You're listening to Civic Media.
You can tune into any of our live shows on any radio station across the state with the Civic Media app.
Find us in your phone's app store and listen anytime, anywhere.
Wisconsin wakes up here.
Back to Daybreak with Brian and Jamie.
Good morning.
Thank you so much for joining us today on the Civic Media Network.
It is six minutes after seven now.
My name is Jamie Martinson.
Good morning.
I'm Brian Noonan.
Glad you're with us.
It is the top of the hour 706, so that means you're probably getting ready to go to work, getting your kids ready to school, and we have all the, hmm, you need to know.
It's a wake up call in more ways than one.
Time for some sh**, you need to know.
It'd be so much easier if we could just say that.
Anyway...
Starting things off, Mandela Barnes proposes blocking use of AI to boost consumer prices.
Democratic candidate for Governor Mandela Barnes is proposing to seek measures if elected to bar companies from using artificial intelligence to drive up
prices or limit access to services for consumers.
The former Lieutenant Governor's proposal includes measures to ban companies like Instacart and Walmart from using AI to implement dynamic pricing, prevent health insurers from using the technology to deny insurance claims, and fine companies like Meta for enabling e-commerce scammers according to a proposal shared by his campaign.
The proposal read billionaires and greedy corporations are using AI to
rip off Wisconsin families, insurers are using AI to deny health care claims and raise premiums.
Large grocers like Walmart are setting different prices for the same goods based on your internet history.
How would he implement such rules?
Well, that's still unclear.
A campaign spokesman said Barnes would work with the legislature to pass the AI regulations, which would be enforced by the State Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection in cooperation with the State Department of Justice.
I hate dynamic pricing.
Yes, I would especially hate it on my groceries.
So that makes sense.
I also think too many people are getting denied for health care claims, just like if you're trying to get a job, people never see your health care claim.
It's fed into a computer and there we go.
So yeah, I would I love these kinds of plans.
I'm always excited to
see more.
Right.
I want to know how it's actually going to work.
Because on paper right now, I'm like, listen, that sounds pretty good.
Yeah, of course, we're good.
I do love that as you know, the
Democratic gubernatorial candidates start rolling out more plans as we get closer and closer to a primary actual election.
I love that they're actually thinking about the fairness and the economics of it all, trying to make it better for all Wisconsinites, right?
They really are starting to lay out plans that is all
about
the fairness and making sure that corporations are not taking advantage of people right here in Wisconsin.
So I am excited to see more from all of them as the primary season progresses.
Yes,
because it's obvious they've been listening, they see what the real issues are, and instead of spending their time just attacking the other side, they're saying, okay, this is what we want to do.
Now we just need a few more specifics on some of these details and we'll be good to go.
I will say too, the one thing that I've been impressed about before we get to this next story is the fact that no matter who you're supporting in this primary season on the Democratic side, if you are supporting any of them or you're still trying to make up your mind, they are doing the real work and they are getting out.
Every single one of them is doing work all across the state going into communities, talking with real voters.
So I can appreciate that as well.
Yeah, go ahead.
Part of me is like...
that's what they're supposed to.
It is, but
you know, there's
a lot of lip service that
goes into election
season.
So I love the
fact that they are doing the real work of it all too.
But you're right.
Yes.
They shouldn't be praised for it, but we don't see it enough
in this election.
We gotta celebrate that low bar being cleared.
That's right.
Yay, you for doing what you're supposed
to.
Yay for politicking well.
Anyway, we do have more stuff you need to know.
Officials with the village of Hobart.
That is an area just what
of Green Bay have filed an appeal of a judge's decision against the village in its ongoing dispute with the Oneida Nation.
The action is the latest in the more than 20 year feud between the village and the tribal nation.
Nearly the entire non-tribal village of Hobart lies within Oneida Reservation Boundaries.
As the tribal nation buys land in the village, it's moving to transfer it to a federal trust, meaning that it can't be taxed nor policed by the village, which is a
designation for more than the 500 federally recognized tribal nations within the United States.
This latest case, though, centers on 21 parcels that totals about 500 acres.
It was about to be moved into a federal trust for the benefit of the Oneida Nation by the U.S.
