Mizzou running back Ahmad Hardy (29) runs the ball (copy) (copy)

(The Center Square) - The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has approved reimbursing Texas $7.5 billion for costs incurred by the state's border security operations during the Biden administration's border crisis. 

It's the first time Texas has received such a reimbursement, thanks to a new federal law.

Gov. Greg Abbott said he spoke with Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, “who confirmed that the Department of Homeland Security will be sending Texas $7.5 billion as part of the federal funding to reimburse Texas. 

“Texas held the line when Washington would not. Texas taxpayers spent billions to stop illegal crossings, catch criminals, and seize deadly drugs. This reimbursement is a victory for those taxpayers,” Abbott said, thanking the president and Mullin. 

Abbott also said Texas is also applying to the U.S. Department of Justice for reimbursement for a portion of an additional $3 billion the state spent on border security, which he says will “fully reimburse Texas for costs incurred due to the Biden Administration’s refusal to enforce federal immigration law.”

The DHS reimbursement comes from a State Border Security Reinforcement Fund within the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, secured. The governor’s office submitted Texas’ application to DHS for reimbursement in June.

The announcement comes 20 months after Abbott first asked Congress to reimburse Texas for more than $11.1 billion spent on border security efforts, The Center Square reported. Cornyn and his colleagues delivered.

During the Biden administration, the Texas Legislature allocated more than $11.6 billion to border security efforts, the most in the state's history. That’s more than multiple state fiscal year budgets and more than what the Trump administration allocated to federal border security efforts in Texas, The Center Square reported.

Last year, Texas Senate and House budget proposals allocated more than $6 billion to border security efforts over a two-year period, The Center Square reported.

Abbott first launched OLS in March 2021, in response to an unprecedented number of illegal border crossers and crime within the first couple of months of the Biden administration. 

From March 2021 through February 2026, OLS officers apprehended 538,141 illegal foreign nationals, including those referred to Border Patrol. They also deterred 157,112 illegal entries, according to OLS data obtained by The Center Square. 

Through OLS, thousands of Texas National Guard soldiers and Department of Public Safety troopers were deployed to the border. Dozens of sheriff’s offices also beefed up operations participating in an OLS Task Force.

OLS efforts include constructing Texas’ own border wall, building concertina wire and marine barriers, expanding technological capabilities to stop illegal crossings and drug interdiction. They also include new brush teams, canine and equestrian units as well as a range of interdiction efforts through targeted traffic enforcement, The Center Square reported. 

These efforts are ongoing. Operation Lone Star is in its fifth year.

Although illegal crossings at the southwest border have dropped by more than 95% under the second Trump administration, crime is ongoing and cartel networks are embedded throughout Texas and nationwide. OLS 2.0 is targeting them and criminal actors designated as foreign terrorist organizations such as Tren de Aragua. 

As TdA crime spread to dozens of states, in September 2024, Abbott expanded OLS operations to eradicate TdA, The Center Square reported. Since OLS began, more than half a million Venezuelan nationals have been apprehended by Border Patrol agents in Texas after they illegally entered the U.S. 

OLS officers are also targeting South American Theft Groups and commercial vehicle crimes statewide. Last September, Texas DPS began suspending issuing CDL licenses in several categories. Targeted CDL enforcement actions are ongoing. 

Since March 2021, OLS officers have record amounts of methamphetamine, marijuana, cocaine and heroin and enough fentanyl to kill nearly one tenth of the world’s population, according to data obtained by The Center Square. 

Law enforcement officers argue continued funding for OLS is needed as national security threats persist. Funding is also needed for prosecutors, jails and transportation. 

“Just because the bodies quit coming, we still have this massive cleanup to do,” Kinney County Sheriff Brad Coe told The Center Square. “We still need funding for jail facilities and transportation.”

“Many people overlook the fact that successful prosecutions are more important than arrest numbers in achieving justice and creating a deterrence for those who commit crimes,” Kinney County Attorney Brent Smith told The Center Square.

Prosecuting crimes and sending people to jail is the deterrence that is needed to enforce the law, he argued.

“The underlying reason why millions of illegal aliens invaded our country during the Biden administration is quite simple: people do not follow laws unless they are enforced,” Smith said. “The only reason most people obey the law is the deterrence of punishment that results when it is violated. This is the fundamental basis of our legal system.”

A Boone County judge granted temporary restraining orders for two Mizzou women's golfers Friday, allowing them to return to competition.

