trespassing.The intent of the bill is not to criminalize homelessness, von Gillern said, but to establish a reasonable, timely process for law enforcement to remove an individual unlawfully occupying someone else’s private property.“The removal process outlined in LB443 has been vetted to ensure that it affords timely relief for people who find themselves in a really distressing situation,” he said.Lynn Fisher testified in support of the bill on behalf of the Statewide Property Owners Association.Currently, Fisher said, if law enforcement does not remove an unlawful occupant, a property owner’s only option is the civil court system. That process is expensive and can take weeks, he said, which increases the risk of damage to the property.“Most owners don’t have much or any financial cushion to absorb this expense,” Fisher said.Douglas County Sheriff Aaron Hanson also supported the bill, saying squatting, while not widespread in Nebraska, occurs regularly in other states. LB443 would establish a “brighter line” to differentiate between standard landlord and tenant conflicts and individuals who are unlawfully trespassing, he said.Noah Rasmussen opposed the bill on behalf of Legal Aid of Nebraska’s Housing Justice Project. Nebraska landlords are not required by law to provide written lease agreements or receipt of rental payments, he said, which could make it impossible for some lawful residents to prove that they are legally occupying a space.“As a result, lawful tenants, especially those with verbal agreements or missing paperwork, could face wrongful arrest and misdemeanor charges simply because they lack paperwork the law does not mandate,” Rasmussen said.Representing the Omaha nonprofit Together, Alicia Christensen also opposed the measure. Ticketing, fining, arresting or jailing people who are experiencing homelessness worsens outcomes and increases barriers to stable housing, she said, while diverting public resources away from potential solutions.Isabella Worthing opposed LB443 on behalf of Hope of the Poor and the Society of St. Vincent de Paul Omaha. Worthing, who works with unhoused individuals in downtown Omaha, said the bill may negatively impact some of the people she serves who prefer to stay outside rather than go to a shelter due to safety concerns.“I believe that we all want to do good and care for the least of these in our communities, but this is not the way to do that,” Worthing said. “Criminalizing homelessness will not reduce the homeless population but will only drive them further away from the resources they need to get off the street.”The committee took no immediate action on the proposal.

Bill would classify ‘squatting’ as criminal trespass

<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2025/03/06/labor-groups-ring-alarms-over-proposed-changes-to-nebraska-minimum-wage-paid-sick-leave/">Nebraska Examiner</a>

LINCOLN — Labor activists stood in the Capitol&nbsp;Rotunda&nbsp;during Thursday morning’s agenda and criticized a pair of legislative bills seeking to weaken voter-approved minimum wage and paid sick leave laws, which keep marching&nbsp;on in the Nebraska statehouse.&nbsp;

Worker advocates and union leaders spoke out against the proposed changes as attempts to undermine the will of Nebraska voters, who over the past three years have approved increasing wages and&nbsp;paid leave for all workers&nbsp;via ballot measure.&nbsp;

Nebraska voters&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2024/11/05/nebraskans-vote-yes-to-requiring-employers-to-provide-earned-paid-sick-leave/">approved a ballot measure</a>&nbsp;last November to establish a minimum level of paid sick leave for all workers. The initiative mandates that Nebraska businesses provide employees up to seven days of paid sick leave for businesses with at least 20 employees and five days a year for those with fewer than 20 employees. In 2022,&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskapublicmedia.org/es/news/news-articles/following-national-trends-nebraskans-vote-to-increase-the-states-minimum-wage/" target="_blank">Nebraska voters passed a ballot measure</a>&nbsp;to increase the state minimum wage to&nbsp;$15 per hour starting next year. The measure’s design raised the minimum wage by&nbsp;increments to reach that point.&nbsp;

Legislative Bill 258, by State Sen. Jane Raybould of Lincoln, would limit who can get a wage increase in 2027. The proposed change to the initiative would cap the minimum wage at $13.50 per hour for Nebraskans younger than 16 years old, except for those legally free from parental control and responsibility.&nbsp;