Department of Interior.
The move was challenged, though, in court by the village back in 2023.
In a December 2nd, 2025 ruling,
the U.S.
District Judge William C. Greysbach for the Eastern District of Wisconsin and Green Bay said he sympathized with Holbart's concerns, but only Congress could change the situation.
So the appeal process could take several more months.
Growing up in South Dakota, a good
good chunk of the state is reservation for
the
Sioux nation.
And so these were the types of battles that I saw all the time.
And it was so funny because of the tribal boundaries, just what we're saying here about policing and basically being sovereign nation, there was only so much that the other communities could do.
And they literally would get to a line and be like, hey, we can't cross.
There's nothing we can do here unless you invite us in.
And so I've seen these types of
arguments a lot in my life over the last few years.
Well, there's been one going on up in the north woods.
And I can't remember the town for years about a road and some, you know, the road and the shoulder on the road and going through the nation.
It's all very, it's always very complicated when you get into tribal tribal
disputes, right?
You
want to respect the
land and the heritage and all of that.
But it does
make it complicated.
It just there's more.
There's enough bureaucracy when you're dealing with just Regular municipalities when you throw in federally protected tribal lands and all of that it becomes even more so I'm like all right you guys My name's Paul.
That's between y'all you guys hand yourselves.
Yep, and good luck to everybody involved I don't quite understand there were always
arguments in South Dakota about taxes and who should get what and the roads and the schools because they are sovereign, but they're still part of it It is it is complicated and
brains much, much better and bigger than mine.
We'll put it like that.
Ditto.
All right, this is the big story.
Law enforcement officers who protected the US Capitol on January 6, 2021 sued the Trump administration yesterday to block implementation of a newly created $1.8 billion fund for allies of President Trump, who they say were unfairly investigated by previous administrations.
Hold on while I cry one big tear for the insurrections.
The lawsuit was brought in federal court by Harry Dunn, a former member of the US Capitol Police, and Daniel Hodges, a current member of the Washington DC Metropolitan Police Department.
The lawsuit claims that the new fund runs afoul of the US Constitution and federal law.
Now the men say the fund will potentially be used to pay individuals who participated in the attack and finance various paramilitary organizations in the country if allowed to make...
allowed to begin making payments.
The fund will directly finance the violent operations of rioters, paramilitaries, and their supporters who threatened plaintiffs' lives that day and continue to do so, according to lawyers for Dunn and Hodges.
That was part of their 29-page suit.
It went on to say militias like the Proud Boys will use money from the fund to arm and equip themselves.
The fund will grant their past acts of violence legal imprimatur, the lawsuit claims.
Wow.
This is yeah, we talked about this a little from the other side about us being taxpayers, but imagine I'm glad this lawsuit has been filed.
Yeah, it needs now How far will it go?
We don't know We know that if it if it were to make its way up to the Supreme Court Who knows how it would play out because of past things but just
On a very basic level, and I know we've said this before, but sometimes we just have to keep hammering something on a very basic common-sense level.
Paying these criminals is itself criminal.
These are not reparations being paid to African-Americans or Native Americans or another oppressed people.
These are people who were taken to court for good reason.
If you go in and you defile the desk of the speaker or someone in the Senate or you're carrying a Confederate flag through the rotunda after you broke a window, you're trying to break down the doors of the Senate chamber.
You don't deserve reparations.
You deserve jail time.
You didn't deserve to be pardoned.
You didn't deserve your weak sauce defenses.
None of that.
So I'm glad this lawsuit has been filed.
Has this administration or anybody who supports it thought about the precedent that it sends?
Because here's the thing though, right?
I mean, there is a lot of what aboutism that happens in this country.
And, you know, you go all the way back to the Black Lives Batters protest after we watched George Floyd be killed.
And there were so many people across this country who were appalled by those people protesting.
And yes, there were times it got violent, right?
There
were
times in some cities, Minneapolis is a great case of that.
It did get violent, but then there were people who were appalled by that, but then there were people who thought that these were just tourists and that what they did that day was okay.
So think about the precedent that this is sending.