Addie Dobson and Melanie Walker filed the suit against the NCAA on Monday. After a Friday hearing, judge Joshua Devine ruled in favor of the athletes.

The ruling states: "The court finds that Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits, immediate and irreparable harm for which monetary relief is inadequate and that the balance of equities and public interest favor preserving their ability to compete, pending further litigation."

With the eligibility granted, MU brings back competitors who were critical to its 12th-place finish at the NCAA Championships last season.

Dobson qualified for the U.S. Open and recorded two top-10 finishes last year. Walker placed in the top five on three separate occasions in the campaign.

Dobson and Walker enrolled at MU again in the fall and have been practicing with the team while being listed on its roster. The NCAA's defense focused around the athletes previously completing their four years of collegiate eligibility.

"Under new rules that came into effect in August, student-athletes who had not yet exhausted their eligibility may now compete in five seasons," the NCAA said in an opposition to the lawsuit. "But because Plaintiffs already exhausted their eligibility, the rule does not apply to them, and they are ineligible to compete this fall."

The duo is immediately eligible to compete once again for the Tigers. Their home tournament, the Johnnie Imes Invitational, begins Monday at The Club at Old Hawthorne.

The TRO will remain in effect until 5:30 p.m. Sept. 29. There will be a hearing on preliminary injunctive relief, a longer-term order in comparison to the emergency TRO, at 10:30 a.m. the same day.

(The Center Square) – The U.S. Attorney's Office won’t release the subpoenas related to a federal investigation into Gov. Gavin Newsom’s international travel expenses, which The Center Square tried to acquire this week.

“Subpoenas are not public record, and our office never releases them,” Lauren Horwood, public information officer for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Eastern District of California, told The Center Square.

The Center Square also could not acquire the subpoenas from federal courthouses.

The Center Square went to two courthouses in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District this week. One, in downtown Fresno, didn’t have anyone in the clerk’s office or the U.S. Attorney’s office there who could look up the subpoenas since there was no case number assigned to those documents. Employees of two judges in that building would not talk to The Center Square.

The main courthouse in the Eastern District of California, in downtown Sacramento, similarly didn’t have anyone in the clerk’s office who was able to look up the subpoenas. Visits to the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the courtroom of Chief Judge Troy L. Nunley were equally unsuccessful.

The San Francisco Standard reported last weekend that subpoenas filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California were issued in early September and that communications with Newsom and his associates, as well as six years of records showing Newsom’s international travel and related expenses, be turned over to the U.S. Department of Justice. The records involve the California State Protocol Foundation, a nonprofit that pays for the governor’s travel, the Standard reported.

The Standard reported that its review of state records showed Newsom directed more than $7.5 million in donations from outside groups to the foundation. The Standard also said about $5.1 million of that came from two foundations that paid for inauguration costs for Newsom in 2019 and 2023.

The Center Square previously reported that Newsom has reported more than $340 million in behested payments to various organizations since he took office in 2019. Behested payments go to a third party such as a nonprofit a politician likes.

No one was available at the California State Protocol Foundation to answer The Center Square's questions Friday.

“Governor Newsom went after the king — and as he warned in June, the tyrant is now coming after everyone around him,” Tara Gallegos, director of communications for the Democratic governor’s office, told The Center Square via email. “This is what Donald Trump does to his enemies: investigate first, hunt for a crime that doesn't exist second. This is a baseless MAGA conspiracy theory.”

Gallegos added that there is no crime to investigate.

“There is just a sick man in the White House weaponizing the federal government to settle personal scores,” Gallegos wrote. “It’s deeply upsetting to see innocent staff, friends, and family have their names dragged through the mud just because they’re associated with the Governor.”

The Center Square reached out to the U.S. Department of Justice for comment, but did not hear back by publication time.

The Standard also reported that aides, advisers and other people close to Newsom who had their international travel expenses paid by the foundation included Rebecca Prowda, Newsom’s chief protocol officer and wife of San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie. The subpoenas also requested information about international travel expenses paid by the foundation for Steve Kawa, Newsom’s former chief of staff; Jim DeBoo, former executive secretary for Newsom, and Matina Kolokotronis, COO of the Sacramento Kings, among others.

The Center Square attempted to reach some of the people named in the story by The Standard. None of them responded before press time on Friday. 