LB 698, proposed by State Sen. Paul Strommen of&nbsp;Sidney, would raise the minimum number of employees a business must have to be obligated to provide paid sick leave from one to at least 11 employees instead of 10. His bill would make workers under age 15 and&nbsp;temporary and seasonal agricultural workers ineligible for the mandatory paid sick leave. It also would remove a section that allows workers to sue businesses if they violated the new paid sick leave law.&nbsp;&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=59447&amp;docnum=LB258&amp;leg=109" target="_blank">LB 258</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://www.nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=59344&amp;docnum=LB698&amp;leg=109" target="_blank">LB 698</a>&nbsp;both advanced from the&nbsp;Legislature’s&nbsp;Business and Labor Committee.

Raybould proposed changes in LB 258 that also would cap the annual minimum wage increase at a lesser rate of one and one-half percent instead of being linked to the Consumer Price Index to keep up with inflation, which was what voters approved. Another change would modify the 90-day training wage for new employees under 18 to $13.50 and to “75% of the minimum wage” in 2027. The youngest someone can work in Nebraska is&nbsp;<a href="https://dol.nebraska.gov/LaborStandards/WorkerRights/EmploymentOfMinors#:~:text=Nebraska%20Hour%20Restrictions%20for%2014%20and%2015%20year%20olds%3A&amp;text=Not%20before%206%20a.m.%20nor%20after%2010%20p.m.&amp;text=The%20Nebraska%20Department%20of%20Labor,school%20scheduled%20the%20next%20day." target="_blank">14 years old, with hour restrictions</a>.

“LB 258 does not reflect the will of Nebraska citizens who voted overwhelmingly for stepped increases to minimum wage,” said Anahí Salazar,&nbsp;Policy Coordinator at Voices for Children in Nebraska.

Raybould, whose family owns grocery stores “throughout the state of Nebraska” wrote in her conflict of interest form filed with the Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission that “providing a youth and training wage would benefit our company with some savings. The cap on the increases in 2027 would also keep the projected minimum wage increase to a more reasonable and predictable one. This would also benefit our company.”&nbsp;

She explained in the form why she won’t abstain from voting on LB 258 despite the conflict of interest, because, “this legislation would impact more businesses besides our grocery stores, including, but not limited to, all retailers, restaurants, detasselers, day care facilities and other small and independent businesses in our state.”