If you were not okay with the protest of George Floyd, but you're okay with the protestors or the insurrectionists from January 6th, and now you're okay with using taxpayer money to pay these off, think about what happened when there's another president in office.
Is this the precedent that we're going to set?
Because if you're not okay with one, you shouldn't be okay with the other.
And if we're going to set that type of precedent, we're gonna say, it's okay to attack police officers, but please don't scream about defunding the police.
These are all things that you have to think about in your argument when we're talking about this, right?
Because one thing is not like the other, and you can't say one is okay, but the other is okay.
That's not how this works.
Well, it's also ironic that this is coming from the back of the blue group.
But there's one big, there's one big difference between the two protests that you're talking
about,
Jamie.
And it has to do with pigmentation.
So, you know, and I don't like to play that.
I hate when people play the race card and I'm not trying to play the race card, because quite frankly,
white guy.
I can't play the race.
It's hard when you're just a white
person, right?
But I'm just I'm looking at this.
I'm looking at this going well, the the sea of people on January 6 all look the same.
And the sea of people protesting the Black Lives Matter.
It was very there were a lot of people
of all different
races and very diverse.
But we focused on the
the black lives matter.
Yeah.
Does everybody's lives matter?
That's not the point.
So back to this lawsuit, they're saying that this this decision to set up this slush fund
violated federal rulemaking laws and that law is the Administrative Procedure Act and that allows individuals to challenge some government decision-making.
The lawyers for Dunn and Hodges say the officials violated it by not following a different provision of federal law that says the government can only settle lawsuits after the Attorney General agrees that such payment quote is in the interest of the United States and they are arguing that it is not.
I would support their argument.
This payment
is extortion from the administration, in my opinion, to make sure I'll drop this lawsuit against my own government, but you still gotta pay me.
And it is, come on, if you don't think this is, a majority of this is going to he and his cronies and not, you know, Johnny Yahoo, who was screaming and yelling on January 6th, you haven't been paying attention.
No, we can never accept what happened in our past.
Not with things like the insurrection, not with any sort of political violence.
It's not acceptable.
And then to basically say that the police don't matter at that point.
What are we doing?
Well, it's timing.
Timing and hypocrisy.
And this is Daybreak.
We're
going to swipe or stay right after this.
Stick around on the Civic Media
Network.
Thank you for joining us this morning.
It is time for swipe or stay.
We're gonna put some politics aside and talk about something as crazy but a little less controversial.
Pop culture, we can do that, right?
Our senior producer Frank joins us this morning.
Not everything has to be controversial.
It just has to be, is it?
Is it
today?
Do we have anything controversial?
I don't think we have any controversy going on.
Okay, all
right, good, good.
I like that.
I know.
No, we've got some interesting salutes.
stuff, though, just in the lives of celebrities and their crazy, kooky, rich, infested lives that they live.
So anyway, we're going to play swipe or stay.
I'm going to read some pop culture headlines.
Brian and Jamie will have to decide whether to swipe onto the next one or stay and hear some more.
Parker, you can be the tiebreaker and make the final decision if these two knuckleheads can't decide.
OK, even after I made fun of
you, apparently, about the brewers and cups.
Well Parker I already made the rules for this game, and I can't break the rules right now, so Ah You're safe for now.
All right story number one celebrity couple is two million dollars in contractor debt.
Oh I Love when the rich try to stiff the working man.
I'll stay stay
Any guesses on the celebrity couple
Spencer Pratt and Heidi Montag.
I don't hate that guess
But no,
Colin Yost and Scarlett Johansson.
It is not Colin Jost and Scarlett Johansson.
So everyone, sure, the Justin Beldoni lawsuit is settled,
but Blake Lidley and Ryan
Reynolds really are still dealing with more issues.
Wow.
According to multiple outlets.
Five contractors and subcontractors have filed mechanics liens against the couple's 110-acre Lewisboro, New York property in April, claiming they're owed a combined $2.1 million for unpaid work on the estate.
The
estate is 14,500 square
feet.
has been under construction for years, and one construction company alone filed a claim for more than $1.3 million tied to work, including framing, plumbing, HVAC, electrical, drywall, and masonry.
Who needs 14,000 square feet?
