Wisconsin GOP blocks pay raises for university staff unless they end diversity programs

Wisconsin GOP blocks pay raises for university staff unless they end diversity programs
Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (Facebook)

Wisconsin Republicans are holding hostage a pay increase for staff at the University of Wisconsin system, in an effort to force them to dismantle diversity programs, reported the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on Tuesday.

"The bipartisan Joint Committee on Employee Relations, which consists of legislative leaders, approved a plan to give state workers who do not work within the UW System a 6% pay increase over two years. The group includes state troopers, prison guards and other staffers," reported Tyler Katzenberger and Molly Beck. "But the committee, co-led by Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, did not include pay raises for staff on UW System campuses. Vos has vowed not to approve the raises until UW campuses dismantle programs focused on diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI."

Democratic Senate Minority Leader Melissa Agard reacted with outrage to the move.

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to run for office?

"We are denying pay increases for half of our state workforce because of one person's [Vos'] resistance to initiatives to increase inclusion on our campuses," said Agard. "This is a sad moment for our state when the majority party is actively holding our workers hostage because they cannot hand them the ability to focus on equity and diversity in the state of Wisconsin."

This comes shortly after Republicans blocked a huge slate of appointees from Democratic Gov. Tony Evers, including a majority of the state environmental board, an elections commissioner, and a medical board chair who supported abortion rights.

Wisconsin's legislature is heavily gerrymandered, with Republicans winning large majorities in both chambers completely disproportionate to the popular vote. The state Supreme Court, which recently saw a liberal majority elected, is likely in the near future to hear a case that could force nonpartisan redistricting in the state.

For customer support contact support@rawstory.com. Report typos and corrections to corrections@rawstory.com.

Republican lawmakers and candidates are growing increasingly anxious in the lead up to the 2026 midterm elections as President Donald Trump continues to stay quiet on whether his super PAC, MAGA Inc., has any plans to use its $300 million was chest to help bolster Republicans at the ballot box.

“There is an expectation funds are coming soon,” said a GOP donor, speaking with Politico for its report published Saturday on the condition of anonymity. “Mild panic will set in soon if it doesn’t by early summer.”

Described by Forbes as a “midterm superweapon,” the Trump-aligned MAGA Inc. has $300 million in its coffers. But Republicans are growing increasingly worried that the president “may ultimately opt to hold back some of the money from the midterms and direct it to other purposes,” including “legacy building projects” or for his preferred GOP presidential candidate in 2028, Politico reported.

The growing “unease,” Politico reported, comes as the midterm outlook for Republicans has grown increasingly dire, with Democrats not only projected to take back control of the House, but possibly the Senate that was, until recently, “considered a bulwark” by Republicans.

“No answer is causing concerns for donors,” said a former Trump official, also speaking with Politico on the condition of anonymity. “Is Trump really committed to the midterms? Because if he were, he would spend his money first. He’s going to spend some, but most donors would be shocked if he spent 10% of it.”

Alex Pfeiffer, a spokesperson for MAGA Inc., dismissed Politico’s reporting when asked for comment.

“Politico and its unnamed, irrelevant sources don’t know what the hell they are talking about,” Pfeiffer told Politico. “We don’t disclose our battle plans through the press.”

THANKS FOR SUBSCRIBING! ALL ADS REMOVED!

A leaked threat from Donald Trump's Chief of Staff Susie Wiles warned she'd fire West Wing staff members who discussed the president's administration outside of a very close circle, Politico reported.

The internal warning told insiders they could be hit with immediate termination if they spoke to reporters.

Wiles, who caused a recent firestorm herself by talking with a Vanity Fair writer, is reportedly frustrated by loose-lipped members of the White House team spilling details about the administration.

The March email, obtained by Politico, declared that "no staff member within the Executive Office of the President is permitted to speak with members of the news media without the explicit approval of the White House Communications Office."

Wiles added that "unauthorized leaks will not be tolerated and are subject to sanction up to and including termination," warning that policy violations "can result in significant disruption to ongoing operations and can potentially endanger missions and activities of national significance."

The memo was driven by frustration with West Wing staffers who had been using journalists to wage internal political battles, a source told Politico. But the tipster stressed the crackdown didn't stem from one single incident.

"She was generally very frustrated with leaks," the source said.

The memo threatening consequences for unauthorized press contact was itself immediately leaked to the press.

White House spokesperson Liz Huston defended the policy in a statement to Politico, saying hundreds of White House staffers "are held to strict policies — including a zero-tolerance policy against speaking to the media without explicit authorization from the Communications Office — to ensure the President's message is communicated clearly, accurately, and directly to the American people."

Wiles' sprawling Vanity Fair profile published late last year generated enormous blowback after she described Trump as having an "alcoholic's personality" and offered sharp assessments of several top administration officials, including Vice President JD Vance and Attorney General Pam Bondi.

