Thousands of federal workers have been fired since late last week, including probationary employees with the U.S. Forest Service and National Park Service in Wisconsin.

The mass layoffs come as the Trump administration takes sweeping steps to slash the federal workforce, with job cuts led by billionaire Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency. The firings follow a Feb. 11 executive order issued by President Donald Trump to scale back the number of workers.

The U.S. Forest Service is firing 3,475 employees nationwide, said Matt Brossard, general vice president of the Forest Service Council with the National Federation of Federal Employees union. The Forest Service Council represents about 20,000 employees, including workers in Wisconsin.

“The U.S. Forest Service manages national forests, manages all the recreation areas, campgrounds, visitor centers, all of that is going to take a hit,” Brossard told WPR.

The agency did not immediately provide details on the firings in Wisconsin. WPR spoke with several Forest Service workers and a union representative in Wisconsin about the cuts. They requested anonymity due to fear of retaliation. The union official said a dozen probationary employees were fired in the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest over the weekend, adding workers fear that layoffs are just beginning to ramp up.

One Forest Service worker in Wisconsin said they were called in on Saturday by their supervisor and notified their termination was effective immediately due to poor performance. They were directed to fill out paperwork, return federal credentials or access cards and log out of computers. The federal worker said they never had anything but excellent performance reviews.

“It’s not right,” the fired worker said. “It’s illegal. It’s a lie.”

Another U.S. Forest Service worker with knowledge of the situation corroborated the account. Agency workers say those affected include veterans, people who just purchased a home and another individual with a baby on the way.

One individual said they received no severance. The employee will receive a final paycheck, as well as any unpaid leave. While they’re eligible for unemployment, the worker said the maximum payment is nowhere near what they were making.

Some say they’re exploring appeals or potential legal challenges, which might include joining lawsuits filed by unions. Unions are seeking a court order to temporarily bar the Trump administration’s firing of federal employees, which they have said is unlawful. Brossard said union lawyers are seeking a ruling that would retroactively bar firings that began last week, and a federal judge planned to release a decision in the near future.

Wisconsin has about 2,200 workers across federal agencies that had been employed for less than a year, according to the most recent federal data. However, one Forest Service employee with knowledge of firings in Wisconsin said there’s a misconception that probationary workers are new to government work. Some staff members who were fired have been in federal service for 10 years or longer.

“We’re not nameless, faceless federal bureaucrats,” the federal worker said. “We’re people living in these communities, too.”

The Forest Service employee said some might be forced to leave rural northern Wisconsin to look for other jobs.

Related Stories

Wisconsin has 18,000 federal workers. Trump’s plans for cuts could erode services.

ICE enforcement: Wisconsin bill would restore ‘safe haven’ status to churches, schools and hospitals

Elsewhere in northern Wisconsin, several federal probationary employees with Apostle Islands National Lakeshore have also been fired, according to Julie Van Stappen, the lakeshore’s former chief of resource management. The National Parks Conservation Association said Friday that 1,000 employees with the National Park Service are being laid off nationwide, but the agency plans to exempt 5,000 seasonal workers.

Van Stappen said probationary workers at the Apostle Islands received an email Friday, noting the lakeshore has more new employees than normal due to staff turnover in recent years. She said the Apostle Islands typically has an estimated 25 to 30 permanent employees each year and about 35 to 45 seasonal workers. It’s unclear how many workers might have been affected by cuts and whether they were permanent or seasonal staff.

“I don’t know if any of the seasonal employees are able to come back or be hired,” Van Stappen said.

Staff with the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore and National Park Service did not immediately respond to a request for details on the firings. The Apostle Islands National Lakeshore has 21 islands spread over an area of Lake Superior that’s nearly 290,000 acres, which is larger than Rocky Mountain National Park.

The cuts come as Republican Congressman Tom Tiffany has proposed designating the Apostle Islands as the first national park in Wisconsin. While Van Stappen doesn’t think that designation would provide any advantage to the public, she questioned how resources and services would be maintained while staff is being cut.

She noted seasonal employees interact with the public on reserving campsites, providing safety information, conducting field work, managing natural resources, maintaining historic structures and aiding with search and rescue.

“I don’t have any idea how the park is going to function or how the resources will be negatively affected. But for sure, the public will be,” Van Stappen said.

WPR also verified firings at other agencies, including researchers with the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Democratic U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin expressed alarm over the mass firings.

“Trump and Republicans are finding every which way to make room in the budget for tax breaks for their wealthy friends – even cutting support for our veterans, aviation employees tasked with making flying safe, and nurses, doctors, and scientists who work to keep Wisconsin families healthy,” Baldwin said in a statement.

In a statement, Republican U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson said the nation is now more than $36 trillion in debt with a $1.8 trillion deficit.

“A private sector entity in this financial condition could not survive and would employ no one. To avoid a destructive debt crisis, a dramatic reduction of federal spending must occur. We are witnessing the beginning of that process,” Johnson said. “Better we do it in a controlled manner instead of in an uncontrolled crisis.”

This story was originally published by WPR.

‘It’s illegal’: Federal workers in Wisconsin fired amid nationwide layoffs is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

The ongoing tariff battle between the U.S. and its three largest agricultural trading partners is worrying Midwestern farmers.

President Donald Trump imposed an additional 10% tariffs on all imports from China. Soon after, China retaliated with tariffs on U.S. products. Trump also proposed 25% tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico — which have been paused for 30 days.

The president said he’s using the tariffs to force Canada and Mexico to increase border security. In a statement from the White House, the Trump administration said previous presidents “failed to fully leverage America’s economic position as a tool to secure our borders against illegal migration and combat the scourge of fentanyl.”

Bryant Kagay grows corn and soybeans and raises cattle in northwest Missouri. He believes tariffs should be narrowly targeted and used sparingly. He said he fears the recent tariffs could hurt farmers.

“It just seems like a very heavy-handed approach towards negotiation, and I just fear it will impact our ability to have future trade negotiations with some of these countries,” Kagay said.

Kagay said ideally, tariffs would be used as a tool to enforce best trade practices, not as a tactic in immigration negotiations.

“The idea that we can use tariffs as a bargaining chip or leverage to get concessions that are really unrelated to the products and industries most affected by the tariffs, I can’t say I’m really comfortable using them that way,” he said.

According to the Missouri Department of Agriculture, the top agricultural exports from the state are soybeans, corn, pork and soybean meal. The state’s top agriculture export partners include China, Mexico and Canada — as well as some countries in Europe and Southeast Asia.

Approximately 16.2% of U.S. corn is exported, much of that going to Mexico. A larger share of the country’s corn crop is used domestically for livestock feed and ethanol production.

Ben Brown is an agriculture economist with MU Extension and specializes in row crop policy and farm finance. He said about 86% of U.S. cotton is exported, as well as 50-60% of grain sorghum and approximately 45% of U.S. soybeans — with about half of that going to the Chinese market.

“It wasn’t that long ago that one out of every three rows of soybeans grown here in the United States was going to China,” he said. “Today, it’s probably more like one out of every four rows goes to China … still relatively large.”

American Farm Bureau President Zippy Duvall was alarmed when Trump announced tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China.

“Farm Bureau members support the goals of security and ensuring fair trade with our North American neighbors and China, but, unfortunately, we know from experience that farmers and rural communities will bear the brunt of retaliation,” Duvall said in a news release.

Duvall said the announced and proposed tariffs put farmers in a “tough spot.”
“More than 20% of U.S. farm income comes from exports, which are dominated by these three markets,” he said. “Just last year, the U.S. exported over $30 billion in agricultural products to Mexico, $29 billion to Canada and $26 billion to China — our top three markets and nearly half of all exports by value combined.”

In a letter to the White House, the American Farm Bureau urged caution.

“We ask that you carefully consider the impact on American farmers and ranchers, associated businesses and rural communities when determining potential trade actions,” the letter stated.

more from wisconsin watch

Trump policies come to Wisconsin in first weeks of new session

Wisconsin Democrats pledge support to immigrants as new administration takes office

The National Farmers Union, another group representing agriculture producers across the country, similarly asked the president to reconsider tariffs due to the economic impacts on farmers.

“The position that the Farmers Union has is pretty much identical to the position that the Farm Bureau has on tariffs,” said Richard Oswald, vice president of the Missouri Farmers Union. “It’s just not a good idea.”

Oswald farms in northwest Missouri with his family, growing corn and soybeans while his children raise livestock. He’s especially concerned about what retaliatory tariffs could mean for corn and soybean markets.

“We just don’t utilize those soybeans at home,” he said. “If we don’t sell them, we have nothing to do with them.”

Oswald said his farm is trying to reign in spending as much as possible given the unknown impacts tariffs may have on farm budgets this crop year, but, he said, there’s only so much that can be done.

“If we’re going to produce a crop, we still got to buy fertilizer, and we still got to buy seed, we still got to buy fuel, and that’s pretty hard to pare that back,” Oswald said.

Brown said tariffs can “play both ways” — meaning tariffs on U.S. products have the ability to disrupt the marketplace and it can take time for farmers to find new buyers. Tariffs on imports can make international goods more expensive for domestic consumers, potentially making a domestic version of the product more attractive, if it’s available.

“I will say that it’s more complex than just saying that tariffs are bad for U.S. agriculture,” said Brown. “They’re bad for products that we export to other destinations around the world.”

Tariffs increase the unknowns in an already somewhat volatile industry. Brown said commodity prices have been up and down throughout the month of January.

While yields for Midwestern staples like corn and soybeans have increased over the past two decades, so have the costs of the fertilizers, pesticides, fuel and equipment required to cultivate the crops. Brown said the 2023 crop was the most expensive ever in Missouri.

Fertilizer, ethanol spared for now

After the Trump administration announced tariffs on Canada and Mexico, each country retaliated with tariffs on U.S. products. The Canadian government is proposing 25% tariffs on $30 billion in goods the country imports from the United States. The implementation of those tariffs has been delayed while the countries’ leaders negotiate.

Brown said the agriculture industry was spared when Canada chose not to tax U.S.-produced ethanol.

“I think the U.S. corn industry breathed a little sigh of relief because they are our largest international buyer of ethanol, and ethanol was not included in that list,” he said.

Similarly, Canadian exports of potash — a fertilizer used in soybean production — was spared from the United States tariff list.

“There was a lot of concern from U.S. producers leading up to a potential implementation (of tariffs), that potash and fertilizer prices could increase drastically, just based on how much fertilizer and potash we get from Canada,” Brown said.

Tariff déjà vu

Tariffs implemented during the first Trump administration caused soybean prices to drop, affecting Midwestern farmers specifically.

Kagay is a Missouri Farm Bureau member and a fourth generation farmer who came back to the family business around six years ago. He experienced the impact of tariffs in the previous Trump administration and has watched the markets he sells to jump around the last few weeks as tariffs are proposed and implemented.