Seriously?
Jamie, what do they
have?
Two kids?
Come on.
Deadpool needs that kind of guy.
Maybe if he stopped paying all those rexom players, he'd be able to pay his contractors.
Well, and that's the thing.
But I mean, between the two, well, what has Blake lively done?
I don't know how much what ends with
us, which was not a great
movie.
The movie itself wasn't great.
I think it was the
actor.
And let's be realistic, her reaction on the red carpet really rubbed people the wrong way because of how light and frivolous she was on the red carpet discussing such really heavy issues.
I mean,
fans really...
If you liked her before, there are a lot of people who did not afterwards.
I mean, even Taylor Swift and her are no longer besties.
Well then, Taylor Swift is the barometer of good friendships and good people.
It sure is.
Alleged deadbeats.
Brian learned about Carly Claus yesterday.
That's right.
You won't
go down that rabbit
hole.
All right.
Let's
keep going.
Fan eats picture of movie star's face for 80 days straight.
What I want to hear this story only so we can keep tabs on this scary
That's
right a woman in London ate a picture of Glenn Powell's face Hoping to get attention and be put in a movie
Wow
during so they did a round table interview with the Hollywood reporter hold on
where all, all of the movie stars, I think, I think Harrison Ford was there among others.
Glenn Powell was one of them and they were talking about crazy fan interactions, right?
And
they got to Glenn Powell and he said, there's a woman in London who has been printing out pictures of my face for the last 80 days and has eaten my face every day.
Literally will eat my face until I give her a role in a movie.
Oh
my God.
Here's how he found out about this.
He was out of red carpet and the person interviewing him on the red carpet and said, Hey, have you heard about this girl that's been eating your face every day?
Oh
my God.
To which he's like, Yeah, I don't want to talk about this because this is kind of a liability.
Yeah.
Wow.
No, but yeah, that is a thing.
He also went on to say the craziest thing he's ever been offered to.
Autograph for somebody was one of his own family pictures.
Oh my gosh.
That a fan got ahold of.
People are crazy, man.
People are
nuts.
It's good that it's not just here in the United States, though.
Oh, it's everywhere.
But still, he's here.
Is he pretty sure is he American?
He's American.
I was going to say, because if not, he puts on a great American accent.
Yeah.
Oh, wow.
That is terrifying.
That Glenn Powell
from Texas puts on a great American
accent.
I couldn't remember where he was from.
That's why
I
think he's from Texas.
I'm not entirely sure.
All right.
Moving on to story number three.
Massive concert tour has to rework their stage.
Rework their stage.
I'm going to pass or swipe.
I'll swipe.
We'll get Parker involved.
I'll say stage just so Parker can wake up and do something here.
Parker.
Why start now?
stay.
Parker is like, we don't have much time.
I got to
stay up.
Harry Siles and his team has to face the music and change the actual stage for his together together tour after just two shows.
Harry Siles kicked off the tour last weekend in Amsterdam and social media was flooded with complaints with concert goers complaining about visibility.
They
had to
release a statement saying we've heard concerns from some fans regarding sight line obstructions on the floor.
We want every person in the room to have the best experience possible.
Yada, yada, yada.
Anyway, they're going to rework the stage minimally for the upcoming shows in London.
And then when the tour comes to Madison Square Garden for his residency, I think it's getting a complete makeover.
Aren't you going to be there for that?
I am going to be there for that.
The whole
thing, you're
moving to New York.
I'm going to move to New York and be Civic Media's Harry Styles Together Together reporter.
All right.
And I'll let you guys know how the sightlines are.
But that's Swiper safe for today.
Great.
Well, thank you, Frank.
Representative Mark Pokan joins us next here on Daybreak.
I'm Brian Noonan.
I'm Jamie Martin, 7.29 right now in Civic Media Network.
Now back to more of Daybreak with Brian and Jamie.
Thank you so much for joining us this morning.
We do appreciate it.
We hope you are having a great start to your day.
My name is Jamie Martenson.
And good morning.
I'm Brian Noonan.
One of the misleading and inflammatory labels that this administration uses regularly is domestic terrorist.
