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.

<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.

<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.

Labor groups ring alarms over proposed changes to Nebraska minimum wage, paid sick leave laws

Acting United States Attorney Matthew R. Molsen announced that David McCown, 41, of Fremont, Nebraska, was sentenced on March 6, 2025, in federal court in Lincoln, Nebraska, for production and attempted production of child pornography. 

United States District Judge Susan M. Bazis sentenced McCown to a total 280 months’ imprisonment. There is no parole in the federal system. After McCown’s release from prison, he will begin a 10-year term of supervised release and be required to register as a sex offender. McCown was also ordered to pay restitution to one of the victims as well as to contribute funds to an account established for victims of these types of crimes.

In July of 2023, investigators with the Fremont Police Department (FPD) received a cellphone and other electronic devices belonging to McCown which were suspected to contain child pornography materials. A search warrant was received for all devices.

During the review of all the devices, investigators located multiple child exploitation videos which appeared to be original productions involving three minors who were known to McCown. The files were dated between 2020 and 2023. After McCown was arrested, he agreed to an interview during which he admitted to recording the videos of the minor victims.

This case was brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse launched in May 2006 by the Department of Justice. Led by United States Attorneys’ Offices and the Criminal Division's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS), Project Safe Childhood marshals federal, state and local resources to better locate, apprehend and prosecute individuals who exploit children via the Internet, as well as to identify and rescue victims. For more information about Project Safe Childhood, please visit&nbsp;<a href="http://www.projectsafechildhood.gov/" target="_blank">www.projectsafechildhood.gov</a>.

This case was investigated by the Fremont Police Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

United States Attorney's OfficeActing United States Attorney Matthew R. Molsen announced that David McCown, 41, of Fremont, Nebraska, was sentenced on March 6, 2025, in federal court in Lincoln, Nebraska, for production and attempted production of child pornography. United States District Judge Susan M. Bazis sentenced McCown to a total 280 months’ imprisonment. There is no parole in the federal system. After McCown’s release from prison, he will begin a 10-year term of supervised release and be required to register as a sex offender. McCown was also ordered to pay restitution to one of the victims as well as to contribute funds to an account established for victims of these types of crimes.In July of 2023, investigators with the Fremont Police Department (FPD) received a cellphone and other electronic devices belonging to McCown which were suspected to contain child pornography materials. A search warrant was received for all devices.During the review of all the devices, investigators located multiple child exploitation videos which appeared to be original productions involving three minors who were known to McCown. The files were dated between 2020 and 2023. After McCown was arrested, he agreed to an interview during which he admitted to recording the videos of the minor victims.This case was brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse launched in May 2006 by the Department of Justice. Led by United States Attorneys’ Offices and the Criminal Division's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS), Project Safe Childhood marshals federal, state and local resources to better locate, apprehend and prosecute individuals who exploit children via the Internet, as well as to identify and rescue victims. For more information about Project Safe Childhood, please visit&nbsp;<a href="http://www.projectsafechildhood.gov/" target="_blank">www.projectsafechildhood.gov</a>.This case was investigated by the Fremont Police Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Eastern Nebraska Man Sentenced for Producing Child Pornography

Acting United States Attorney Matthew R. Molsen announced that Marcus Buffus Richardson, 25, formerly of Maricopa, Arizona, was sentenced on March 6, 2025, in federal court in Lincoln, Nebraska, for conspiracy to money launder. 

United States District Court Judge Susan M. Bazis sentenced Richardson to 72 months’ imprisonment. There is no parole in the federal system. After Richardson’s release from prison, he will begin a 3-year term of supervised release.

In January 2023, Nebraska State Patrol investigators were informed by agents of the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) in Phoenix, Arizona, that a suspicious package was being shipped from Marcus Richardson in Phoenix to an individual in Lincoln.&nbsp; The package arrived in Lincoln and was immediately seized by DEA agents.&nbsp; A search warrant was obtained, and the package was found to contain 993 fake “M30” pills that contained fentanyl. The package was found to have been shipped by Richardson using an interstate packaging service, for the purpose of redistributing it in Nebraska. Richardson had sent at least two other packages to Nebraska in the preceding month that contained a total of approximately 500 similar pills. After the sales of the pills, the distributors would send money back to Richardson in Arizona. The money would be used to finance the acquisition of additional controlled substances to be sent to Nebraska for further distribution.&nbsp;

This case was investigated by the Nebraska State Patrol and the Drug Enforcement Agency.