“It’s just frustrating to see the value of your product drop so substantially … mostly due to government policy,” he said.

On his farm, they are doing whatever they can to prepare and brace for potential impact this time around. Kagay said he filters every decision “through a lens of potential volatility and uncertainty in the market.”

Kagay purchased seed and fertilizer for this year’s crop prior to Trump taking office, “to be ahead of the game, ahead of any potential tariffs, and make sure we had those secured before the uncertainty came into office,” he said.

At the time, the federal government offered a “Market Facilitation Program,” or payments to farmers negatively affected by the trade war.

“It’s unclear what type of assistance would even be available this go around,” said Brown, the MU Extension agriculture economist.

“If those payments are made available to everyone, I probably won’t turn them away,” Kagay said. “But I really do not like receiving direct payments from the government when free trade would just increase the value of my product.”

Tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico could affect Midwestern agriculture is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Thousands of federal workers in Wisconsin are under pressure to consider buyouts under President Donald Trump’s plans to shrink the federal government, which could affect services offered in the state.

A federal judge blocked the Trump administration’s deferred resignation program for federal employees, which is being challenged by several labor unions. Union leaders are warning workers that the deal may not be honored because Congress hasn’t authorized funds for it. The judge has set another hearing for Monday afternoon.

Meanwhile the White House has set a deadline of 11:59 p.m. Monday for federal workers to decide whether to take buyout offers.

As of last March, Wisconsin had more than 18,000 federal employees, and it’s unclear how many may have accepted the offer. 

They perform a wide range of duties that may include enforcing federal environmental regulations, providing financial aid to small businesses, maintaining medical centers and clinics for veterans, prosecuting criminal cases, providing military aid and disaster relief and much more.

Federal data shows most federal employees in Wisconsin work for the Department of Veterans Affairs, which has nearly 11,000 employees based in the state.

Crystal Knoll, a veterans service officer in Vernon County, said most counties work with the regional Veterans Affairs office in Milwaukee when veterans file claims for benefits. Knoll said a shortage of staff, particularly doctors and nurses, would be a detriment.

“The VA is already kind of strapped for staffing, so it can kind of get hard to get veterans in for appointments,” Knoll said. “Thankfully, we do have community care programs so veterans can use the local facilities that are contracted with the VA, but it still puts a strain on even the general public getting appointments when we’re trying to use both the VA and civilian side of healthcare.”

The state has more than 323,000 veterans. In 2023, the VA spent more than $4.3 billion in Wisconsin for veterans services, including medical care and compensation for service-related disabilities.

The administration’s “Fork in the Road” directive warned employees that most federal agencies will likely be “downsized through restructurings, realignments, and reductions in force.” It’s been promoted by billionaire Elon Musk, who is leading the White House’s Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.

In a statement, Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin said forcing out VA doctors, nurses and caseworkers would deprive veterans of care.

“Our federal government is not perfect — and I have some ideas on how to make it more efficient — but ripping the rug out from those who served is just beyond the pale,” Baldwin said.

Republican Sen. Ron Johnson said in a social media post that he had more faith in Musk to investigate waste, fraud and abuse than bureaucrats.

“They’re not accountable to anybody. They don’t provide the American public information through their elected representatives here in Congress, who else could investigate that?” Johnson told Fox Business news. “I applaud Elon Musk. I applaud the Trump administration.”

Knoll, who served with the Wisconsin National Guard, said she hasn’t observed any disruptions in service, but she’s heard conflicting information about whether the VA would be exempt from hiring freezes. The Office of Personnel Management has said a few agencies will see staff increases, and the agency noted it may grant exemptions for provision of veterans, Medicare and Social Security benefits. 

Federal union leaders say agencies already face staffing challenges

Jessica LaPointe, president of the American Federation of Government Employees Council 220, represents nearly 27,000 field workers with the Social Security Administration nationwide.

Based in Madison, LaPointe has spent much of the last 16 years processing claims for seniors and people living with disabilities. She said the proposed buyouts and threats of layoffs come as the agency is facing a 50-year low in staffing amid a growing number of beneficiaries.

“We’ve been in a hiring freeze for a year, so losing mass amounts of staff at the Social Security Administration would have a snowball effect as workloads mount on a stressed out workforce,” LaPointe said. “And how that translates to the public is severely long service delays.”

Most recent data shows 550 federal workers with the Social Security Administration are based in Wisconsin. LaPointe said people living with disabilities have seen wait times grow from two to eight months for approval of their benefits. At the same time, former Social Security Commissioner Martin O’Malley told Congress in September that an estimated 30,000 people died in 2023 while waiting for such claims to be processed.

“We don’t just grapple with the uncertainty of our own job. We grapple with the uncertainty of the public that are relying on these earned benefits to survive,” LaPointe said. “We’re really sort of operating under a fight or flight or freeze environment.”

Federal workers weigh options and whether to return to offices

Most federal workers would also be forced to return to offices. One local union representative for federal workers in Wisconsin, an employee of the U.S. Forest Service, said such mandates done in the name of efficiency are decreasing productivity among employees. The person spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation.

“I have heard stories of people being furloughed because they’re speaking out against the administration,” the worker said. “As a union representative, I could potentially have a target on my back just for that, and that’s scary.”

The worker said many remote employees hired to work at offices in Wisconsin don’t live anywhere near them, leaving some in rural areas with tough choices and limited alternatives for other jobs. The worker said it feels like the administration is bullying people to accept buyouts, but many employees would lose their pensions if they left now.

The Forest Service is housed under the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which employs more than 1,700 people in Wisconsin. Wisconsin workers with the Forest Service oversee timber sales, compliance with federal environmental laws, recreation in national forests and other duties.

The Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest bills itself as one of the nation’s top timber-producing forests, and annual harvests directly support around 57,000 jobs in the state’s forest products industry.

The union representative warned timber sales could be hamstrung or shut down amid buyouts or layoffs.

“We only have so many projects cleared and prepped that eventually, if we don’t have the people to even do the review … then we’re not going to be able to manage the national forests in the ways that the public deserves,” the union leader said.

Westby dairy farmer Darin Von Ruden, president of the Wisconsin Farmers Union, noted farmers often work with federal employees at the Farm Service Agency to sign up for crop insurance or access financial assistance when milk prices drop. They also take part in conservation programs that provide payments or cost-share assistance for practices that benefit water quality and control runoff.

He said reduced staffing could hurt Wisconsin farmers. 

“It could mean that farmers simply don’t get a check, or the check might come too late to help with making sure that the monthly bills get paid,” Von Ruden said. “Timeliness is everything, and that means that we have to have an accurate or a good amount of folks hired to make sure the process happens.”

In 2023, falling milk prices led to record payments under a program to help dairy farmers, including $276.8 millon to around 4,300 farms in Wisconsin.

Federal workers like LaPointe say they’ve devoted years of their life to serving the public.

“The public feels emboldened to attack federal workers instead of thank us for our service to this country,” she said. “We’re being demonized, and that takes a toll.”

This story was originally published by WPR.

Wisconsin has 18,000 federal workers. Trump’s plans for cuts could erode services. is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

The reopening of the Social Development Commission, after months of disruption, has sparked mixed reactions from elected officials.

While some welcome its return, others anticipate challenges ahead, with Milwaukee Mayor Cavalier Johnson calling for greater transparency from the agency.  

The Social Development Commission, or SDC, reopened its main office at 1730 W. North Ave. earlier this month. It’s now focusing on resuming its Volunteer Income Tax Assistance, career services, child care and housing programs.

The agency provided programs and services that helped Milwaukee County residents living in poverty before it stopped services and laid off employees in late April because of its inability to meet payroll and other financial concerns. 

Mayor calls for more transparency 

At the SDC board’s meeting where leadership announced plans to reopen, Jackie Q. Carter, the board’s commissioner appointed by the mayor, voted against executive board nominations and asked for more community involvement, a formalized process and public transparency in the board’s decisions.

“The vote accurately reflected the mayor’s concerns about the lack of transparency in the latest moves,” said Jeff Fleming, a spokesperson for Johnson.

The mayor would like SDC to follow requirements of Wisconsin open meetings law, which includes publicly posting notice of its board meetings and providing agendas with information regarding the matters of discussion, Fleming said.

Since SDC suspended operations, the board has only been meeting part of the law’s notice requirements. SDC has notified individuals and members of the press of upcoming meetings, but it has not been posting meeting notices in public places or online. 

“The mayor is hopeful SDC will, once again, be a leading provider of help to low-income residents of the region,” Fleming said. “It is essential that SDC regain trust before it can resume the important work it previously undertook. The services are needed, and well-run organizations are key to serving those who deserve assistance.”

Other officials weigh in

Before the reopening announcement in November, Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley said in an interview that the county wants to continue working with the Social Development Commission.

He said many of the services SDC provided have been picked up by other agencies, and his office has not received any constituent calls related to service issues. 

“But we also know that as a CAP (community action program) agency, there are dollars that are probably on the table at the state and federal level that we haven’t been able to take advantage of because they aren’t open,” Crowley said. 

Following the reopening announcement, Jonathan Fera, the communications director for the county executive’s office, said the state and the federal Office of Community Services are working with SDC to determine how to move forward, and Crowley is ready to collaborate with them when needed. 

“It’s encouraging that people are back at the table working on a solution to the challenges that have impacted public services provided by SDC,” Fera said. 

The county administration is encouraging residents who can no longer access services through the SDC to reach out to the Milwaukee County Department of Health and Human Services. 

Another official interested in SDC restarting services is U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore.

When SDC abruptly shuttered in April, Moore wrote letters to SDC’s board and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, calling for a federal investigation. 

“The Social Development Commission’s closure was a loss that was deeply felt in the community,” Moore said. “While I am grateful that the Social Development Commission is resuming some of its services, I know it still faces many challenges ahead.”

County Supervisor Priscilla E. Coggs-Jones, who represents the 13th District on Milwaukee’s Near North Side and is the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors’ second vice chair, called the reopening a “critical step toward restoring vital services for Milwaukee County residents.” 

“The SDC has been a cornerstone of community support for years, and its relaunch reaffirms our commitment to uplifting people in need,” she said. 

State Sen. LaTonya Johnson, who represents the 6th Senate District, said the reopening is great news for Milwaukee County. 

“The commission’s ability to provide housing assistance and child care food services has been a lifeline for families who need a little support,” Johnson said. “I’m glad to have them back in our community, and I encourage those who need help to take advantage of their services.”

Devin Blake, PrincessSafiya Byers and Edgar Mendez contributed reporting to this story.

News414 is a service journalism collaboration between Wisconsin Watch and Milwaukee Neighborhood News Service that addresses the specific issues, interests, perspectives and information needs identified by residents of central city Milwaukee neighborhoods. Learn more at our website or sign up for our texting service here.