They use this label to describe anyone who disagrees with them, protests them, or believes differently than them.
Last fall, the president issued a directive called NSPM.
dash seven, which critics call a direct attack on free speech.
Congressman Mark Pocamp from Wisconsin Second District was a vocal critic of the directive.
He joins us now.
Congressman, thank you for being here.
We appreciate it.
For those of us who hadn't heard about this directive, NSPM 7, what is it?
What does it cover?
Well, I've that means 99.999% of the people because okay doesn't exactly flow off the tongue, right?
NSPM 7 what it is is a directive by the president that essentially Weaponizes the Department of Justice and a task force in particular to go after What really is free speech rights?
It's to go after people who are anti-American not defined by law anti
capitalism, not defined by law, anti Christianity, which I'm assuming other religions fall in that category.
But at the end of the day, it's this kind of idiotic, because it came from Trump, clearly idiotic directive to somehow stifle free speech and probably other constitutional rights.
And we're kind of right now seeing it
kind of unrolling.
This is the one that people might know it as the directive to go after Antifa, which as we all know, there's no like organized Antifa.
You don't get a mailing from Antifa.
You don't have an Antifa mailing card.
I think the only thing I really know with Antifa is as a drag queen, I think it goes by Antifa.
But you know, they in their quest to, you know, go after
free speech, especially on the left, this was done.
What's interesting is even some Trump officials have admitted this could go after Tucker Carlson and other Republicans who disagree with the president.
So once again, another scary power grab by the Trump administration.
Now, Congressman, there's a lot of conservatives right now.
You mentioned some conservatives who are concerned about figures like Tucker Carlson, but there are others who say that their views right now are being silenced.
And by the way, this is a report that the Trump administration alleges was anti-Christian bias under the Biden administration.
Are our free speech rights under attack in this country?
I mean, I think as a congressman, you're the perfect person to answer that for us today.
Yeah, by this administration.
I mean, not in general, right?
I mean, I think some of this started with, you know, their arguments on woke cancellation and then it turned out they kind of like cancellation on the right.
So they do quite a bit of it.
So they kind of quit talking about that.
And now it's, you know, it was Antifa for a while.
And now they're just, you know, they're not even trying to give it a
able to confuse they're just outright going after people who don't agree with their policies and that's the scary part because you know we have constitutional rights and I know that many members of Congress recognize this privately but they're not willing to take on the president when it comes to something like this and you know I watched
when I was doing that amendment and appropriations to try to go after this, to not allow them to go after people based on free speech.
I saw a couple of the freedom caucus folks, the most conservative, who once in a while believe in the Constitution, kind of like looking and nodding their head as I said stuff.
So, yeah, but Donald Trump again, isn't necessarily left-right spectrum.
It's all top-down and he's the guy on top spectrum, and that's where these ideas come from.
So you did offer an amendment to the Commerce, Justice, and Science funding bill that dealt with this issue.
So what was your amendment and how was it received?
I think we all kind of know
that.
Basically saying no money.
Yeah, no money could be expended to go after people that would violate their free speech rights.
You shouldn't have to say that, right?
Because if you have constitutional rights.
Right that in and of itself should be enough, but we did that and you know, they didn't take the amendment all the Democrats voted for it all the Republicans voted against it ultimately but you know Also, they didn't really argue against it because it's pretty hard to argue against which is again part of the
current idiocy in Washington.
They all know Donald Trump is the ultimate huckster, constantly grifting the American people, but they won't say anything about it.
They just kind of quietly keep their head down so they can keep their jobs.
And unfortunately, that's Congress in 2026.
The good news is in November, people can replace some of those sycophants pretty easily.
We're talking with Congressman Mark Pocan this morning.
He represents Wisconsin's second congressional district.
I'll get the words out yet this morning.
But, you know, we saw over the weekend this rally that was held in Washington, D.C.
by the Trump administration.
Was it a prayer rally?
I'm not really sure exactly what the point was.
But, I mean, it brought up a lot of discussion about the separation of church and state congressmen.
And I mean, are we living in a time when that line is becoming more blurred by this administration?
I
don't even think they're trying to say it's blurred.
They're changing the line to say Christian nationalism and all too often white Christian nationalism is acceptable.