(The Center Square) – As the Trump administration continues to pursue ways to quell “birth tourism,” legal scholars are probing potential actions Congress could take to rewrite the common interpretation of the 14th amendment’s citizenship clause.

The clause states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

That phrase has been interpreted over the last 150 years to guarantee citizenship to any child born in the United States – with a few exceptions – regardless of whether the mother is residing in the country legally.

The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that interpretation in June in Trump v. Barbara, with Chief Justice John Roberts stating that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" refers to the United States' power to govern anyone living in its territory.

Critics of the court’s ruling disagree, arguing that the clause does not mean territorial jurisdiction, but national jurisdiction, which requires allegiance to the U.S. government

They further argue that the 14th amendment was meant to apply only to American citizens and recently freed slaves, not illegal immigrants or tourists who come to the U.S. explicitly to have children.

“This was an outcome-oriented decision, in my opinion. This is not a decision that was actually grounded in originalism,” Gene Hamilton, president of the America First Legal Foundation, said Friday in a webinar hosted by the Federalist Society.

“It's not a decision that was grounded in anything other than wanting to avoid an awkward political outcome by certain members of the Court.”

“[I]t's weird to me — to put it bluntly — to consider someone being subject to the jurisdiction thereof as implying simply that their mere presence in the United States…means that [they] are a member of the body politic, and [their] children should be citizens, and that there is nothing that could ever change that,” Hamilton added.

As of 2017, an estimated 4.5 million children under the age of 18 born to illegal immigrants were living in the U.S., according to the Federation for American Immigration Reform. An estimated 225,000 to 250,000 were born in 2023 alone, according to the Center for Immigration Studies.

U.S. Court of Appeals Judge for the Second Circuit Steven Menashi, another guest in the panel, disagreed with Hamilton. He argued that “to understand a rule that is fixed to apply differently under different circumstances is not really an odd result or non-originalist in any way.”

“We say the Second Amendment doesn't just apply to muskets, and so it might also be that the principle in the [citizenship] clause doesn't only apply to the categories to which it applied at the time,” Menashi posited.

Both Hamilton and Menashi agreed, however, that if Congress disagrees with the ruling, lawmakers can likely utilize their legislative powers to either work around the ruling or at least force the court to revisit its interpretation.

“[If the circumstances under which somebody receives citizenship can't be limited, then maybe Congress or the executive branch might try to reclaim some of the authorities about regulating citizenship,” Menashi noted.

“And that's not inconsistent with Barbara, right? Because Barbara is just about who receives citizenship. It's not about the degree to which citizenship could be regulated once conferred.”

“[A]ll that we need is a vehicle to get before the Supreme Court to get them to reconsider the decision,” Hamilton added. “Congress could still pass a law…and ultimately, that's just going to cue up another case or controversy for the Supreme Court to adjudicate and decide. But Congress still ultimately has the power to do whatever it wants.”

The last time Mizzou soccer faced Kentucky in 2025, the Wildcats came away with a 1-0 win. The Tigers hosted the Wildcats on Friday, and a similar story unfolded, with Missouri falling in a close 2-1 affair.

The loss pushed Mizzou to a 0-2 Southeastern Conference record, but the Tigers had something to be proud of — an extremely last-minute rally.

Trailing 2-0 with very little time remaining, Missouri got on the board in the 88th minute. Freshman Rylie Morse snuck one in and attempted to inspire a comeback. It almost succeeded, but a controversial call made things more difficult.

Mizzou fans felt frustrated when it looked like Kentucky had committed a handball foul inside the penalty box. The play was reviewed, no foul was called, leaving the Tigers with a loss and painful thoughts of what may have been.

"Obviously, I challenged it, so I thought it was one," Missouri coach Stefanie Golan said. "The referee explained it to me; it ricocheted from her foot to her hand, which he said negates it. He's the referee. I'm the coach. He makes the call that he makes."

Despite the late flashes, Golan wishes she had seen some of that earlier.

"We've got to figure out a way to come out on the front foot and not wait for something to come against us before we put our foot on the gas," she said.

Kentucky took a 1-0 lead in the 11th minute thanks to senior midfielder Nadia Ramadan, who placed the ball into the top right of the goal. Junior defender Michelle Moskau assisted her.

Shortly after, Ramadan and company looked to wreak more havoc with a corner kick in the 17th minute. Ramadan took a curling shot at a cluster of Wildcats surrounding Mizzou goalie Riley Wilkerson. The attempt was close but unsuccessful, keeping the Tigers in it.