Milwaukee leaders weigh in on reopening of Social Development Commission is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

The Supreme Court on Friday said it would take up a new religious rights case over whether a Catholic charitable organization must pay Wisconsin’s unemployment tax.

The justices will review a divided state Supreme Court ruling that refused to grant an exemption to the Catholic Charities Bureau, based in Superior, Wisconsin. The state court ruled that the work of Catholic Charities and four related organizations is primarily not religious, although it found that the motivation to help older, disabled and low-income people stems from Catholic teachings.

The case probably will be argued in the spring.

The Supreme Court in recent years has issued an unbroken string of decisions siding with churches and religious plaintiffs in disputes with states.

Lawyers for the Wisconsin groups argued to the court that the decision violates religious freedoms protected by the First Amendment. They also said the court should step in to resolve conflicting rulings by several top state courts on the same issue.

“Wisconsin is trying to make sure no good deed goes unpunished. Penalizing Catholic Charities for serving Catholics and non-Catholics alike is ridiculous and wrong,” Eric Rassbach, the lead lawyer for Catholic Charities at the Supreme Court, said in a statement.

Wisconsin Attorney General Joshua Kaul had urged the high court to stay out of the case, arguing that much of the groups’ funding comes from state and local governments, and the joint federal and state Medicaid program.

Employees don’t have to be Catholic and “people receiving services from these organizations receive no religious training or orientation,” Kaul wrote.

Catholic Charities has paid the unemployment tax since 1972, he wrote.

Wisconsin exempts church-controlled organizations from the tax if they are “operated primarily for religious purposes.” The state high court ruled that both the motivations and the activities have to be religious for organizations to avoid paying the tax.

A group of religious scholars, backing Catholic Charities, told the court that “the case involves governmental interference with religious liberty” that warrants the justices’ intervention.

Catholic, Islamic, Lutheran, Jewish and Mormon organizations also filed briefs in support of Catholic Charities.

At the state Supreme Court, the Freedom from Religion Foundation argued that a ruling for Catholic Charities would extend to religiously affiliated hospitals and some colleges across Wisconsin, potentially taking their employees out of the state unemployment insurance system.

Catholic Charities in Superior manages nonprofit organizations that run more than 60 programs designed to help older or disabled people, children with special needs, low-income families, and people suffering from disasters, regardless of their religion, according to court documents.

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit and nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletter to get our investigative stories and Friday news roundup. This story is published in partnership with The Associated Press.

U.S. Supreme Court to hear Catholic Charities plea to avoid Wisconsin unemployment tax is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

While some are celebrating the reopening of the Social Development Commission in Milwaukee, not everyone is joining in. 

“SDC stands for ‘Still Didn’t Compensate,’” said Sarah Woods, a former youth and family services supervisor for SDC. 

Last week, the Social Development Commission resumed providing tax assistance, career services, housing-related services and child care food services after being closed for seven months.

But Woods thinks SDC should not be paying staff for new work if former employees, including her, have not been paid for work done before SDC suspended operations and laid off its entire staff.

However, William Sulton, SDC’s attorney, said that staff doing new work is precisely how former employees are going to get paid. 

“I would say … the way that those folks are going to get paid is by the organization reopening and submitting the required reporting documentation to get paid on grants,” Sulton said. 

Who does SDC owe?

As of last week, 45 people have unresolved claims concerning pay from SDC, according to a spokesperson for the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, the state agency that handles employment and labor-related disputes. 

Sulton also said that among these 45 employees are highly paid employees like George Hinton, SDC’s former CEO who resigned at the request of SDC’s Board of Commissioners. 

The Department of Workforce Development did not provide a clear timeline for when it will make a decision about people’s claims, but the investigator assigned to these claims is actively working on them, the department’s spokesperson said. 

Sulton said he believes there is a path for how former employees will be paid: new, or rehired, employees providing services. 

If SDC hadn’t brought in employees to do new work, grant money couldn’t be accessed to resolve Department of Workforce Development claims, Sulton said. 

The quasi-governmental community action agency provides a variety of programs and services to meet the needs of low-income residents in Milwaukee County.

Case-by-case basis

But making a claim with the Department of Workforce Development does not guarantee that person will get the full amount they say they’re owed. 

Each claim is being evaluated individually, and there are some disputes, Sulton said. 

“For example, there’s one employee whose time we’re unable to confirm. There’s one employee who claims that she had a conversation with their supervisor and the former supervisor promised her an increase in pay,” Sulton said. 

A common theme among claims is about getting paid out for unused paid time off, Sulton said. 

Department of Workforce Development staff are assisting former employees with supplying the right documentation, which can include pay stubs, records they kept or other communications, according to the spokesperson. 

Woods thought ahead in this regard. 

“On the last day, I just was taking screenshots and printing whatever I needed and emailing to myself,” she said. 

Some progress

Since the April layoffs, SDC has paid $51,000 toward what it owes people, Sulton said. 

Most of this money came from a contribution from Unite WI.  

The SDC was quite deliberate in the way it used that money, said Sulton. 

“We started with employees that earned the least amount and we paid from the bottom up. So that’s what happened,” he said.

‘Scared to go back’

Sulton said new employees have been hired and some former employees have been rehired as part of SDC’s reopening. 

Woods said someone from SDC asked her to come back to work, but she didn’t take the person up on the offer.  

She is not confident in SDC’s financial stability.  

“I loved SDC when I worked there, don’t get me wrong. But I would be scared to go back,” Woods said. 

News414 is a service journalism collaboration between Wisconsin Watch and Milwaukee Neighborhood News Service that addresses the specific issues, interests, perspectives and information needs identified by residents of central city Milwaukee neighborhoods. Learn more at our website or sign up for our texting service here.

Former Social Development Commission employees still waiting to be paid is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

After months of disruption, the Social Development Commission will restart some key programs on Dec. 2 in what is considered a major step toward restoring vital services to Milwaukee’s neediest residents. 

The agency plans to focus on offering the Volunteer Income Tax Assistance, or VITA, program; career services; child care; and housing programs at its main office at 1730 W. North Ave. and its location at 6850 N. Teutonia Ave., which operated SDC’s child and adult care food program.  

SDC’s Board of Commissioners discussed the programs on Thursday during a meeting at SDC’s main office.

It was the first public meeting in the building since the anti-poverty agency suspended operations and laid off employees in April. 

The closing of the quasi-governmental community action agency, which managed approximately 30 programs and employed 85 people, has left a major gap in services for many low-income Milwaukee residents. 

“In my opinion, it must be opened immediately,” said Jorge Franco, an SDC commissioner and newly named interim CEO. “There’s things that can be done today that increase the likelihood of getting service back in, back to the people who are of lowest income in our community.” 

The Social Development Commission will use its existing funding to support the programs and hire staff and is also seeking private donations, according to William Sulton, SDC’s attorney.

“We know we have the ability to run these programs, and we are betting on ourselves that we will be able to secure state and federal funding in the future,” Sulton said. 

A few of SDC’s former program managers were present at the meeting, including Diane Robinson, who was the manager of SDC’s VITA program and senior services. 

In the months since SDC stopped its VITA services, Robinson said she has had numerous customers reach out to ask if SDC will reopen. 

“They’re wanting to know when is SDC coming back online because they don’t trust anyone else outside of SDC to do their taxes and do them right,” she said. 

Franco named board chair and interim CEO

The board voted to appoint Franco as chair and interim CEO, replacing Vincent Bobot, who was named interim CEO in September. 

“The thing is I want to stay on as a commissioner, but I think everybody here is aware that I have a full-time law practice, and I have a couple other things going on,” said Bobot, an attorney who owns a general practice, Bobot Law Office.

Bobot is also on the board of SD Properties Inc., the tax-exempt corporation that owns SDC’s buildings. He will remain on the SDC’s board and was appointed to serve as its secretary. 

Franco, who is also the CEO of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Wisconsin, will not be compensated as interim CEO, according to Sulton.

Jackie Q. Carter was nominated to serve as board treasurer. She was appointed to the board by Mayor Cavalier Johnson in June. 

Carter did not accept the nomination to be treasurer and voted against the executive nominations of Bobot and Franco, urging the board to wait until it gets more members.

New board member appointed

The board voted 2-1 to appoint Lucero Ayala, a licensed practical nurse and vice chair of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Wisconsin, to serve District 5 on the South Side. She has experience working with an assisted living facility and day care centers. 

“I’ve been helping the community and I’ve seen the impact firsthand, being in child care, how a lot of the kids count on those meals that SDC was providing,” Ayala said. 

Carter voted against Ayala’s appointment, saying that the board needs to go through a more thorough vetting process before voting. 

“I think it’s important for the commissioners that are here to ensure that we are not doing things in a way that is same old business and doing the things that got us here in the first place,” Carter said. 

“Nothing personal, but we’ve got to do the process in a way that makes sense, that’s transparent, that’s collaborative, and the community needs to be engaged,” she said. 

In the meantime, Commissioner Matthew Boswell’s term expired on Nov. 18.  Boswell was appointed by Milwaukee Public Schools.

A Milwaukee Public Schools representative said earlier this week that Boswell would remain on the board until the district finds a new appointment. 

Sulton disagreed and said Boswell is no longer serving on the board. 

“I will reach out to former Commissioner Boswell, but that’s not my understanding at all,” Sulton said. 

Boswell did not attend Thursday’s meeting.

News414 is a service journalism collaboration between Wisconsin Watch and Milwaukee Neighborhood News Service that addresses the specific issues, interests, perspectives and information needs identified by residents of central city Milwaukee neighborhoods. Learn more at our website or sign up for our texting service here.

Milwaukee’s SDC plans to reopen key programs in December is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

A former Social Development Commission board member is positioned to gain financially from the sale of two of the troubled agency’s buildings that are on the market, raising questions about a potential conflict of interest. 

In September, SD Properties Inc., the tax-exempt corporation that owns SDC’s buildings, listed two SDC properties on North Avenue for sale  at a combined price of $3.2 million. Kimberly Njoroge, a Realtor with Ogden & Company Inc., is advertised as the listing agent. 

Although Njoroge previously held positions as a board member of SDC and SD Properties, SDC officials are uncertain about the agency’s conflict-of-interest policy for board members.

When contacted by NNS, Njoroge referred requests for comment to SDC attorney William Sulton and Vincent Bobot, SDC’s interim CEO and an elected commissioner as well as the only current SD Properties board member.  

Extent of financial benefit unclear

It’s unclear to what extent Njoroge is financially benefiting because SD Properties declined to share the listing contract or disclose the rate of commission, though Sulton and Bobot said the fees Njoroge will collect are at a discounted rate.  

“What I’m most concerned about is that we get the benefit of the bargain and then we get somebody that’s going to stay in the business to help people out of poverty in Milwaukee,” Bobot said. “So whether she gets the money or somebody else gets the money, that’s not my primary concern.” 

Sulton and Bobot both said the situation does not present an actual conflict of interest because Njoroge’s term as a board member of SDC and SD Properties ended in June. 

