Josh Kaul

Wisconsin, joined by a dozen other states, has filed a federal lawsuit against the Trump administration over the termination of grant funding meant to modernize state unemployment insurance systems. The suit, led by Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul and Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown, was filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and argues the terminations breached the states' grant agreements.

Wisconsin began updating its unemployment system, which dates to 1970, after the COVID-19 pandemic overwhelmed it and delayed benefits for residents. A 2021 state law authorized roughly $100 million for the overhaul, with nearly $80 million in federal funding secured under the Biden administration via the American Rescue Plan Act. In May 2025, the U.S. Department of Labor told Wisconsin it was ending the grant, saying it no longer aligned with the department's funding priorities; officials later cited efforts to curb fraud and waste. More than $45 million was terminated across the states involved, about $10 million of it for Wisconsin, forcing the state to cancel its IT modernization contract and halt a fraud-detection database project.

Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul and Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown are co-leading a multistate lawsuit against the Trump administration over its decision to terminate more than $45 million in grant funding for unemployment insurance modernization programs. The grants, originally awarded to states under the American Rescue Plan Act, were intended to upgrade unemployment insurance technology and improve fraud prevention.

The U.S. Department of Labor notified states in May 2025 that it would end the funding, saying the programs no longer matched its grant priorities. Wisconsin alone lost roughly $10 million and had already spent $8.2 million on upgrades it cannot recover, forcing its Department of Workforce Development to halt work and seek a new vendor. The lawsuit claims the Labor Department violated grant agreements, imposed new conditions improperly, and denied states adequate notice or a chance to object. Ten additional attorneys general, plus the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania, have joined the suit, with Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers also voicing support, arguing the cuts contradict the administration's stated anti-fraud goals.

Dane County Clerk Scott McDonell has criticized what he calls "complete silence" from Wisconsin's election commission and attorney general's office over how local officials should respond if federal agents appear at polling places on election day. The concerns follow FBI Director Kash Patel's refusal to rule out deploying federal agents to polls, part of a broader pattern of Trump administration officials raising the possibility of sending ICE or National Guard personnel to voting locations.

In response, U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin introduced legislation aimed at blocking the president from deploying ICE or the National Guard to polling sites this November. The threats have also spurred lawsuits against the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Justice Department, citing federal law that bars armed agents from polling places except to "repel armed enemies of the United States." Wisconsin's elections commission says it hopes to issue guidance before election day. McDonell warned the uncertainty alone could deter eligible voters from turning out.

Wisconsin and other states are continuing legal challenges to a March executive order from President Trump that would create a national list of eligible voters and direct the U.S. Postal Service to mail ballots only to those on it. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule on the order's legality, instead ruling 6-3 that the states' lawsuit was filed prematurely. Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul called the decision "disappointing and frankly strange."

Wisconsin has since joined another multistate lawsuit targeting a Postal Service rule meant to implement the order, and a federal judge temporarily blocked enforcement of that rule. The White House said it intends to appeal. Election officials say no changes have yet taken effect for voters, though the ongoing litigation risks sowing confusion ahead of Wisconsin's scheduled September mailing of ballots. A further hearing in the case is set for September 3, with the broader dispute over federal mail-voting rules still unresolved.

Roughly two dozen Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia, including Washington, Wisconsin, California and Pennsylvania, filed a new lawsuit against the U.S. Postal Service on August 26, challenging a rule implementing President Trump's executive order limiting mail-in voting ahead of the midterms. The suit, filed in a Massachusetts federal court, comes days after the Supreme Court lifted an injunction blocking part of the order, ruling the earlier Democratic challenge was premature rather than affirming its legality. California's suit followed shortly after, with Attorney General Rob Bonta calling the rule a "clear violation of the Constitution" and citing the state's heavy reliance on mail voting.

The USPS rule requires states to register mail voters into a new USPS database and get federal approval for ballot envelope designs featuring digital barcodes before ballots can be delivered; USPS says it won't deliver ballots to voters absent from the list or in noncompliant envelopes. State officials argue the rule violates the Constitution's assignment of election authority to states and risks disenfranchising voters this close to the election. The coalition seeks a temporary restraining order. Trump's original order remains blocked under a separate injunction, and the administration defends the rule as an election-security measure, though it remains unclear whether it will affect November's elections.