Eventually, the Wildcats did add to their lead, with freshman forward Kyla Dawn scoring in the 76th minute. 

From an overambitious shot that sailed just over the goal by freshman Lana Adams to a shot on goal by Morse that had fans in awe, the Tigers had opportunities to score. Unfortunately for them, Kentucky had more. This was evident in the corner kicks alone, as Kentucky took five to Missouri’s two.

The match featured physicality from both teams, as Missouri collected 15 fouls to Kentucky's 14. Dani Chaump picked up a yellow card for the Wildcats late in the second half, highlighting the gritty playstyle. A total of three yellow cards were given in the match.

Missouri returns to action against Auburn at 6 p.m. Thursday in Columbia. The matchup between the two Tigers squads will feature Pups on the Pitch, where fans are encouraged to bring their dogs to the match.

Pet owners across the nation are getting a costly surprise a year into their pet insurance plans. The affordable coverage they initially bought gives way to soaring premiums at renewal.

The increases can be eye-popping, with some social media users reporting their pet insurance premiums jumped from $200 per year to $1,362 — a 581% increase.

Pet insurers and insurance professionals say rising veterinary costs, pet age, breed, location, and the claims experience of broader groups of animals can all affect premiums.

And there’s another wrinkle for consumers facing a big increase: Shopping around for coverage may not be as simple as it is with other insurance types.

The allure of low introductory prices for pet insurance

Some companies price aggressively to attract new business, Rami Sneineh, vice president and licensed insurance producer at Insurance Navy Brokers, told Insurify.

“To win new business, some insurance companies price policies low in the first year,” he said. “The actual cost of covering that pet is rarely reflected in that first-year premium.”

Nick VinZant, director of public relations at Trupanion, agreed. “Some pet insurance companies offer low introductory rates and then sharply raise premiums when you file a claim or as your pet ages,” he said.

Insurers wary of pre-existing conditions

For owners of pets with pre-existing conditions, securing new coverage can be difficult, bordering on impossible. Many insurers won’t cover a chronic or recurring condition the pet developed before the policy took effect.

Owners face an unpleasant choice — pay the higher renewal premium their current insurer offers or switch companies, potentially losing coverage for an expensive medical condition.

This difficult decision comes at a time when pet insurance premiums have climbed substantially in recent years, particularly for dogs.

The average annual U.S. premium for accident-and-illness coverage for a dog increased by about 22%, from $613 in 2020 to $749 in 2024, according to the North American Pet Health Insurance Association (NAPHIA). Just over half of that increase occurred in 2024, when the average dog premium jumped from $675 to $749.

Cat insurance rates have increased more slowly. The average accident-and-illness premium for cats rose from $367 in 2020 to $386 in 2024, about a 5% increase.

Insurify initial-quote data also shows that otherwise similar older pets can cost substantially more to insure than younger animals. A 10-year-old dog, for example, may cost three times as much to insure as a 1-year-old canine, per Insurify data listed below.

Pet insurance premiums are growing and so is the business

More than one-third of U.S. employers — 36% — now offer voluntary pet insurance, according to Gallagher’s 2026 U.S. Benefits Benchmarks Report, which surveyed 3,717 organizations. That’s up 13 percentage points from 23% in 2023. And nearly 75% of U.S. households own at least one pet, according to the American Pet Products Association.

As the number of pet owners climbs, the number of insured animals does as well.

About 7.6 million pets were insured in North America at the end of 2025, according to the NAPHIA. That figure is up 8.5% from 7.03 million a year earlier.

Altogether, the pet insurance industry collected about $6.2 billion in gross written premiums, a 19% increase from 2024.

Rising vet bills are showing up in insurance premiums

One major factor behind pet insurance pricing is the rising cost of veterinary care. Veterinary services inflation continues to substantially outpace the baseline national consumer price index (CPI), according to data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Prices rose 4.7% to 5.6% year over year and approximately 51% cumulatively over the last five to six years.

“The cost of veterinary care has increased significantly, and this is reflected in renewal costs,” said Sneineh.

“Better diagnostics, more specialty care, and the same kind of rising medical costs you’ve seen in human healthcare are all pushing vet bills up,” Sunil Manjunath, co-founder of One Touch Finance, told Insurify. “When an MRI or a cancer treatment costs more, your premium follows.”