“I don’t think it’s a violation because she wasn’t on the board at the time,” Sulton said.

The SDC is an anti-poverty agency created by governments but functions outside of them. State, county and city statutes define the organization as an intergovernmental commission, with each government appointing board representatives. No government claims broader oversight authority.

Njoroge told SDC leadership in March that she would not seek reelection for her District 3 seat on the SDC Board of Commissioners, according to an email provided by SDC. 

However, Njoroge continued to attend SDC board meetings and be counted in roll call as a commissioner after June, including being listed in minutes from an August meeting.

Wyman Winston, a former director of the Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority, or WHEDA, said he does not understand how SD Properties could retain a former board member for the sale.

“That is unusual for nonprofits,” Winston said. “I’m not saying it doesn’t occur, but I’m saying it is not considered in any way to be the best practice.” 

Differences between SDC and SD Properties

The Social Development Commission was established in 1963 by Wisconsin law to be an intergovernmental commission that fights poverty in Milwaukee County. The agency closed to the public and laid off its employees in late April.

As a 501(c)(25) title-holding company, SD Properties acquires properties consistent with the SDC’s mission and leases space to SDC and other anti-poverty organizations. 

Unlike SDC, SD Properties is not considered subject to open meetings and records law, which is why it is not publicly disclosing the listing contract, its bylaws or conflict-of-interest policy.  

What is required of SDC in dealing with a possible conflict of interest?

SDC is required to have a conflict-of-interest policy for employees and board members, according to its bylaws. 

Sulton said he expects SDC has a conflict-of-interest policy for board members, but that he is unable to provide it because SDC does not have access to all of its files. 

SDC lost access to such records after its technology services provider, Caspian Technologies, cut off the agency’s access to its website, emails and other electronic data. 

Nonprofits like SD Properties are supposed to circulate conflict-of-interest policies annually and disclose any potential conflicts, according to Mary Beth Collins, executive director of the Center for Community and Nonprofit Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

“And if a conflict actually comes up, then their person is supposed to disclose it, and they are to recuse themselves from the decision-making around that issue,” Collins said. 

State law requires real estate agents to disclose who they are working for and any conflicts to anyone they are working with on a property sale, according to Scott Bush, vice president of operations for the Greater Milwaukee Association of Realtors. 

“I don’t see how it wouldn’t be OK as long as their disclosures were being made,” Bush said. “Unless it violates their own rules, and it could.” 

How was the decision made to list the properties?

Because SDC failed to pay rent to SD Properties for its leased spaces for several months, SD Properties could not keep up with payments for mortgages on both North Avenue properties, Sulton said. 

“This was really about SD Properties trying to resolve outstanding mortgage debt, trying to avoid foreclosure and other things that it didn’t want,” Sulton said. 

SD Properties board voted to sell the properties and list them with Njoroge and Ogden & Company, according to Sulton. 

Bobot said SDC officials listed the properties, a responsibility that would normally be relegated to him as a representative of SD Properties. 

“I wasn’t too involved in who they selected, but when they told me this was a good idea to select her and her firm with the thing and what it would sell for, it made sense to me,” Bobot said. 

Njoroge was not on the properties board at the time and could not vote, Sulton said. 

“Was she literally in the room? Yeah, I think so,” Sulton said. 

Going forward, the SD Properties board will approve any property sales, Bobot said, not the SDC board.

Real estate commission discounted

Collins said the conflict of interest would depend on Njoroge’s involvement in SD Properties’ decision to hire her and how much the commission is discounted. 

“I could see that being a very plausible scenario where you’re in an emergency, you have someone who understands the situation, they’re going to get off the board so that they can change roles,” she said. 

Sulton said Njoroge’s commission is under 6% and discounted to what he and Bobot believe is a favorable rate on the market. 

There is not a standard rate of commission for commercial property transactions, according to Tom Larson, president and CEO of the Wisconsin Realtors Association.  

Bobot said it wouldn’t be unusual for the commission to be lowered further during sale negotiations. 

Meredith Melland is the neighborhoods reporter for the Milwaukee Neighborhood News Service and a corps member of Report for America, a national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on under-covered issues and communities. Report for America plays no role in editorial decisions in the NNS newsroom.

Conflict of interest? Milwaukee SDC property sale would benefit former board member is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for Dispatches, a newsletter that spotlights wrongdoing around the country, to receive our stories in your inbox every week.

The sprawling business empire created by tribal leaders in northern Wisconsin was born of desperate times, as the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians faced financial ruin. Its subsequent success would be built on the desperate needs of others far from the reservation.

The tribe had made some poor choices as it sought to expand its fortunes beyond a modest casino in its home state of Wisconsin two decades ago. Grand plans for a floating casino off Cancun, Mexico, collapsed, and a riverboat gambling venture in Mississippi required more cash than the tribe had on hand.

The resulting loans — $50 million in bonds issued in 2008 at 12% — proved crushing. Struggling to make debt payments, tribal officials soon were forced to slash spending for essential programs on the reservation and lay off dozens of employees.

Protests erupted, with demonstrators barricading themselves inside a government building and demanding audits and investigations. When angry tribal members elected a new governing council, it refused to pay anymore. The tribe defaulted on a loan it had come to regret.

The LDF tribe turned to the one asset that could distinguish it in the marketplace: sovereign immunity.

This special status allowed it as a Native American tribe to enter the world of internet lending without interest rate caps, an option not open to other lenders in most states. The annual rates it charged for small-sum, installment loans frequently exceeded 600%.

Business partners, seeing the favorable math, were easy to find. So, too, were consumers who had run out of options to pay their bills. Their decisions to sign up for LDF loans often made things worse.

ProPublica traced the key decisions that put LDF on the path to becoming a prominent player in a sector of the payday lending industry that has long skirted regulation and drawn controversy.

LDF did not just dabble in this type of lending; it fully embraced it. Like other tribes that have taken this route, LDF built its success on a series of complex business arrangements, with roles and motives difficult to unravel.

Over time, ProPublica found, LDF signed off on deals involving outsiders with histories of predatory practices — associations that carried profound implications for the tribe. Not only did they put the tribe’s reputation at risk, they generated a barrage of costly lawsuits and questions of whether LDF was allowing partners to take advantage of tribal rights to skirt state usury laws.

In Boston, Brian Coughlin initially had no idea that a Native American tribe was involved in the small loan he took out with a high interest rate. He only learned about LDF after he filed for bankruptcy to seek protection from his creditors.

“I was definitely surprised,” he said. “I didn’t think they operated things like that.”

During the bankruptcy process, an LDF partner still hounded him to pay, which Coughlin said pushed him to a breaking point and a suicide attempt. Federal law prohibits chasing debtors who have filed for bankruptcy, and Coughlin sued the tribe in a dispute that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Last year, the court — in a decision with far-reaching implications for tribes — ruled that LDF could be held liable under the Bankruptcy Code.

His and other consumer lawsuits paint LDF as a front for outsiders who take an oversized cut of the proceeds, leaving LDF with only dollars per loan. Interviews and ProPublica’s review of records also show how heavily LDF relies on its partners for most of the essential operations. These descriptions are disputed by LDF, which has told ProPublica that it merely is outsourcing for much-needed expertise while still maintaining control.

In a statement to ProPublica this year, John Johnson Sr., LDF’s president, described the tribe’s lending business as “a narrative of empowerment, ethical business practice, and commitment to community enrichment.” He has declined to be interviewed and did not respond to written questions for this story.

Over time, LDF has set up at least two dozen internet lending companies and websites, ProPublica determined. Its loans are so pervasive the LDF tribe showed up as a creditor in roughly 1 out of every 100 bankruptcy cases sampled nationwide, as ProPublica reported in August.

This year, LDF and some of its business affiliates agreed to a federal class-action settlement in Virginia that, if finalized, will erase $1.4 billion in consumer debt and provide $37 million in restitution. Tribal defendants are responsible for $2 million of that; the tribe in a statement has indicated that its business arm would pay.

Tribal officials have consistently denied wrongdoing. A newsletter to tribal members as LDF was starting up its venture said the tribe “is not practicing any type of predatory lending.” In his statements to ProPublica for the August story, Johnson stressed that the tribe complies with tribal and federal law, that its lending practices are transparent, that its collections are done ethically and that the loans help distressed borrowers who have little access to credit.

LDF leaders have not publicly stated any desire to alter their business practices, even as some community members express concern.

“Feeding greed with unscrupulous business practices is crushing us,” one LDF member recently wrote on a community Facebook page.

‘The money is dirty’

After the bond debacle in the 2000s, LDF leaders felt stung by their outside financial advisers, believing they were deceived about the terms of the transaction and risks involved.

Moving forward, they wanted someone they could trust. They found that in Brent McFarland.

McFarland was not a tribal member, but he grew up near the reservation and had friends on the Tribal Council. McFarland, an investment adviser who’d run a restaurant and worked in real estate, offered some helpful advice to the tribe, and the council eventually hired him for a wider role. He helped it establish the Lac du Flambeau Business Development Corporation in 2012, governed by a board answerable to the Tribal Council. And he looked for ways LDF could make money, apart from gaming.

“I ended up meeting some people that were doing online lending,” he said in an interview.

Tribes could get into the industry — attracting willing partners with expertise in lending — without putting up any capital because sovereign immunity was its own bounty.

But as certain as LDF was that state laws wouldn’t apply to its operations, the tribe took a careful approach. LDF decided it would not lend to people in Wisconsin, including its own members. “It keeps our relationship with the state of Wisconsin healthy,” McFarland told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Peter Bildsten, who ran the state Department of Financial Institutions then, remembers visiting the reservation as it was embarking on the new venture. He recalled that he met some of LDF’s business partners, who recognized that the lending operation would be extremely lucrative but also potentially controversial.

“They talked about yeah, we are doing it, and we know there’s virtually nothing you can do about it and especially if we don’t lend to any people in Wisconsin. You can’t do anything,” Bildsten said. “It was almost kind of a dare.”

Many tribes, still suffering from a legacy of racism and inadequate federal resources, struggle to find economic solutions for their people. McFarland, who no longer works for LDF but does consulting for tribes, defended LDF’s decision to move into high-interest loans as a legitimate option.

“The business is offering a service where the interest rates and cost of borrowing are well disclosed to consumers,” he told ProPublica in an email. “It’s expensive, but if used responsibly can be more affordable than many other options. The costs and risks are not hidden from consumers.”

Johnson, LDF’s president, has said there was a rational reason for the tribe’s business partnerships: It needed outside expertise as it entered a new industry.

“But let me be more specific: Zero I.T. enterprise architects, data analysts, or marketing strategists lived on the Lac Du Flambeau reservation when the Tribal Council decided to enter this industry,” he wrote in an email to ProPublica in August.