I went for a run earlier this week under a wind advisory. The gusts were brutal, the kind that make you question the lengths you will go to avoid the treadmill.

At one point I passed a construction site, and hovering around it was a thick, low-hanging cloud of dirt. When a gust hit, it didn’t drift, it exploded. It rained all over me. It got up in my face. It stung my eyes. It crackled in my ears. It caked on my wet shirt like paste.

By the time I got home, I regretted my disdain for running inside on the treadmill.

And after I showered and sat down, I couldn’t stop thinking: this is exactly what Donald Trump is like.

He’s dirty. Comprehensively, constitutionally, irreversibly dirty. He has a dirty mouth. A dirty mind and hands, “grab ’em by ...” he told Billy Bush in 2005. They were words a jury would later consider a kind of personal confession when they found him liable for sexually abusing E. Jean Carroll.

And according to Carroll, he doesn’t “smell good” just like dirt.

He has a dirty name. It’s one he’s now smeared across the Kennedy Center, the Institute of Peace, federal buildings up and down the capital, American currency, national park passes, and, soon on United States passports.

In fact, his name was so dirty in New York City that they took it off buildings.

He has a dirty face, plastered with dirty orange cosmetics. He has dirty hands used for the grabbing, and now also because they are covered with another cosmetic meant to hide bruises. He gets no sympathy from me for that.

His whole persona works exactly like that construction-site dirt in a wind advisory. He gets in your face. The image of him stings your eyes. He crackles incessantly in your ears, from Truth Social, from behind the Resolute Desk, from the tarmac, from every rally.

He coats everything he touches and doesn’t wash out easily.

And on Thursday, he showed up at the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool for what was supposed to be a photo op for his so-called “beautification” project, painting the pool an “American flag blue,” and proceeded to do what he always does: make everything dirtier just by being there.

When ABC News senior White House correspondent Rachel Scott asked him the entirely reasonable question of why he was focused on renovation projects while a war in Iran raged and gas prices were soaring, Trump did not answer her. He aimed a dirty insult at her.

“You probably don’t see dirt, but I do,” he told her. Then, more pointedly: “You can understand dirt, maybe better than I can, baby, but I don’t allow it.”

Just typing those words makes me feel filthy.

A racially charged, condescending gut punch to Scott, certainly, although she is as resilient as they come, but also to anyone listening to his mudslinging. As he walked away, a hot mic caught him apparently calling her a vulgar misogynistic slur and dismissing her as “a horror show.”

Trump was right that someone at that reflecting pool on Thursday night understood dirt intimately. It was him.

Trump’s first wife, Ivana, accused him of rape during their 1990 divorce proceedings, and at least two dozen women have accused him of sexual assault, harassment, or misconduct dating back to the 1970s.

But his treatment of Black journalists, especially women, is uniquely sickening and reflects exactly what a dirty, disgusting pig Trump is.

He called CNN’s Abby Phillip’s questions “stupid.” He viciously labeled veteran White House correspondent April Ryan a “loser” and “very nasty.” He accused PBS’s Yamiche Alcindor of asking a “racist question” when she pressed him on white nationalism. He called Don Lemon “the dumbest man on television.” He had already labeled Scott “the most obnoxious reporter in the whole place” back in December.

Thursday was simply the latest example of Trump using Black women as targets for his mudslinging.

He’s also slinging mud all over Washington, defacing the Kennedy Center and national park passes, replacing images of the very nature those parks were created to protect. And the ways he has dirtied the White House are too numerous to mention, but the dirt where the East Wing once stood is a reminder of the ruinous effects of the dirt that is Trump.

Starting in July, his soiled visage will appear in U.S. passports. His grimy signature, which was reportedly used to represent pubic hair in a Jeffrey Epstein birthday note, will smudge paper currency.

That filthy face is on commemorative $1 coins. His name is on the Institute of Peace. His banners hang from the Departments of Labor, Justice, and Agriculture. He even named a class of battleships after himself.

Everywhere Trump goes, he leaves a film of himself on everything. Just like dirt.

When he looked at Rachel Scott, who is a truly brilliant, fearless reporter who asks him every uncomfortable question she needs to ask without skipping a beat, and told her she understood dirt better than he did, he might have been telling the truth.

Here’s why: she has been covering Trump consistently since the 2020 presidential campaign. Her job involves reporting on a man who is dirt. She goes to work every day, asks her questions, and gets pelted with mud for it, from the dirt-in-chief.

She and her White House press colleagues have the dirtiest job in Washington, even dirtier than the construction workers ripping up the East Wing.

Scott knows what it’s like to have dirt sting your eyes and crackle in your ears and cake onto you.

Only one person standing at that reflecting pool on Thursday night had spent a lifetime generating, spreading, and wallowing in dirt. Only one of them woke up the next morning still filthy.

And it wasn’t Rachel Scott.

{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}