Fetch Pet Insurance also pointed to veterinary inflation and increasingly sophisticated treatment as factors affecting premiums.

“Pet insurance is a regulated product, so premiums aren’t changed arbitrarily,” Julie Galante, chief insurance officer at Fetch Pet Insurance, told Insurify.

Rates are filed with state regulators and can change at renewal because of “rising veterinary costs, a pet’s age, and the growing use of advanced treatments as families increasingly pursue more sophisticated care for their pets,” Galante said.

Pet age affects premiums, but not always in the same way

Pet insurance premiums can depend on numerous factors, including species, breed, age, location, coverage level, and deductible.

But not all insurers treat age the same way.

“Insurance companies weigh that risk the same way they’d weigh a driver’s age in an auto policy, and older pets tend to generate more claims,” Sneineh said.

Fetch includes a pet’s age among the factors that can affect renewal premiums, Galante said.

Trupanion uses a different approach. The company considers a pet’s age at first enrollment but doesn’t raise its premium simply because the animal gets older, the company said.

Shopping around can help, but switching carries risks

Pet owners facing higher premiums don’t necessarily have to accept the renewal price without question. But consumers should investigate what they’ll lose as well as what they’ll save before changing insurers.

To save on pet insurance, experts recommend pet owners:

• Buy coverage while a pet is young and healthy. Younger animals often cost less to insure, and enrolling before medical problems arise can reduce the number of conditions that are excluded as pre-existing.

• Compare more than the initial premium. Ask insurers how age affects future pricing and whether an individual pet’s claims can affect renewal premiums.

• Ask how the insurer determines renewal rates. Different insurers use different rating approaches. Ask specifically about age, location, veterinary inflation, individual claims, and the claims experience of broader groups of pets.

• Ask whether new-customer pricing differs from renewal pricing. A low initial quote is less useful if the insurer’s pricing structure changes substantially after enrollment.

• Consider changing coverage before changing insurers. Ask whether increasing the deductible or changing reimbursement and coverage levels could reduce the premium while preserving existing coverage.

• Check pre-existing-condition rules before switching. Don’t cancel an existing policy until you know how the new insurer will treat conditions already in the pet’s medical record.

Related articles

(The Center Square) - A law firm specializing in government policies is taking up the case against The University of Washington on behalf of an Asian man who was denied admission, despite graduating high school with a 4.42 GPA, a 1590 SAT score, and a direct job offer from Google as a software engineer at the age of 18.

Pacific Legal Foundation is stepping in to represent Stanley Zhong in a lawsuit challenging the University of Washington’s race-conscious admissions policy, which they say violates the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI by judging students as members of racial groups, rather than as individuals.

The case was first filed in February 2025.

(The Center Square) – Suspended U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent Christian Castro appeared in both state and federal courts this week in Minnesota for initial hearings.

On Friday, Castro pleaded not guilty in a hearing before the U.S. District Court in Minneapolis on six federal charges of making false statements in connection with a nonfatal shooting during Operation Metro Surge.

This came after he was released from state custody on bail following a preliminary hearing Thursday in Hennepin County District Court.

After months in a Texas jail and controversy over the state’s refusal to extradite him to Minnesota, Castro returned to the state on his own and was arrested Wednesday in downtown Minneapolis. He was booked into the Hennepin County Jail on an active warrant.

Castro faces state charges stemming from the Jan. 14 shooting of Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis in north Minneapolis. The charges include four felony counts of second-degree assault and one count of falsely reporting a crime.

Prosecutors allege Castro fired through the front door of a duplex while standing outside and not under physical threat. According to the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office, the bullet struck Sosa-Celis in the leg before lodging in the wall of a child’s bedroom.

Earlier this month, federal prosecutors announced that Castro would also face a federal charge of making false statements in connection with the shooting during Operation Metro Surge.

At the time of the announcement of the state charges in May, federal immigration officials called Minnesota’s prosecution of Castro a “political stunt.”

An ICE spokesperson told The Center Square in an email that the state’s actions were unlawful and defended the conduct of federal agents involved in the operation.

“These actions by Minnesota sanctuary politicians are unlawful and nothing more than a political stunt,” the ICE spokesperson said.

Yet, the spokesperson also said the U.S. Attorney’s Office was already “actively” investigating statements made under oath connected to the case.

“Lying under oath is a serious federal offense,” they said. “Upon conclusion of the investigation, the officers may face disciplinary action, including termination of employment, as well as potential criminal prosecution.”