LDF’s partners run their operations far from tribal land. ProPublica identified several Florida lawsuits that allege a straight-forward process: “The LDF Tribe mints a new ‘tribal’ limited liability company, supposedly organized under Tribal law, for each new investor. Each new investor then runs his or her own ‘tribally owned’ website, offering consumers loans at interest rates between 450% and 1100% annually.”

Those cases were settled or dismissed without LDF addressing the allegations.

LDF does not publicly disclose its partners. ProPublica identified one of them as RIVO Holdings, a fintech firm based in a high-rise in downtown San Diego that has serviced two LDF websites.

RIVO is an acronym for respect, integrity, value and opportunity. The company’s founder and CEO is Daniel Koetting. His personal website touts his employment of “over 200 local employees at RIVO.” His brother Mark, of Kansas, managed a separate lending portfolio for the tribe.

The brothers entered the tribal lending industry after facing regulatory scrutiny for previous lending operations. In 2006, Califonia issued a cease-and-desist order to both men for unlicensed lending; Daniel Koetting received a similar demand from New Hampshire in 2011.

Initially, the Koettings partnered with the Big Lagoon Rancheria tribe in California to offer high-interest loans beginning in 2013. But that relationship began to fall apart several years later.

The tribe alleged that the Koettings surreptitiously pushed customers to new lending companies set up with LDF, and an arbitrator awarded Big Lagoon Rancheria $14 million in 2018. Years of litigation followed as the Koettings fought the decision. The case is still pending.

“I actually called Lac du Flambeau and warned them and informed them that they were getting into business with Big Lagoon’s client list,” Virgil Moorehead, Big Lagoon Rancheria’s chairperson, told ProPublica.

Joseph Schulte Jr., who once worked at RIVO, likened one area of the company’s San Diego office to a Wall Street trading floor, with exuberant staff celebrating short-term wins, such as meeting daily sales goals. To keep the staff pumped up, he said, management brought in pallets of free Celsius energy drinks.

“People were making a lot of money working there,” Schulte said of RIVO Holdings.

Although figures for LDF’s loan portfolios are private, Daniel Koetting’s previous venture with the Big Lagoon Rancheria amassed approximately $83 million in revenue over five years, according to a legal filing.

Court papers, including divorce filings, show Daniel Koetting enjoying a lavish lifestyle in recent years, living in a five-bedroom, five-bath house in La Jolla, an affluent seaside enclave of San Diego. He owned thoroughbred horses, drove a Porsche and dabbled in motion pictures. He and his wife had three children. In the divorce, he reported household expenses in 2021 that included an average of $7,000 a month on groceries and eating out, plus an additional $5,000 a month for “entertainment, gifts and vacation.”

Daniel and Mark Koetting did not reply to emails, calls or letters from ProPublica seeking comment.

Meanwhile, the two companies that RIVO and LDF run — Evergreen Services and Bridge Lending Solutions — are associated with more than 200 complaints from customers since 2019, frequently about onerous interest rates and payment terms. “I just don’t understand how people can do this,” a California resident protested to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. “This is a predatory lender and I am a victim.”

Bildsten, the former Wisconsin department head, believes that LDF tribal leaders are trying to help the reservation improve services, such as dental care, for its members and that the lending business is part of that laudable goal.

“They’re able to do some good stuff,” Bildsten said, “but the money is dirty.”

An ill-fated loan with profound ramifications

Brian Coughlin lit a cigar. Sitting in his Chevy Malibu with the sunroof open to let out the smoke and a bottle of pills next to him, he wondered: When will this end?

He’d faced many hurdles in life, from serious physical and mental health issues to the loss of his father. He’d also used bad judgment, overspending and loading up on multiple credit cards as he blew through a decent paycheck as head of trash collection for the city of Boston.

Like many other Americans with little to no savings and poor credit scores, he was enticed by online pitches for quick cash — offers that came with exorbitantly high interest rates.

Months earlier, in December 2019, he’d filed for bankruptcy, expecting relief. There would be payment plans and a court injunction halting contact from creditors — a key protection laid out in U.S. bankruptcy law. But one creditor would not give up.

Lendgreen, one of LDF’s initial companies, had loaned Coughlin $900 at an annual percentage rate of 741%. At the time of the bankruptcy, he owed $1,595. The company continued to call, email and text him, fueling his anxiety. A phone log shows Lendgreen called Coughlin 50 times during one four-month period.

“This is all for nothing,” Coughlin recalls thinking of the bankruptcy process.

That night in his Chevy, Coughlin took a fistful of pills and ended up in the hospital. Lendgreen still was calling him while he recovered. But now he was ready to fight.

Coughlin’s attorney filed a motion with the bankruptcy court in March 2020 asking a judge to order Lendgreen, the LDF tribe and LDF Business Development Corporation to stop harassing him.

The case was about more than just harassment, however. Coughlin wanted compensation for all that had happened. He asked the court to award him attorneys fees, medical costs, expenses for lost time from work while hospitalized and punitive damages.

To Coughlin’s surprise, LDF told the court that sovereign immunity protected it even in a federal bankruptcy case, and the bankruptcy judge in Massachusetts agreed. When Coughlin took the case to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and won, the tribe appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

As they dug into who actually violated the collections ban, Coughlin’s attorneys needed to unravel the business relationships surrounding Lendgreen, which no longer has an active website. That led them on an international paper chase from Wisconsin to Ontario, Latvia and Malta, an island in the Mediterranean, where an entity that provided capital for Lendgreen appeared to be based.

In gathering evidence, Coughlin’s lawyers obtained an agreement between Lendgreen and another company — Vivus Servicing Ltd. of Canada — showing Vivus was to handle most all operations of issuing and collecting the loans made in Lendgreen’s name. It also would retain most of the profits.

For each new or renewed loan, the contract called for Vivus to share $3.25 with LDF as well as $3.25 per loan payment, or not less than $10,000 a month.

Vivus Servicing had subcontracted certain administrative functions of the Lendgreen loans to 4finance Canada, an affiliate company of a European lending conglomerate based in Latvia, court records show. An attorney who represents Vivus and 4finance declined to comment.

“There’s money flowing to all sorts of places,” Coughlin’s attorney Richard Gottlieb said.

As he began to better understand the web of connections, Gottlieb concluded that LDF’s role in its lending operations was minimal. The partners, he said, performed all the key functions — “from the creation of the loans themselves to the maintenance of the computer software and internet sites to the collections personnel to the customer service reps to the management.”

Even though LDF fought in court to be able to pursue collections against people in bankruptcy, internal documents indicate that the head of LDF Holdings, which oversees the tribe’s lending enterprise, was not pleased with how a business partner treated Coughlin.

Jessi Lorenzo, president of LDF Holdings at the time, communicated in May 2020 with 4finance Canada about Coughlin’s loan. Why had they not stopped soliciting repayment once notified that Coughlin had filed for bankruptcy, she asked in an email.

“Everything should have ceased then,” wrote Lorenzo, who was based in Tampa.

In a brief interview on her porch, Lorenzo declined to comment on the Coughlin case and said she did not want to be part of a tribal lending story that might be negative. Later, in an email, she wrote that she was proud to have worked for LDF as it “built a business that benefited their community, providing modern careers with upward mobility and good benefits in a remote part of Wisconsin.”

A future clouded by legal challenges

LDF tribal leaders don’t talk much about their business with outsiders. But there is little doubt that the lending business has altered the shape of the tribe’s finances, allowing LDF to move past its costly mistake of issuing $50 million in bonds for the Mississippi casino boat.

The Tribal Council agreed in 2017 to pay $4 million and finance an additional $23 million to settle claims against it after defaulting.

But the tribe and its partners continue to face new threats from a range of legal actions.

The attorneys in the Virginia case have promised future litigation against more LDF partners. And as LDF keeps lending, it opens its companies up to additional consumer lawsuits. Dozens of such cases have been filed since 2019, most of which end quickly, with undisclosed settlements.

McFarland takes issue with these types of cases against tribes. “The law firms filing class action lawsuits seek to paint tribes as either victims or villains in online lending,” he said in an email. “This approach has been employed against tribes since Europeans came to the Americas, whether Tribes are entering gaming, cannabis, selling tobacco, and a host of business opportunities.”

When Coughlin’s suit reached the Supreme Court, some of the issues involving tribal-lending partnerships were touched on, if only briefly.

During a hearing in April 2023, Justice Samuel Alito interrupted LDF’s lawyer as he was talking about sovereign immunity and the Constitutional Convention. Alito inquired about the tribe’s relationship with Lendgreen.

“Who actually operates this?” he asked.

“The tribe does, Your Honor,” replied attorney Pratik Shah, representing LDF. “This is not a rent-a-tribe situation.”

Shah said the enterprise employed 50 to 60 people working out of a headquarters on the reservation, though “they use third-party vendors, servicers and all, like any other business.”

Shah added: “This is a fully tribal operation.”

But the central issue was whether the tribe could be held liable for violating bankruptcy rules.

“What the tribe is saying is you can’t sue them for hundreds of thousands of dollars of actual damages,” Shah told the court. “That’s at the core of sovereign immunity.”

In June of last year, the high court sided with Coughlin, ruling 8-1 that there’s no sovereign immunity for tribes when it comes to the Bankruptcy Code.

Justice Clarence Thomas concurred in the ruling, not because of his reading of the Bankruptcy Code, but because he held that sovereign immunity does not apply to lawsuits arising from a tribe’s commercial activity conducted off-reservation.

Back in Bankruptcy Court, Coughlin continued to pursue LDF and Lendgreen for damages and legal fees. In mid-August, in the midst of settlement talks, Coughlin asked the court to pause the process required to unmask the outside entities involved with LDF as all sides tried to resolve the dispute. In September, a judge approved a settlement in which the tribe and Lendgreen agreed to pay Coughlin $340,000. LDF denied liability as part of the agreement.

At the same time, pressure is mounting on the tribe’s business partners. As part of the deal, the tribe will give Coughlin documents “with respect to the culpability and responsibility” of the outside partners, according to the settlement. That will enable Coughlin’s lawyers to dig further. LDF also will make a corporate representative available to testify in legal actions against their former business allies, if necessary.

“I want to see all the actors that are actually part of this scheme brought to justice, in a way,” said Coughlin, who now lives in Florida.

“I don’t necessarily believe the tribe is the orchestrator of this whole mess. I think they’re a pawn, unfortunately.”

Mariam Elba contributed research.

To do the best, most comprehensive reporting on this opaque industry, we want to hear from more of the people who know it best. Do you work for a tribal lending operation, either on a reservation or for an outside business partner? Do you belong to a tribe that participates in this lending or one that has rejected the industry? Are you a regulator or lawyer dealing with these issues? Have you borrowed from a tribal lender? All perspectives matter to us. Please get in touch with Megan O’Matz at megan.omatz@propublica.org or 954-873-7576, or Joel Jacobs at joel.jacobs@propublica.org or 917-512-0297. Visit propublica.org/tips for information on secure communication channels.