And, you know, it used to be, if you were in the KKK, you kind of kept your sheets, you know, pretty deeply into your dresser.
So you only wore them when you had your nice little rallies with your buddies.
These days, people feel very free to be openly racist and discriminatory in other ways.
And if you have a country that's guided by Christian nationalism, I mean, it's actually very religious, it's observant, and it very easily slips to white Christian nationalism, which then becomes outright racist.
But you know, Mike Johnson has a Christian nationalist flag outside of his office, right?
I mean, there are members of Congress who do that right now.
That never happened, even just the, what, almost 14 years ago when I got to Congress, we didn't have that kind of behavior.
But Donald Trump has normalized racism and other discriminatory behavior.
And, you know, that's kind of the base that's never going to leave him.
Because I would say something like, you know, even if he did something as stupid as, you know, take out a fight with the Pope, well, he did that.
right?
Yeah, he's done pretty much everything he could possibly do to try to lose that base.
And there's, you know, a certain percent of the people probably in the 30 to 35% range that are going to be with him as long as he's a racist.
Now, Congressman, you mentioned it's been almost 14 years since you were elected to the House, to an outsider, myself, and to a lot of people in the country, quite frankly.
It seems that there's no bipartisan cooperation in the House on any issue now.
So what's your opinion on how the House has changed since you've been in there and the current leader?
It just seems like nothing's going to get done unless Donald Trump bouquets it.
Yeah, oh no, absolutely.
You know when I first got there was the rise of the Tea Party Tea Party these days are the moderates Maga is the new movement of the juror right because of Donald Trump and these folks are very very extreme that are there in Yeah, it's not even almost a political party in some ways right based on ideology It's almost based on on like a cult like about an individual and Donald Trump is that cult because much of what he's done I think you know Ronald Reagan and other real
conservatives would be rolling in their graves looking at what Donald Trump's been doing.
So it's not your traditional conservative Republicans.
It's now this Donald Trump Republican, which is really in many ways more about Donald Trump.
than certainly conservative values.
I mean, look at tariff policy is something Republicans never talked about in this way.
Foreign policy used to be non-interventionism.
Now they're cheering on as they're paying $2 more a gallon for gas, a war of choice in Iran.
You know, action after action after action is no longer certainly not conservative.
And I would argue not even Republican in that definition, but it is Donald Trump and it is Trumpism and it is magaism.
Congressman, let's talk a little bit about foreign policy.
And one of your colleagues, Tom Tiffany, also running for governor of the state of Wisconsin, he was on a podcast last week said he wants to wrap up the war and then went ahead and voted against a resolution to limit US involvement.
You know, and we talk about basically doing what Donald Trump wants.
To me, that's the epitome of it, right?
You believe one thing, but
you go
ahead and do the other.
What is your reaction to Tom Tiffany?
vote and some of the rhetoric you're hearing from your
counterparts.
true MAGA cult follower with a smile, right?
Yeah, I truly would like to have one of those old fashions with him
that I see in his commercials,
right?
Because he's a smiling guy, he's affable enough, but wrapped in that affability is this ultimate MAGA worship, this cult following that you see.
So he can say he truly believes a war of choice that's
Yeah, we already had stopped supposedly the ability to have a nuclear weapon in Iran This was something that Donald Trump did following Benjamin and Netanyahu and now we're paying two dollars more gallon of gas We spent 50 billion plus on the war already.
We've lost American soldiers lives as well as many other lives And they're against it until they're told to vote for it, right?
And then they're gonna keep doing that so Yeah, it is kind of the actual
definition of what a cult is.
You follow the cult leader, even if you've said something differently.
And, you know, I'm not sure we want a cult follower as our next governor, because, you know, Donald Trump, I don't think knows very much about Wisconsin.
He'll make us, you know, a little more Mar-a-Lago-esque than anything else.
And that's probably not where we are as a
people.
We've been seeing in the last couple days the DOJ's decision to settle this unbelievable lawsuit that Donald Trump has against the IRS.
They're doing that by setting up a one billion seven hundred and seventy six million dollar slush fund basically to pay off not only the president but people that he deems need that money like the January 6 insurrectionists.