United States Attorney's OfficeActing United States Attorney Matthew R. Molsen announced that Marcus Buffus Richardson, 25, formerly of Maricopa, Arizona, was sentenced on March 6, 2025, in federal court in Lincoln, Nebraska, for conspiracy to money launder. United States District Court Judge Susan M. Bazis sentenced Richardson to 72 months’ imprisonment. There is no parole in the federal system. After Richardson’s release from prison, he will begin a 3-year term of supervised release.In January 2023, Nebraska State Patrol investigators were informed by agents of the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) in Phoenix, Arizona, that a suspicious package was being shipped from Marcus Richardson in Phoenix to an individual in Lincoln.&nbsp; The package arrived in Lincoln and was immediately seized by DEA agents.&nbsp; A search warrant was obtained, and the package was found to contain 993 fake “M30” pills that contained fentanyl. The package was found to have been shipped by Richardson using an interstate packaging service, for the purpose of redistributing it in Nebraska. Richardson had sent at least two other packages to Nebraska in the preceding month that contained a total of approximately 500 similar pills. After the sales of the pills, the distributors would send money back to Richardson in Arizona. The money would be used to finance the acquisition of additional controlled substances to be sent to Nebraska for further distribution.&nbsp;This case was investigated by the Nebraska State Patrol and the Drug Enforcement Agency.

   Arizona Man Sentenced for Conspiracy to Money Launder

KEARNEY – The University of Nebraska at Kearney has been classified as a Research College and University by the American Council on Education and the Carnegie Foundation, placing it among an elite group of institutions recognized for significant research activity.

UNK is one of just 216 colleges and universities nationwide – and one of only 127 public institutions – to receive this new classification, which acknowledges research efforts at schools that do not fit the traditional R1 or R2 research university model.

“This designation affirms what we already know: that impactful, high-level research is happening right here at UNK,” said Kim Carlson, assistant vice chancellor for research and creative activity. “Our faculty and students are tackling real-world challenges, securing major research grants and making meaningful contributions across a wide range of disciplines.”

The RCU designation was introduced to highlight colleges and universities that invest heavily in research but may not have been historically recognized for it. Schools must spend at least $2.5 million annually on research to qualify.

UNK exceeds that threshold, with 31 federal research grants secured in the last four years, totaling $8.7 million in funding. These grants support research across multiple fields, including health sciences, agriculture, education and business.

“Our research enterprise has grown tremendously, and this recognition signals to our peers, partners and prospective students that UNK is a serious research institution,” Carlson added. “This is just the beginning. We are committed to fostering innovation, expanding research opportunities and making a real impact in Nebraska and beyond.”

The Carnegie Foundation evaluates 3,941 higher education institutions nationwide, but only 542 – or 13.8% – receive a research classification.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/3/1741295903372.jpeg" alt="UNK faculty and students are making meaningful research contributions across a wide range of disciplines, including health sciences, agriculture, education and business. (UNK Communications)" />
 <figcaption>UNK faculty and students are making meaningful research contributions across a wide range of disciplines, including health sciences, agriculture, education and business. (UNK Communications)</figcaption>
 </figure>Tyler EllysonUNK CommunicationsKEARNEY – The University of Nebraska at Kearney has been classified as a Research College and University by the American Council on Education and the Carnegie Foundation, placing it among an elite group of institutions recognized for significant research activity.UNK is one of just 216 colleges and universities nationwide – and one of only 127 public institutions – to receive this new classification, which acknowledges research efforts at schools that do not fit the traditional R1 or R2 research university model.“This designation affirms what we already know: that impactful, high-level research is happening right here at UNK,” said Kim Carlson, assistant vice chancellor for research and creative activity. “Our faculty and students are tackling real-world challenges, securing major research grants and making meaningful contributions across a wide range of disciplines.”The RCU designation was introduced to highlight colleges and universities that invest heavily in research but may not have been historically recognized for it. Schools must spend at least $2.5 million annually on research to qualify.UNK exceeds that threshold, with 31 federal research grants secured in the last four years, totaling $8.7 million in funding. These grants support research across multiple fields, including health sciences, agriculture, education and business.“Our research enterprise has grown tremendously, and this recognition signals to our peers, partners and prospective students that UNK is a serious research institution,” Carlson added. “This is just the beginning. We are committed to fostering innovation, expanding research opportunities and making a real impact in Nebraska and beyond.”The Carnegie Foundation evaluates 3,941 higher education institutions nationwide, but only 542 – or 13.8% – receive a research classification.