Desperate times led Wisconsin tribe to high-interest lending, dubious partnerships and legal jeopardy is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

The farmworkers scattered.

There was a union representative in the workers’ employer-provided housing, on an orchard in upstate New York. Their employer, major apple grower Porpiglia Farms, had hired them on H-2A, or temporary labor, visas. That day in August 2023, according to the workers’ union, United Farm Workers, the orchard’s owners burst in. The farmworkers ran or hid in their rooms.

Following the incident, the UFW filed a complaint with New York state, alleging the orchard prevented workers from exercising their rights. Porpiglia Farms disputed the UFW’s account and said it is working with the UFW. However, on that day, the UFW organizer had “trespassed” in an effort to “gin up a controversy,” Anthony Porpiglia, the owner, said in a statement provided to Investigate Midwest by his attorneys. The workers “asked her to leave and she refused,” he said.

The following summer, workers arrived for harvest season. Near the orchard’s entrance, workers, whose union has endorsed Kamala Harris for president, noticed a new sign: “Farmers for Trump.”

The scuffle in the orchard epitomizes the division on immigration between the two presidential candidates and what could be at stake for immigrant workers, who have underpinned the agriculture industry for decades. While Donald Trump’s rhetoric targets its workforce, the industry, writ large, has favored the former president. President Joe Biden’s administration, with Kamala Harris as vice president, has instituted protections paving a path to more farmworker unionization, while also cracking down on border crossings.

A Harris victory would likely mean a continuation of Biden’s efforts — and renewed hope for a path to citizenship for undocumented farmworkers. She’s publicly supported one for years. But farmworkers, who are essential to the U.S. economy, will still fear being uprooted regardless of who is president, said Laurie Beyranevand, director of the Center for Agriculture and Food Systems at Vermont Law and Graduate School.

“At the end of the day, many farmworkers still fear deportation,” she said. “Obviously, that fear, I think, is more pronounced with a policy agenda like the Trump administration, but it’s not as though it’s not present with the Biden administration either.” 

Neither campaign responded to a request for comment on their immigration stances.

If re-elected, Trump has promised to deport upwards of 20 million undocumented people, many of them agricultural workers who perform the dangerous jobs most Americans don’t want. Trump supported the use of the H-2A program, which farmers said is necessary to fill labor shortages. But the former president’s close allies have recently proposed eliminating it.

Agriculture corporations have lavished Trump and Republicans with campaign cash. The disparity in spending on conservatives and liberals, in conservatives’ favor, increased during the Trump administration. Rural areas, a proxy for farmers, largely voted for Trump in 2016 and 2020.

In an interview with The New York Times, Stephen Miller, who led Trump’s immigration efforts during his administration, said the Trump campaign’s goal was to upend industries that rely on immigrant labor. 

“Mass deportation will be a labor-market disruption celebrated by American workers, who will now be offered higher wages with better benefits to fill these jobs,” he said.

Some research suggests deportations, especially at a large scale, could backfire on U.S. workers. In 2023, University of Colorado researchers estimated that, for every 1 million unauthorized workers deported, 88,000 native workers would lose jobs. When companies lose their labor forces, the researchers concluded, they find ways to use less labor, not replace their lost workers.

A historical example is the end of the Bracero Program, which allowed Mexican workers into the U.S. for seasonal jobs. Instead of hiring more U.S. workers when their labor force was suddenly gone, farmers turned to heavy machinery, according to 2017 research. There was no corresponding increase in employment or wages for native workers.

Temporary labor visa programs have exploded in popularity. In 2023, the government granted about 400,000 H-2A visas. But America’s farms still depend on an undocumented workforce. Out of about 2 million farmworkers in the U.S., government surveys show about 44% are undocumented. (Hundreds of thousands of other workers in the food supply chain — meatpacking plants, grocery stores, restaurants — are also undocumented.)

“If we lost half of the farmworker population in a short period of time, the agriculture sector would likely collapse,” said Mary Jo Dudley, the director of the Cornell Farmworker Program. “There are no available skilled workers to replace the current workforce should this policy be put into place.”

Antonio De Loera-Brust, a UFW spokesman, said deporting millions would be nearly impossible logistically. The point of Trump’s rhetoric, he said, was to instill fear in farmworkers so they don’t demand their rights.

Farmers who support Trump are “voting basically to try to deny their workforce labor rights and to try to reduce their workforce’s wages,” De Loera-Brust said. “I don’t think you need to psychoanalyze it that much further beyond, ‘This is in their economic interest.’”

Investigate Midwest requested interviews with several industry groups to discuss the candidates’ stances on immigration and the potential impact on agriculture. The Meat Institute, which represents the meatpacking industry, said the immigration policy it supported was expanding the visa labor program to include its industry.

“Continued labor problems in the processing sector will hamper production and drive up costs, hurting both upstream producers and downstream consumers,” Sarah Little, the group’s spokesperson, said in an email. “Efforts to address the labor needs of agriculture must consider both the production sector and the processing sector.”

However, most either didn’t respond or declined to comment. For example, the American Farm Bureau Federation, which positions itself as the voice of agriculture, said it does “not endorse candidates nor engage in election politics.” 

However, through political action committees, the bureau’s state affiliates endorse candidates. The federation’s current administrative head, Joby Young, was a high-ranking official in Trump’s U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Farm labor is dangerous. In fields, workers risk pesticide exposure, which can cause skin rashes. Long-term exposure can cause cancer or contribute to developmental issues in offspring. Tractors have crushed limbs. Workers have died falling into grain bins.

The pay is also unappealing. Agriculture is exempt from federal overtime laws. Sometimes, workers are paid “piece rate,” meaning their earnings depend on how much they harvest in a day.

In meatpacking plants, workers perform the same motion, over and over, with sharp knives. Workers have suffered tendinitis, lacerations and amputations. Because it’s so difficult, plants sometimes gradually increase newbies’ hours: It’s called “break-in pain.” And, as the COVID-19 pandemic struck, plant workers were forced to return to their jobs, exposing themselves and their families to the virus.

Many U.S. citizens do not want jobs like this, Dudley said. Sometimes, farmers feel they have no choice but to overlook suspect IDs.

“These are valued employees,” an anonymous farmer told Minnesota Public Radio in 2019 after he suspected U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents were surveilling his employees. “We get their IDs and everything. Do we know if they’re legal or illegal? Well, we’re going to say we’re open on that. We don’t know that they are, we don’t know that they aren’t. But they are employees and they are the most hard-working people that you can find.”

One of those workers, for decades, was Gloria Solis. In 1998, she left Mexico, where she struggled to afford food and rent, and began picking cherries in Washington state. When Trump was in office, she tried to stay home as much as possible, fearing an interaction with authorities that might lead to deportation. She mostly risked it for her job and for medical appointments for her two sons, who are U.S. citizens, she said in Spanish through an interpreter. Each time, she prayed.

Some of her employers seemed emboldened by Trump, and the employers made it clear that, if she and her coworkers didn’t work hard enough, they could be easily replaced. When Biden was elected, she said, there was a noticeable change. Workers with legal status and workers who were undocumented were treated much more fairly, Solis, now 47, said.

“We know that (Biden) is no longer in it, but there is his partner,” she said. “Hopefully nothing will change because it’s perfectly fine. We are afraid that Trump will be elected. If he gets elected, then we won’t know what to do.”

Trump raids included ag job sites; Biden secured worker protections

Throughout Trump’s administration, immigration authorities raided farms and food processing plants. When Biden was elected, he reversed Trump’s directives. Instead of targeting workers, Biden focused on exploitative employers.

Under Trump, some of the most prominent agriculture companies in the U.S. dealt with immigration raids. In 2018, Christensen Farms — which owns two of the largest pork processing plants in the U.S., Seaboard Foods in Oklahoma and Triumph Foods in Missouri — was caught up in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement action. In 2019, raids in Mississippi rounded up about 700 undocumented workers. Some worked for Koch Foods, which supplies much of the poultry at Wal-Mart.

While the raids barely made a dent in the agricultural workforce, they had an effect. Many farmworkers feared speaking up about workplace abuses, said Nezahualcoyotl Xiuhtecutli, a National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition advocacy coordinator who previously worked as a Florida farmworker advocate.

“They felt like they couldn’t raise their voices about concerns they had on safety or wage theft or any kind of labor violation,” he said. “They just felt like it made them a target and they could easily be replaced.”

Many farmworkers who have been in the U.S. for decades travel north from Texas and Florida each year to work in Midwestern fields. But, with Trump in office, some in Florida decided to forgo the annual pilgrimage to avoid running into ICE, Xiuhtecutli said. Some took housekeeping or landscaping jobs to make ends meet. 

“I don’t think it was necessarily a positive change for them because it wasn’t steady work,” he said. “It was still seasonal.”

Once in office, Biden announced crackdowns on employers in the food supply chain that used migrant child labor, following a New York Times expose. Children worked in factories that processed or produced products for Walmart, Whole Foods and General Mills, the cereal giant.

In 2023, Biden also announced that workers who were in the country without documentation could be granted deferred action — i.e., not immediate deportation — if they witnessed or were victims of labor violations. The change would help hold “predatory” employers accountable, the administration said.

UFW’s De Loera-Brust said the deferred action rule was a “game changer” for unions. A couple dozen members of his union, which represents workers with a variety of legal statuses, have been granted stays under the new rule, he said.

“We’re actually able to tell workers not just that you will get better wages, better protections, better conditions through unionization,” he said. “We can actually also help protect you from deportation.”

Solis, the worker in Washington state, benefited from the new rule. In 2023, she was fired from her job on a mushroom farm. According to the state attorney general, the farm discriminated against female workers, including firing them, and was fined $3.4 million. Because of the incident, Solis was officially allowed to remain in the U.S. When she received the paperwork in the mail, she cried out of happiness all night, she said.

Another Biden rule, implemented this year, allowed H-2A farmworkers to invite union representatives into their employer-owned housing. It also banned employers from retaliating against workers trying to unionize. The state of New York allowed H-2A workers to unionize starting in 2020, which facilitated the unionization effort at Porpiglia Farms. The Biden rule codified the right for H-2A workers nationwide.

In late August, though, a judge temporarily blocked the rule after 17 Republican-led states sued the Biden administration over it. The administration asked the judge to narrow the breadth of the injunction, which would allow some other farmworker protections to be enacted, according to Bloomberg Law. The request was denied.

Beyranevand, at the agriculture and food systems center, said the rule would be an important step for farmworkers. But the challenge would be enforcing it, and having workers believe they won’t face retaliation.

“I don’t know that a lot of farmworkers are going to invite in labor representatives or anyone that is putting their job in jeopardy if the farm owner is able to catch a whiff of that,” she said.

Trump and his allies promise hard-line immigration policies

Deporting millions of farmworkers could have far-reaching consequences, experts and advocates said.