In August, Castro was suspended without pay after being released from a Texas prison, where he had been held since May on a warrant for the Minnesota charges.

He was released after reaching Texas’ 90-day limit for extradition cases, which expired after Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, did not sign an extradition warrant to send Castro to Minnesota.

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison filed a lawsuit against Abbott for his refusal, but has since dropped that lawsuit.”

Democrats nationally, who criticized the federal immigration operation, praised Minnesota authorities for pursuing charges against Castro.

“Thank you to Hennepin County authorities and Minnesota law enforcement for refusing to give up on accountability,” said U.S. Rep. Sylvia Garcia, D-TX. “But Greg Abbott still owes Texans and Minnesotans an explanation. For 90 days, he refused to extradite this agent. He let the clock run out and allowed him to walk free. Abbott failed to do his job. The people deserve to know why.”

Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty applauded Castro’s return to Minnesota.

“Gov. Abbott’s attempt to shield Mr. Castro from accountability has failed,” Moriarty posted on social media on Wednesday. “We look forward to commencing our prosecution.”

Castro has been released on conditional bail from state custody and was released on his own recognizance from federal custody.

(The Center Square) – The Freedom Foundation gave The Center Square an exclusive look at its recent door-to-door campaign in Michigan aimed at informing public employees about their union opt-out rights.

As part of the canvassing operation, foundation canvassers knocked on 7,248 doors across Lansing, Kalamazoo, Grand Rapids and Detroit throughout August and September.

Siena Rose, a communications associate with the foundation, was on the ground assisting with the campaign.

“It was really cool to be able to speak to people one-on-one from all different walks of life, from all areas of Michigan,” Rose said.

She explained that the effort was part of the foundation’s sister organization “Opt-Out Today,” which aims to inform public employees about their union opt-out rights.

“We are united by letting people know you have rights and you have options, and the union isn't going to represent you best,” Rose said. “You can do everything you need without the representation of the union.”

The foundation, which describes itself as an “action tank” fighting the “entrenched power of left-wing government union bosses,” prides itself on nearly 300,000 opt-outs nationwide. Those opt-outs have cost the unions nearly $900 million in dues, according to stats from the Freedom Foundation.

“We work to inform public employees about their constitutional and SCOTUS-protected right to opt-out of union representation,” Rose explained. “But we also help people set up independent local unions.”

Nationally, about 7.3 million government workers were union members in 2025, representing nearly one-third of government workers. This is according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

In Michigan, the foundation’s campaign was focused specifically on teachers and school staff represented by the Michigan Education Association and in-home caregivers unionized under the Service Employees International Union.

“We were targeting two very specific groups of public workers and providing them with materials,” Rose said.

She explained that they were particularly interested in connecting with caregivers in those metropolitan areas because they had heard the workers were in the process of forming a union.

“We wanted to let people know, hey, a union hasn't been here for a decade,” Rose said. “They're going to come in and take your money and not actually provide you representation because you haven't needed it for the past 10 to 12 years anyway.”

In Michigan in 2025, union members accounted for an estimated 13% of wage and salary workers. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics did not provide a breakdown of union members in the public vs. private sector.

The MEA calls itself the "largest and most influential statewide education union in Michigan," priding itself on advancing public education, collective bargaining and action, and giving workers a "seat at the table."

"MEA protects, advocates and advances the rights of all education professionals," it says. "We can only do that together, through the collective strength of educators. Your membership is important to all of us—and it’s valuable to you."

Rose said door-knocking gives the foundation both the opportunity to educate workers about their opt-out options and the chance to hear directly from workers about their experiences.

“There are real people that we’re getting to meet with real stories and lives and family members that they care about,” Rose said. “We take a lot of pride in knowing that every person we talk to, every worker we help, is a real person with a real story, and their lives matter.”

While the Freedom Foundation was door-knocking, Rose said unions were also conducting their own door-knocking campaigns.

“The union was actively trying to recruit people,” she explained. “Then we would come along and say, ‘Here’s what they are really doing. Here’s how much money they are going to take out of your paycheck. Here’s realistically what they can and cannot influence.’”

According to the foundation, once workers are informed about their options, a “large share” choose to opt-out. Rose said, in her experience, many just aren’t aware they even have the option to not be a part of a union.