UNK’s research impact earns national recognition from Carnegie Foundation

Lincoln, NE ‐ March 6, 2025 ‐ One lucky player who bought a Nebraska Pick 5 ticket for the Wednesday, March 5 drawing is holding a ticket worth $90,000.

The Nebraska Lottery has confirmed that one ticket sold for Wednesday's Nebraska Pick 5 draw matched all five winning numbers for the $90,000 jackpot. The ticket was sold at Pumpers, 1904 N Diers Ave, in Grand Island. The winning numbers from Wednesday's Nebraska Pick 5 draw were and 13, 18, 19, 21, 31.

Winning Nebraska Lottery Lotto tickets expire 180 days after the drawing. Prizes of $20,000 or more must be claimed in person at Lottery headquarters in Lincoln. Additional information about claiming prizes can be found at the Nebraska Lottery website,&nbsp;<a href="http://nelottery.com/" target="_blank">nelottery.com</a>, or by calling 800-587-5200.

Nebraska Pick 5 is Nebraska's unique Lottery game: all the proceeds from Nebraska Pick 5 stay in Nebraska, and all the winning tickets are sold in Nebraska at Nebraska Lottery Lotto game retailers.

The odds of winning the Nebraska Pick 5 jackpot, which starts at $50,000 and grows by $10,000 each drawing that it is not won, are 1 in 658,008. The overall odds of winning any Nebraska Pick 5 prize which has drawings seven nights a week, are 1 in 9.2.

The mission of the Nebraska Lottery is to generate proceeds for good causes while providing quality entertainment options to Nebraskans. Over $1.015 billion has been raised for the Nebraska Lottery's beneficiary funds since the Lottery began in 1993. All 93 counties in Nebraska have benefited from projects funded with these Nebraska Lottery proceeds.

Nebraska LotteryLincoln, NE ‐ March 6, 2025 ‐ One lucky player who bought a Nebraska Pick 5 ticket for the Wednesday, March 5 drawing is holding a ticket worth $90,000.The Nebraska Lottery has confirmed that one ticket sold for Wednesday's Nebraska Pick 5 draw matched all five winning numbers for the $90,000 jackpot. The ticket was sold at Pumpers, 1904 N Diers Ave, in Grand Island. The winning numbers from Wednesday's Nebraska Pick 5 draw were and 13, 18, 19, 21, 31.Winning Nebraska Lottery Lotto tickets expire 180 days after the drawing. Prizes of $20,000 or more must be claimed in person at Lottery headquarters in Lincoln. Additional information about claiming prizes can be found at the Nebraska Lottery website,&nbsp;<a href="http://nelottery.com/" target="_blank">nelottery.com</a>, or by calling 800-587-5200.Nebraska Pick 5 is Nebraska's unique Lottery game: all the proceeds from Nebraska Pick 5 stay in Nebraska, and all the winning tickets are sold in Nebraska at Nebraska Lottery Lotto game retailers.The odds of winning the Nebraska Pick 5 jackpot, which starts at $50,000 and grows by $10,000 each drawing that it is not won, are 1 in 658,008. The overall odds of winning any Nebraska Pick 5 prize which has drawings seven nights a week, are 1 in 9.2.The mission of the Nebraska Lottery is to generate proceeds for good causes while providing quality entertainment options to Nebraskans. Over $1.015 billion has been raised for the Nebraska Lottery's beneficiary funds since the Lottery began in 1993. All 93 counties in Nebraska have benefited from projects funded with these Nebraska Lottery proceeds.