If the agricultural workforce were suddenly gone, the U.S. would likely have to rely much more heavily on imported food, said Dudley, of the Cornell farmworker program. That could lead to higher food prices, especially if another Trump proposal — replacing the income tax with tariffs on imports — is enacted. In turn, that could put more price pressure on individual consumers, particularly ones in food-insecure families, Dudley said. (Some research suggests that more immigrants and H-2A workers in the food system leads to less inflation at the supermarket.)

Relying on imported food could become a national security issue. It could be easier for a foreign adversary to destabilize the U.S. if its food supply was prevented from reaching its shores. (The Biden administration said in a 2022 memo it was looking into how to bolster the security of the food system.)

Another consequence of mass deportation would be the gutting of the social safety net, Dudley said. In 2022, undocumented immigrants paid almost $100 billion in taxes, and about a third went to Medicare and Social Security, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. 

“If you transition away from an undocumented labor force in agriculture, construction, restaurants, and other service sectors,” Dudley said, “there would be a significant financial loss to those systems, affecting all beneficiaries including the growing number of ‘baby boomers’ who are increasingly reliant on those programs for their financial well-being.”

The dairy industry relies heavily on undocumented labor, and it can’t use the H-2A program because milking cows is not a seasonal job. When asked to discuss the potential impact of a Trump presidency, the National Milk Producers Federation, which represents the dairy industry, said it had no one on staff “whose expertise aligns with the story you’re writing.” The Dairy Business Association, which represents Wisconsin dairies, said it is not commenting on the election.

Instead of undocumented labor, Trump signaled his support for the H-2A program, an increasingly popular program bereft with labor abuses. In a 2018 press release, Trump’s U.S. Department of Agriculture called the program a “source of legal and verified labor for agriculture.”

While in office, Trump made it easier for employers to hire H-2A workers, including eliminating some red tape. He also sought to change how visa workers were paid, which would have limited their earnings.

But close allies of Trump have proposed eliminating the program altogether. They’ve also recommended ending its sister program, the H-2B visa, which the meatpacking industry has latched onto. Both visa programs are intended to address seasonal labor shortages.

The Heritage Foundation, an influential conservative think tank, is behind the proposals, known as Project 2025. Trump has distanced himself from it, but The Washington Post reported he flew on a private jet with its leader in 2022, and CNN found at least 140 people who worked in Trump’s administration are involved in the project.

Actually eliminating the visa programs would likely be incredibly unpopular among farmers and industry lobbying groups, especially without a viable alternative, Beyranevand said.

The visa system “provides a really stable workforce for the agricultural sector,” she said. “Without the stability, I would imagine that farm businesses would be really opposed to something like that.”

The number of meatpacking plants that use H-2B visa workers has increased six-fold since 2015, according to federal labor department data. Little said her organization, the Meat Institute, would continue to ensure the H-2B visa was open to the meatpacking industry. Also, the industry supported reforming the H-2A program to “include meat and poultry processing and to recognize the year-round labor needs of the industry,” she said.

Tom Bressner, the executive director of the Wisconsin Agri-Business Association, said his organization wants to see the use of the H-2A program expanded, as well. It also supports streamlining the application process and removing some red tape.

“It’s a good program, but it really needs some major tweaking to make it work more effectively,” he said. “You talk about a nightmare to try to qualify for that program. You’ve got people out there wanting to work and we need them.”

The National Corn Growers Association, which represents an industry that hires H-2A labor regularly, said it did not comment on presidential elections. 

De Loera-Brust, with UFW, said he thinks Trump’s campaign rhetoric is not intended to translate into actual, on-the-ground policy. He made similar comments as a candidate in 2016 and as president, but deportations on the scale Trump promised did not occur.

“What I think the mass deportation slogan is really about is scaring workers,” De Loera-Brust said. “It’s about making immigrant workers feel like they cannot count on tomorrow, so they better keep their heads down and not say anything if they’re getting screwed out of their wages.”

Harris has voiced support for a path to citizenship 

In general, top Democrats have cracked down hard on illegal immigration while offering some relief. The Democratic president before Biden, Barack Obama, was often called the “deporter-in-chief” by his critics as he deported more undocumented immigrants than Trump. However, he also instituted the deferred action for childhood arrivals, or DACA, policy.

At the Democratic National Convention, Harris continued walking this line. In her speech accepting the Democratic Party nomination, she promised to sign bipartisan border security legislation into law.

“I know we can live up to our proud heritage as a nation of immigrants — and reform our broken immigration system,” she said. “We can create an earned pathway to citizenship — and secure our border.”

As president, Biden has cracked down on illegal crossings at the U.S.-Mexico border. In early September, the New York Times reported he was considering making it tougher to enter the country without a visa by permanently blocking most asylum claims. This year, the numbers have dropped to their lowest point in years. (Because of the economic importance of immigration, some experts also worried about how Biden’s policies could impact the economy, Politico reported.)

Biden tasked Harris with addressing immigration. In 2021, she visited the Northern Triangle, the area of Central America where many recent immigrants originate. She spearheaded the Biden administration’s attempt to address poverty, violence and corruption in the area, the so-called “root causes” of immigration. When she visited Guatemala, Harris told those looking to journey to the U.S.: “Do not come.”

In his 2025 budget, Biden said he’d address immigration by hiring more than a thousand new border patrol agents and about 400 immigration judges to reduce the case backlog. In the Democratic Party platform, released for its convention, party leaders said it would “explore opportunities to identify or create work permits for immigrants, long-term undocumented residents, and legally processed asylum seekers in our country.”

Xiuhtecutli, with the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, said the Biden administration probably eased concerns for undocumented immigrants who had lived in the U.S. for decades, mostly because the population was not a near-constant target of powerful politicians.

“There was some relief, at least in the sense that it wasn’t being talked about as openly,” he said, “but, in the community, there’s still the perception that the border was still going to be a hot zone, that it was difficult to cross, still.”

Some farmworker advocates are hopeful for what a Harris administration could mean. When it endorsed Harris, UFW, the California-based farmworker union, said Harris was the “best leader to defeat Donald Trump and to continue the transformative work of the Biden-Harris administration.” Biden, it added, had been the “greatest friend” the union had.

Solis, who is a UFW member, said she hopes Harris continues the policies Biden implemented and possibly goes further. Trump’s rhetoric stigmatized her and her family, she said, particularly when he said he’d end the birthright citizenship of her sons. 

“I would tell him — with all due respect because he was president — he does not know how much he has hurt them with the way he expresses himself,” she said.

Mónica Cordero and Jennifer Bamberg contributed to this story.

This story is a product of the Mississippi River Basin Ag & Water Desk, an editorially independent reporting network based at the University of Missouri School of Journalism in partnership with Report For America and funded by the Walton Family Foundation. Wisconsin Watch is a member of the network. Sign up for our newsletter to get our news straight to your inbox.

Deportations, raids and visa access: How the presidential election could alter life for immigrant farmworkers is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Green Bay broke ground on the first steps toward developing what the city said will be its largest-ever housing development.

Plans call for the development of a minimum of 200 single- and multi-family homes, a public park and urban farm on a roughly 26-acre parcel donated by a local employer, according to Amaad Rivera-Wagner, the city’s project manager for the redevelopment and the mayor’s chief of staff.

“We are essentially building a brand new neighborhood on land that has been essentially a farm or not utilized for nearly 100 years,” Rivera-Wagner said.

The groundbreaking marked the start of work on infrastructure and public amenities serving the site, like roads, utilities, the park and the urban farm.

“We are technically doing two different processes at the same time,” Rivera-Wagner said. “There’s a public amenities process and there’s a housing process.”

In 2021, JBS Foods Group, which employs roughly 1,200 people at its beef processing plant in Green Bay, donated the property on the east side. The company also gave the city $500,000 to use to address the housing shortage in the community. 

The previous year, a housing market study commissioned by the city found Green Bay needed between 3,314 and 7,441 rental units and between 4,052 and 9,098 owner-occupied units by 2040 to keep up with demand.

Since the donation, Green Bay has worked with roughly 40 community stakeholders to develop plans for the site and received assistance from Harvard University and Bloomberg Philanthropies. The city also hosted meetings, where residents shared input on what they’d like to see.

“This is both the largest development we’ve ever done and the largest community-led effort,” Rivera-Wagner said.

Rivera-Wagner said the development aims to provide “missing middle housing” — homes and apartments that are affordable to households earning 80 to 120 percent of the area’s median income. The median household income in the city was about $55,000 in 2022, according to the most recent data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

Green Bay selected two developers to build housing for the first phase of the project after opening requests for proposals in January. The developers will purchase the land from the city. Green Bay estimates the development will create $30 million in property value.

When complete, the project will include duplexes, triplexes, apartments, townhomes and single-family homes, Rivera-Wagner said.

Milwaukee-based developer Revel49 proposed building 94 apartments, five single-family homes and 18 townhomes. It was selected to build an apartment building and multigenerational townhomes. Madison-based Gorman & Company proposed building 132 apartments, 32 townhomes and 20 single-family homes. It was selected to build apartments.

Ted Matkom, Wisconsin Market president for Gorman & Company, said developers are still negotiating the terms of a development agreement with the city, so unit estimates will change.

“My understanding is the land is (going to be sold) for $1,” Matkom said. “But to be honest with you, we have not reached a total agreement with the city.”

He also said Gorman & Company met “a couple times” with the city related to what’s being built, but “it’s far from approved or designed.”

Revel49 Managing Partner Collin Price said the single-family homes will come in the second phase of the project.

“There’s no single-family residences in phase one, so that’s all been put off to the sideline for phase two,” he said.

Rivera-Wagner said the city is spending roughly $14 million to build infrastructure and amenities. He said $5 million of that comes from a state grant funded by the federal American Rescue Plan Act.

Rivera-Wagner said that portion of the project will be finished within a year. Matkom and Price said they anticipate beginning construction next spring and finishing by the end of 2026.

“The most important part for the city and the community is to deliver the housing as soon as we can, due to the high demand,” Price said.

The city hopes to start a requests for proposal process for the remaining units in the next three to six months, with the goal of “constantly building out this neighborhood,” Rivera-Wagner said.

“People will be able to go and hang out in this neighborhood within a year,” Rivera-Wagner said. “They’ll be able to live within this neighborhood in two years, and we’re hoping to fully build out within three to four years.”

At the groundbreaking, state and local leaders celebrated the development moving forward.

“I just want to truly express my appreciation for what you all have (done to) come together to dream big and to achieve this dream together,” said state Department of Administration Secretary Kathy Blumenfeld.

JBS Green Bay Human Resources Director Brad Bothun said the company’s donation was part of a program to strengthen the communities where the company’s employees live.

“The increase in affordable housing in our region is something that will benefit our team members, their families and many of our neighbors as well,” Bothun said. “We cannot wait to see how this incredible project transforms this neighborhood and this community.”