What is the feeling in the house when something like this happens and how frustrating
Is it for Democrats in the House to always see the president bypassing Congress, which is, you know, your job is to put checks and balances on him, and he doesn't even consult you folks?
Well, that's part of the problem with Mike Johnson.
I mean, he's the ultimate follower, not a leader.
He's decided we're a subservient branch of government, not a co-equal branch, like the Constitution says.
So as long as we never stand up to him, Donald Trump,
bluntly is a king.
You know, for all these no kings rallies, that's the power of a king when no one actually challenges you, right?
And that's what he's got.
This fund is the ultimate.
kind of F U to the country by Donald Trump and even some Republicans, Senate Republicans.
OK, people may be not for election, but are saying this is wrong.
This is crazy.
What is he doing?
I don't think you're going to find a lot of people, you know, maybe in the house or who still have primaries will certainly not say that.
But this is crazy.
And what is he doing?
You know, the 10 billion dollar suit was already.
historically stupid and stood out as a grift on the American people.
And now this is to, you know, provide money to people who in often cases are criminals and should never be getting any kind of taxpayer dollars for anything.
Is there any way to stop this blatant corruption though?
Yeah, I think so.
I mean, I think there's still ways you know Because it is the IRS supposedly that's administering or DOJ.
It's not quite clear DOJ seems to be kind of covering for it But you know, we we're just getting back to Washington this week to really take these issues on and I think you know the fact that
Some of the Republicans in the Senate that I've heard speak out against this tells me that we might have a little more leverage.
Kind of like the White House ballroom, right?
Doesn't pass the smell test.
It cost a billion dollars when the president said there's no cost to taxpayers.
This thing doesn't pass that smell test either.
So I think there could be pushback.
I know we only have just a few seconds left, but how do we justify these things to voters, Congressman Polkan, when we're talking ballroom taxpayer money, the slush fund, and people are seeing these rising costs, what are you telling constituents when you're out talking to people right now?
Yeah, or a billion or two billion a day on the war and everything else.
I mean, look, Donald Trump promised to reduce costs.
On day one, he's made your costs go up.
You can replace people who support him in November.
You're listening
to Civic Media.
Find the latest news, information, and archives of all your favorite shows on the Civic Media website, civicmedia.us.
from Lake Superior to Lake Michigan.
This is Wisconsin's Morning Conversation.
Daybreak with Brian and Jamie.
752 right now.
Thank you so much for joining us this morning.
We do appreciate it.
We hope you are having a great Friday Eve.
My name is Jamie Martinson.
Good morning.
I'm Brian Noonan.
If you want to get ahold of us, 855-755-CIVIC-855-752-4842.
Maybe you want to answer this question for us.
Do you trust that the EPA has your best interest in heart at heart under this new administration?
855-75 Civic, 855-752-4842.
I'm going to take it, Jamie, from your giggle that you would say, no, you do not trust that the EPA has your best interest at heart.
Well, let's be realistic.
I mean, this entire administration doesn't have real people's best interest at heart.
And
we've
already seen this EPA make several moves that, you know, makes you kind of question whether or not they're just trying to benefit their corporate donors or whether they actually care about
real people.
Yes, and you're absolutely right, because I don't think they get what the E and the P and the A stand for.
They've cut back all kind of regulations.
That was a big thing with this president in his past administration.
He's always did too much regulation.
Oh, we're stifling business.
It doesn't matter if that business is polluting and killing off animals and nature and everything else.
Well, for the last number of years, we've had
I don't remember talking about PFAS so much until I started working in Wisconsin and this for the last years we've been talking about PFAS and those are the chemicals that the forever chemicals you know that leach into your water supply and there's been a lot of work by the EPA and by Wisconsin and the DNRs to try to get this because one thing that I thought everybody could agree on was clean drinking water.
That doesn't seem partisan.
It doesn't seem like a hot take to say we should have clean drinking water.
Oh, you went way out on a limb there, Brian.
I understand.
Well, I guess, Jamie, that it is a hot take
that
we need clean drinking water because the EPA on Monday proposed repealing limits on four types of forever ever chemicals in drinking water while delaying regulations on two others.