Raybould has made LB 258 her priority bill this session.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/3/1741366219872.jpeg" alt="Anahí Salazar, policy coordinator at Voices for Children in Nebraska, spoke at the Nebraska statehouse on Mar. 6, 2025, about bills seeking to soften voter-approved ballot measures on requiring paid sick leave and increasing the minimum wage. (Juan Salinas II/Nebraska Examiner)" />
 <figcaption>Anahí Salazar, policy coordinator at Voices for Children in Nebraska, spoke at the Nebraska statehouse on Mar. 6, 2025, about bills seeking to soften voter-approved ballot measures on requiring paid sick leave and increasing the minimum wage. (Juan Salinas II/Nebraska Examiner)</figcaption>
 </figure>Juan Salinas II<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2025/03/06/labor-groups-ring-alarms-over-proposed-changes-to-nebraska-minimum-wage-paid-sick-leave/">Nebraska Examiner</a>LINCOLN — Labor activists stood in the Capitol&nbsp;Rotunda&nbsp;during Thursday morning’s agenda and criticized a pair of legislative bills seeking to weaken voter-approved minimum wage and paid sick leave laws, which keep marching&nbsp;on in the Nebraska statehouse.&nbsp;Worker advocates and union leaders spoke out against the proposed changes as attempts to undermine the will of Nebraska voters, who over the past three years have approved increasing wages and&nbsp;paid leave for all workers&nbsp;via ballot measure.&nbsp;Nebraska voters&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2024/11/05/nebraskans-vote-yes-to-requiring-employers-to-provide-earned-paid-sick-leave/">approved a ballot measure</a>&nbsp;last November to establish a minimum level of paid sick leave for all workers. The initiative mandates that Nebraska businesses provide employees up to seven days of paid sick leave for businesses with at least 20 employees and five days a year for those with fewer than 20 employees. In 2022,&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskapublicmedia.org/es/news/news-articles/following-national-trends-nebraskans-vote-to-increase-the-states-minimum-wage/" target="_blank">Nebraska voters passed a ballot measure</a>&nbsp;to increase the state minimum wage to&nbsp;$15 per hour starting next year. The measure’s design raised the minimum wage by&nbsp;increments to reach that point.&nbsp;<h2>What the bills would do</h2>Legislative Bill 258, by State Sen. Jane Raybould of Lincoln, would limit who can get a wage increase in 2027. The proposed change to the initiative would cap the minimum wage at $13.50 per hour for Nebraskans younger than 16 years old, except for those legally free from parental control and responsibility.&nbsp;LB 698, proposed by State Sen. Paul Strommen of&nbsp;Sidney, would raise the minimum number of employees a business must have to be obligated to provide paid sick leave from one to at least 11 employees instead of 10. His bill would make workers under age 15 and&nbsp;temporary and seasonal agricultural workers ineligible for the mandatory paid sick leave. It also would remove a section that allows workers to sue businesses if they violated the new paid sick leave law.&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://www.nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=59447&amp;docnum=LB258&amp;leg=109" target="_blank">LB 258</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://www.nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=59344&amp;docnum=LB698&amp;leg=109" target="_blank">LB 698</a>&nbsp;both advanced from the&nbsp;Legislature’s&nbsp;Business and Labor Committee.Raybould proposed changes in LB 258 that also would cap the annual minimum wage increase at a lesser rate of one and one-half percent instead of being linked to the Consumer Price Index to keep up with inflation, which was what voters approved. Another change would modify the 90-day training wage for new employees under 18 to $13.50 and to “75% of the minimum wage” in 2027. The youngest someone can work in Nebraska is&nbsp;<a href="https://dol.nebraska.gov/LaborStandards/WorkerRights/EmploymentOfMinors#:~:text=Nebraska%20Hour%20Restrictions%20for%2014%20and%2015%20year%20olds%3A&amp;text=Not%20before%206%20a.m.%20nor%20after%2010%20p.m.&amp;text=The%20Nebraska%20Department%20of%20Labor,school%20scheduled%20the%20next%20day." target="_blank">14 years old, with hour restrictions</a>.“LB 258 does not reflect the will of Nebraska citizens who voted overwhelmingly for stepped increases to minimum wage,” said Anahí Salazar,&nbsp;Policy Coordinator at Voices for Children in Nebraska.<h2>Potential conflicts</h2>Raybould, whose family owns grocery stores “throughout the state of Nebraska” wrote in her conflict of interest form filed with the Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission that “providing a youth and training wage would benefit our company with some savings. The cap on the increases in 2027 would also keep the projected minimum wage increase to a more reasonable and predictable one. This would also benefit our company.”&nbsp;She explained in the form why she won’t abstain from voting on LB 258 despite the conflict of interest, because, “this legislation would impact more businesses besides our grocery stores, including, but not limited to, all retailers, restaurants, detasselers, day care facilities and other small and independent businesses in our state.”Raybould has made LB 258 her priority bill this session.<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2025/02/03/some-nebraska-lawmakers-seek-exemptions-in-voter-approved-paid-sick-leave-law-as-others-protest/">Strommen described his sick leave measure during its hearing</a>&nbsp;as an attempt to “clean up” initiative language and shield workers from “unintended consequences.” Some business owners and groups that testified for the bill referred to it as a “lifeline” and said costs could rise and be passed along to the consumer. Others said they welcomed the initiative’s original language.State Sen. Ben Hansen of Blair also said the Legislature with LB 698 must determine a balance between what voters supporting the paid sick leave initiative want and what the state can provide.&nbsp;Student activist Sam Washburn said both bills disappointed him as a young person in the workforce, because they aim to “undermine protection for workers at small businesses” for young workers.“I don’t understand how democratically elected senators can so easily go against these democratically supported initiatives,” said Washburn.