$90,000 Nebraska Pick 5 Winning Ticket Sold in Central Nebraska

LINCOLN, NE&nbsp;– Governor Jim Pillen signed an executive order banning the use or download of applications, software, and platforms created or owned by affiliates of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) on state networks and devices.&nbsp;

“This is about protecting Nebraska. We need to continue identifying and eliminating threats that come from the Chinese Communist Party,” said Gov. Pillen. “They don’t mean well, and we must ensure that America's adversaries can’t hack our state’s data or critical digital infrastructure. This is important, ongoing work and commonsense governance.”&nbsp;&nbsp;

Wednesday's action will expand on Gov. Pillen’s March 2023 executive order by including new technology developed by and affiliated with the CCP. That order banned communications equipment and services produced by CCP-controlled companies that were also on the Federal Communications Commission’s Covered List.

LINCOLN, NE&nbsp;– Governor Jim Pillen signed an executive order banning the use or download of applications, software, and platforms created or owned by affiliates of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) on state networks and devices.&nbsp;“This is about protecting Nebraska. We need to continue identifying and eliminating threats that come from the Chinese Communist Party,” said Gov. Pillen. “They don’t mean well, and we must ensure that America's adversaries can’t hack our state’s data or critical digital infrastructure. This is important, ongoing work and commonsense governance.”&nbsp;&nbsp;Wednesday's action will expand on Gov. Pillen’s March 2023 executive order by including new technology developed by and affiliated with the CCP. That order banned communications equipment and services produced by CCP-controlled companies that were also on the Federal Communications Commission’s Covered List.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/3/1741281294528.jpeg" alt=" " />
 <figcaption> </figcaption>
 </figure><figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/3/1741281306004.jpeg" alt=" " />
 <figcaption> </figcaption>
 </figure>

Gov. Pillen Signs Executive Order Banning More CCP Tech

WASHINGTON — The National Institutes of Health won’t be able to implement an across-the-board cap on how much it pays research universities and medical schools for indirect costs, under a federal court order released Wednesday in cases brought by Democratic attorneys general and university associations.

Judge Angel Kelley of the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts granted a nationwide preliminary injunction in the case, blocking the proposed 15% cap on Facilities and Administrative fees from taking effect while three lawsuits advance.

Those costs cover the expenses that go along with research, but that aren’t directly associated with one specific project. They can include construction, maintenance, equipment purchases, utilities and administrative staff.

Kelley wrote in the&nbsp;<a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.280590/gov.uscourts.mad.280590.105.0_2.pdf" target="_blank">76-page decision</a>&nbsp;that a preliminary injunction would prevent the NIH from bringing about “immediate, devastating, and irreparable” harm to research institutions.

“First, the suspension of ongoing clinical trials and the resulting threats to patients’ lives represents a dire risk of a quintessentially irreparable nature. Second, the threats to non-human, yet still essential, research subjects similarly rings in irreparability,” Kelley wrote, referring to research animals. “Finally, the potential loss of human capital and talent to virtually every Plaintiff poses yet another harm incapable of run-of-the-mill legal relief.”

Kelley wrote that the “Court is hard pressed to think of a loss more irreparable than the loss of a life, let alone the thousands of people who are counting on clinical trials as their last hope.”