So shortly after the president took office, the EPA signaled its plans.
to rescind the 2024 protections against per and polyfluorical substances known as PFA's.
Now, more than a year later, the agency has issued its formal proposal.
They say they're proposing to rescind and restart the regulation for four other PFAS that according to EPA administrator Lee Zeldin.
It's not because they don't matter.
They might warrant strict standards, possibly even stricter than what was previously regulated.
So how about this?
How about instead of cancelling them, you look at that, and then if you need to enhance, there's a difference between enhancing and cancelling.
Right.
Like one
of these things is not like the other, right?
And it might seem like semantics, but it's not.
I
didn't understand this at all.
Literally, Zeldin is saying that the administration of President Biden rushed the regulations before the end of his term.
They didn't follow procedure.
They left them open to being struck down in court.
Which they
have not been until you're trying to do it.
Right.
And if finalized, the EPA's proposal would end the Biden era drinking water limits for four of the toxic PFAS compounds.
And I'm not going to get into all the acronyms here, but
the
agency said that it would evaluate those PFAS and then issue new regulations while stating that it cannot predetermine the outcome of that process.
Here's the thing.
It has already been determined.
multiple times over, but PFAS are bad for us.
They're just bad.
And one of the things that we should, and you rightly pointed this out, but it's worth repeating, one of the things that as Americans we should be able to agree on is that we want to drink.
clean, pure water.
I don't know why this is controversial.
I don't know why this is a hot take.
But Jamie, what about businesses that have to operate under these draconian regulations that are going to keep me from dumping chemicals into the water?
That doesn't seem fair.
Because then it's hard for them to donate to the Republicans because 37 companies who donate to the Trump administration and the Republican Party, major companies that we would all recognize the name of in this.
country, um, happened to be ones who are fighting the PFAS
regulations.
Really?
Okay.
That seems, that seems just like a coincidence.
Yes.
Very, very coincidental.
Here's my question on this though, because how does this work in individual states?
Because this Republican party is all about state rights.
They're repealing PFAS across the country, uh, through the EPA, but then in Wisconsin, for instance, right?
We just signed, we just watched governor.
sign a law about PFAS.
So are we really for the state rights that we can enact this?
This is why it gets so confusing, because if the EPA is doing all of this rollback, but yet states are are signing bills to basically rid the water of PFAS and the contamination and hold people responsible for paying for it, not, you know, everyday citizens.
how I don't understand, like where this gets very confusing for people and who is going to be able to enforce this.
Is it the EPA?
Is it going to be the states?
Because now we have conflicting messages coming across the board.
I think unfortunately at this point everything is going to have to really fall back on the states because you're right, they push states' rights until
it doesn't suit their needs.
And just like with the elections, it doesn't suit their needs the way states are running their elections on their own.
So we want to nationalize it.
The EPA should be working in concert with the states and making sure that environmental policy is the same no matter where you go.
So if you're a company in Wisconsin, you have to be regulated.
And if you're a company in Texas, you don't.
Well, that shouldn't that shouldn't be happening.
but because of money and influence and the lack of people in charge who really have any experience heading the departments that they're heading and the president's real disdain for any sort of regulation, whether it's business, financial, congressional, constitutional, he doesn't want to be told what to do.
He's like a little child.
It's not happening.
So we'll keep an eye on it.
If you're listening on WMDX, Jamie, we have to tell those people goodbye.
Yes, Stephanie Miller starts in just moments.
You can listen to us live.
You can hear the last hour.
You can do it live on the Civic Media app.
Or you can download and subscribe to the podcast on Spotify and hear everything that you might have missed.
Some more stuff you need to know.
Coming up after this, it's daybreak.
I'm Brian Noonan.
I'm Jamie Martenson.
You're listening to the Civic Media Network.
The national news cycle never stops, but it can be hard to find news about your local community.
Civic Media is dedicated to providing quality local and state news coverage across Wisconsin.
With the Civic Media app, you can get notifications about local stories that matter to you and your community.
Find the free Civic Media app in your phone's app store and choose notifications from the menu to tell us what kind of news you want to hear about.