“Workers were really excited and very grateful for our work,” Rose said. “We care very much about the real lives of these people . . . This was once painted as an imperative that you had to be in the union, but it is very much an option. A lot of people have been very grateful and feel more empowered in their workplaces.”

(The Center Square) – The candidates competing to represent Florida’s 25th Congressional District are offering competing solutions to the same problem: the rising cost of living.

U.S. Rep. Jared Moskowitz, D-Fla., faces Republican Scott Singer, the former mayor of Boca Raton, on Nov. 3 in a battleground race for the newly redrawn seat.

November’s election will be the first under Florida’s new congressional map, adopted earlier this year. The map changes the boundaries of both the 23rd District, currently represented by Moskowitz, and the 25th District. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., who currently represents the 25th District, is instead seeking reelection in the 20th District.

According to Inside Elections analysts Bradley Wascher and Jacob Rubashkin, the redrawn 25th District has “no true predecessor” and was "formed by leftover pieces not used to pack the three remaining Democratic-leaning districts." Forty-six percent of the new district comes from the old 23rd, 30% from the 24th and 16% from the original 25th.

The 25th District is now made up of a narrow strip along Florida’s Atlantic coast, pulling in voters from Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade counties.

After redistricting, the race was moved from a “solid Democratic” rating to a “toss-up” by the Cook Political Report, setting it up as one of the most closely watched House races of the midterm season.

The Downballot calculated that President Donald Trump led former Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024 by about 9 points within the new 25th District's boundaries.

Moskowitz is a former Florida state lawmaker and Broward County commissioner who led emergency management operations during the COVID-19 pandemic. His campaign has argued that the rising cost of living is not a partisan issue.

"There's just no partisanship on the grocery store bill," Moskowitz said during a House Judiciary Committee hearing last year. "There's just prices."

He has repeatedly criticized the Trump administration’s messaging on rising costs, saying affordability is "not a hoax.”

"As long as people are paying double and triple for groceries and rent and health insurance and home insurance and transportation and car payments, it won't work," Moskowitz said at the hearing.

In an interview with CNN last month, Moskowitz pointed to his background running food distribution operations during the pandemic.

"Most of the people who came to those food banks drove there in their car," he said. "They had jobs. They were working people. They missed one paycheck, and they were at a food bank."

Moskowitz's campaign has focused on property insurance, a cost that weighs particularly heavily on South Florida. He has touted his work drafting legislation to lower homeowners’ premiums.

"It's not just gas, groceries, bills, housing for South Florida families," Moskowitz said in a campaign ad. "It's all the same meter, and it never stops."

His campaign website also credits him with pushing for more than 1,000 new affordable housing units during his time on the Broward County Commission.

Singer, who served eight years as mayor of Boca Raton, is using his record as the city’s top official to explain how he would bring down costs for South Floridians.

"Everyone promises to lower your cost of living. Almost nobody explains how," Singer wrote in a social media post.

Singer said he would lower costs as a congressman the same way he did as Boca Raton’s mayor: through early infrastructure investment and by attracting higher-paying jobs.

He has courted residents and businesses of expensive cities like New York City, citing Florida’s lack of an income tax, lighter regulation and Boca Raton’s property tax rate. While mayor, Singer pitched that message directly to New Yorkers on a billboard in Times Square.

"We've been attracting great companies, corporate headquarters, and tech talent and finance talent for decades," Singer said in a Newsmax interview.

Singer has built his campaign around support for the president, who endorsed him on social media earlier this month.

“Scott Singer has my Complete and Total Endorsement to be the next Representative from Florida’s 25th Congressional District,” Trump wrote on Sept. 1.

Singer has repeatedly touted the administration’s efforts to cut taxes on tips, overtime and Social Security through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed last year. He praised Trump for delivering "the largest tax cut in American history" and pledged to support the president’s policy priorities if elected.

That law is also his sharpest line of attack on Moskowitz.

"Jared Moskowitz voted lockstep with all Democrats against that,” Singer said in an interview with CBS News Miami. “So for everyone earning a tip or earning overtime or seniors on fixed incomes, he voted to raise those taxes.”

In his latest filings to the Federal Election Commission, Moskowitz reported raising just under $3 million, while Singer reported raising $2.2 million.

With all 435 seats up for election in November, the race for Florida’s 25th District will help determine which party controls the House in the 120th Congress. Republicans currently hold a 5-seat advantage over Democrats, with two seats vacant.

Polls are open in Florida from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. local time on Election Day.