The NIH&nbsp;<a href="https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-25-068.html" target="_blank">announced</a>&nbsp;on a Friday in early February that it would no longer pay research universities and medical colleges the indirect cost percentage that each had negotiated with the federal government over the course of years.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/8/1630165275617.jpeg" alt="Photo Kansas State University" />
 <figcaption>Photo Kansas State University</figcaption>
 </figure>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/jennifer-shutt/">JENNIFER SHUTT</a>WASHINGTON — The National Institutes of Health won’t be able to implement an across-the-board cap on how much it pays research universities and medical schools for indirect costs, under a federal court order released Wednesday in cases brought by Democratic attorneys general and university associations.Judge Angel Kelley of the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts granted a nationwide preliminary injunction in the case, blocking the proposed 15% cap on Facilities and Administrative fees from taking effect while three lawsuits advance.Those costs cover the expenses that go along with research, but that aren’t directly associated with one specific project. They can include construction, maintenance, equipment purchases, utilities and administrative staff.Kelley wrote in the&nbsp;<a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.280590/gov.uscourts.mad.280590.105.0_2.pdf" target="_blank">76-page decision</a>&nbsp;that a preliminary injunction would prevent the NIH from bringing about “immediate, devastating, and irreparable” harm to research institutions.“First, the suspension of ongoing clinical trials and the resulting threats to patients’ lives represents a dire risk of a quintessentially irreparable nature. Second, the threats to non-human, yet still essential, research subjects similarly rings in irreparability,” Kelley wrote, referring to research animals. “Finally, the potential loss of human capital and talent to virtually every Plaintiff poses yet another harm incapable of run-of-the-mill legal relief.”Kelley wrote that the “Court is hard pressed to think of a loss more irreparable than the loss of a life, let alone the thousands of people who are counting on clinical trials as their last hope.”<h2>How suit came about</h2>The NIH&nbsp;<a href="https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-25-068.html" target="_blank">announced</a>&nbsp;on a Friday in early February that it would no longer pay research universities and medical colleges the indirect cost percentage that each had negotiated with the federal government over the course of years.Instead, NIH said it would cap Facilities and Administrative fees at 15% for every institution receiving funds from the NIH, producing an outcry from medical colleges and universities.Three lawsuits were quickly filed, challenging the NIH’s decision: Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. National Institutes of Health, Association of American Medical Colleges v. National Institutes of Health and Association of American Universities v. Department of Health &amp; Human Services.All three were filed in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts and assigned to Kelley, who was nominated by President Joe Biden and confirmed by the U.S. Senate in 2021 following a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1171/vote_117_1_00364.htm" target="_blank">52-44 vote.</a>Kelley quickly&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/federal-judge-blocks-catastrophic-trump-administration-cut-nih-grant-funding" target="_blank">blocked the NIH from implementing the percentage change</a>&nbsp;in the 22 states whose Democratic attorneys general filed one of the lawsuits, before&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/federal-judge-nationwide-ruling-blocks-trump-administration-cut-nih-research-grants" target="_blank">entering a nationwide temporary restraining order</a>&nbsp;in the case brought by the Association of American Medical Colleges.Kelley&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/federal-judge-extends-order-blocking-devastating-nih-cap-research-payments" target="_blank">held a hearing</a>&nbsp;in late February to hear from the organizations that filed the three lawsuits and the Trump administration’s attorney over whether to issue a preliminary injunction.<h2>Congress rejected earlier cap</h2>The ruling released Wednesday notes that in 2017, during President Donald Trump’s first term in office, he sent Congress a budget request that asked lawmakers to set the NIH’s indirect cost rate at 10%.Lawmakers, on a bipartisan basis, rejected Trump’s proposal and instead added language to the NIH’s annual spending bill that barred it from changing the percentage across the board. The language has been kept in the annual funding bill ever since.“Congress’ rebuke of the first Trump Administration’s proposal to slash and cap was patently clear,” Kelley wrote. “This rider contains three, overlapping provisions meant to restrict NIH’s ability to enact an across-the-board rate reduction.”Kelley wrote the preliminary injunction would “preserve public health, and by extension, serve the public interest.” She also wrote that the ruling would require the NIH “to abide by existing law and regulations.”“It is impossible to accurately measure or compensate humans who lose their lives from a pause in research. It is impossible to measure the value of lost research animals—representing years of study central to medical breakthrough—that will be euthanized,” Kelley wrote. “It is impossible to measure the value of discovery from scientists who choose to leave, or of the potential students who now never become scientists at all.“Even for those harms (that) can be measured in dollars and cents, the losses are compounding and will result in even greater disruption to ongoing research and clinical trials. As a result, failure to grant a preliminary injunction would certainly result in irreparable harm.”