In addition to housing, the project will include a community park, with seating, spaces for food trucks, a bike path and playground. 

Tara Yang, management consultant with the Ashwaubenon nonprofit Wello, said the development also includes an urban farm that will be made possible thanks to partnerships among local farmers, community organizations and cultural leaders. She said the new neighborhood will help the Green Bay community thrive.

“It represents potential — potential for expanding housing opportunities, creating accessible parks and building bridges between communities,” she said. “It’s about ensuring that everyone — regardless of the background — has access to the resources, connections and opportunities.”

This story was originally published by WPR.

‘A brand new neighborhood’: Green Bay sets stage for largest-ever housing development is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

In bankruptcy filings and consumer complaints, thousands of people across the country make pleas for relief from high-interest loans with punishing annual rates that often exceed 600%.

Although they borrowed small sums online from a slew of businesses with catchy names — such as Loan at Last or Sky Trail Cash — their loans stemmed from the same massive operation owned by a small Native American tribe in a remote part of Wisconsin.

Over the past decade, the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians has grown to become a prominent player in the tribal lending industry, generating far-reaching impact and leaving a legacy of economic despair. A ProPublica analysis found companies owned by the LDF tribe showed up as a creditor in roughly 1 out of every 100 bankruptcy cases sampled nationwide.

That’s the highest frequency associated with any of the tribes doing business in this sector of the payday loan industry. And it translates to an estimated 4,800 bankruptcy cases, on average, per year.

ProPublica also found that LDF’s various companies have racked up more than 2,200 consumer complaints that were routed to the Federal Trade Commission since 2019 — more than any other tribe in recent years.

“THIS IS THE TEXTBOOK DEFINITION ON LOANSHARKING,” one Californian with an LDF loan complained in all caps in June 2023 to federal regulators. The person, whose name is redacted, argued that “no one should be expected to pay over $11,000 for a $1,200 loan,” calling the 790% rate “beyond predatory.”

In a separate complaint, a Massachusetts customer wrote, “I thought this kind of predatory lending was against the law.”

Such confusion is understandable. Loans like these are illegal under most state statutes. But tribal-related businesses, including LDF, claim that their sovereign rights exempt them from state usury laws and licensing requirements aimed at protecting consumers. And so these businesses operate widely, facing little pushback from regulators and relying on the small print in their loan agreements.

As LDF climbed in the industry, it kept a low profile, garnering little publicity. For years it operated from a call center above a smoke shop in the community’s small downtown, before moving to a sprawling vocational training building, built in part with federal money, off a less visible, two-lane road.

But staying under the radar just got harder. Court filings show that LDF tribal leaders and some of their nontribal business partners have come to an agreement with consumers in a 2020 federal class-action lawsuit filed in Virginia. Nearly 1 million borrowers could finally get relief.

The deal calls for the cancellation of $1.4 billion in outstanding loans. Tribal officials and their associates would also pay $37.4 million to consumers and the lawyers who brought the suit. Although they settled, LDF leaders have denied wrongdoing in the case, and its president told ProPublica it adheres to high industry standards in its lending operations.

A final resolution of the case will take months. If approved, the total settlement would be the largest ever secured against participants in the tribal lending industry, lawyers told the court.

“This is a big one,” said Irv Ackelsberg, a Philadelphia attorney who has faced off in court against other tribal lenders and followed this suit closely. “Is it going to stop tribal lending? Probably not because it’s just a fraction of what’s out there.”

The LDF tribe is central to the suit but is not named. Nor is LDF Holdings, the corporate umbrella over the various lending subsidiaries.

Knowing that both those entities likely would have been entitled to sovereign immunity, lawyers for the borrowers chose a different approach. Instead, they brought the case against members of the tribe’s governing council; high-level employees of LDF’s lending operations; and a nontribal business partner, Skytrail Servicing Group, and its owner, William Cheney Pruett.

Pruett also denied wrongdoing in the case. He did not respond to requests for comment from ProPublica.

The proposed settlement notes that the tribal leaders and their partners understood that continuing to defend the case “would require them to expend significant time and money.” LDF, under the settlement, can continue its loan operations.

In emails to ProPublica, LDF President John Johnson Sr. defended the tribe’s lending business as legal and beneficial to both borrowers and the tribal members. He said the loans help people “without access to traditional financial services,” such as those with bad credit histories and people facing financial crises. Many borrowers, he said, have had positive experiences.

He also emphasized the economic benefits to the tribe, including jobs and revenue for vital services. “Please make no mistake: the programs and infrastructure developed through LDF Holdings’ revenue contributions have saved lives in our community and are helping preserve our culture and way of life,” he wrote in an email.

Johnson, who is a named defendant in the suit, and other tribal leaders declined requests to be interviewed.

Partnerships fuel lending

Historically, some financial services firms formed alliances with tribes, gaining an advantage from the tribes’ sovereign immunity. For years, consumer lawyers and even federal prosecutors have raised questions about whether some tribal lending operations were just fronts for outsiders that received most of the profits and conducted all the key operations — from running call centers to underwriting and collecting.

The LDF tribe is one of only a few dozen of the nation’s 574 federally recognized tribes that have turned to the lending business as an economic lifeline. Typically those tribes are in isolated areas far from large population centers needed to support major industries or hugely profitable casinos. Online lending, or e-commerce, opened opportunities.

“If you look at the tribes who do it, they tend to be rural and they tend to be poor,” said Lance Morgan, CEO of a tribal economic development corporation owned by the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska. “Because they don’t really have any other options to pursue from an economic development standpoint. They just don’t. That’s why this appeals to some tribes.”

He said his tribe considered getting into the lending industry but decided against it.

Tribes in the U.S. still suffer from the legacy of racism and betrayal that saw the U.S. government steal land from Native Americans and destroy cultures. Now, with limited economic resources and taxing options, tribal governments draw upon federal grants and subsidies to help fund essential community services — support promised in long-ago treaties, laws and policies in exchange for land. But these programs have proven to be “chronically underfunded and sometimes inefficiently structured,” according to a 2018 report from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

On the LDF reservation, which is home to about 3,600 people, the median household income is under $52,000, and 20% of the population lives below the federal poverty line, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. On lands that are chock-full of lakes, streams and wetlands, the LDF people operate a fish hatchery, hunt deer and cultivate wild rice. The tribe also has a casino, hotel and convention center.

LDF entered the loan business in 2012 and has set up at least two dozen lending companies and websites on its way to massive expansion, a ProPublica examination found. LDF owns the companies and works with outside firms to operate its businesses, which offer short-term installment loans.

Unlike traditional payday loans, these are not due by the next pay period but have longer terms. Borrowers show proof of income and typically authorize the company to make automatic withdrawals from their bank accounts.

Details of the tribe’s business operations are not public. A July 2014 tribal newsletter reported that LDF had three lending companies employing four tribal members. By 2022, an LDF attorney told the Virginia judge that LDF Holdings, the lending parent company, employed about 50 people on the reservation. Johnson told ProPublica it currently employs 170 people “who live on or near the reservation,” of which 70% are tribally enrolled.

Each year, on reservation land, LDF now hosts the Tribal Lending Summit, a gathering of staff, vendors and prospective partners. Attendee lists posted online show dozens of representatives of software companies, call centers, marketing firms, customer acquisition businesses and debt collection agencies.

After this year’s event, in June, the LDF business hosts posted a congratulation message on social media: ”Here’s to another year of growth, learning, and collaboration! We look forward to continuing this journey together and seeing you all at next year’s summit.”

Business practices under fire

Like many operators in this corner of the lending industry, LDF has been forced to defend its business practices in court. It has been subject to at least 40 civil suits filed by consumers since 2019, ProPublica found.

The suits typically allege violations of state usury laws and federal racketeering or fair credit reporting statutes. Johnson, in his statements to ProPublica, said LDF follows tribal and federal regulations, and he cited LDF’s sovereign status as the primary reason state laws on lending don’t apply to its business practices.

“Expecting a Tribe to opine on and/or submit to State regulatory oversight is akin to expecting Canada to submit to or speak on the laws of France,” he wrote.

Most suits against LDF’s lending companies settle quickly with the terms kept confidential. Consumers can be at a disadvantage because of the arbitration agreements in the fine print of their loan contracts, which attempt to restrict their ability to sue.

Karen Brostek, a registered nurse in Florida, borrowed $550 in 2017 from LDF’s Loan at Last at an annual percentage rate of 682%. The contract required her to pay back $2,783 over nine months.

It wasn’t her first foray into short-term borrowing. She said her salary did not cover her expenses and she had “to borrow from Peter to pay Paul.”

Loan at Last tried numerous times to collect the debt, even threatening in one phone call to have her jailed, she said. Finally, in August 2019, she satisfied the obligation.

Brostek sued LDF Holdings in small claims court in Pasco County in 2021. The suit cited Florida laws that make it a third-degree felony to issue loans with APRs over 45%.

The parties settled within weeks. Brostek recalls receiving about $750. LDF’s Johnson did not comment on Brostek’s case in his response to ProPublica.

She said she does not begrudge the tribe making money but said, “We need to find another way to help them so they don’t feel they’re backed into a corner and this is their only alternative.”

A groundbreaking settlement

The Virginia class-action suit claimed that LDF’s governing council delegated the daily operations of the lending businesses “to non-tribal members.” Mirroring allegations in other civil actions, the suit claims that LDF’s partnerships were exploiting sovereign immunity to make loans that otherwise would be illegal.

According to the plaintiffs, LDF Holdings entered into agreements that allow nontribal outsiders to handle and control most aspects of the lending businesses. That includes “marketing, underwriting, risk assessment, compliance, accounting, lead generation, collections, and website management for the businesses,” the suit said. For years, the president of LDF Holdings was a woman who lived in Tampa, Florida. She is a named defendant in the suit, which says she is not a member of the tribe.

Johnson told ProPublica that early on the tribe lacked expertise in the industry and that its partnerships were simply an example of outsourcing, “a standard practice in many American business sectors.”

His statement added, “Recruiting outside talent and capital to Indian country is a mission-critical skill in Tribal economic development.”

The amount of revenue that comes to the tribe is undisclosed, but the class-action suit says the contract with one of its partners, Skytrail Servicing, resulted in only “a nominal flat fee” for LDF.

The 2014 servicing agreement between Skytrail Servicing and LDF is sealed in the court record, and details about the arrangement are largely redacted. In one filing, Skytrail Servicing denies an allegation from the plaintiffs that the tribe received only $3.50 per originated loan.

In a separate filing in the suit, Johnson, the tribal president, said LDF’s lending profits are distributed to the tribe’s general fund, which helps pay for the tribal government, including essential services such as police, education and health care.

The legal strategy crafted by the Virginia consumer protection firm Kelly Guzzo PLC relied heavily on a 2021 federal appeals court decision that concluded that tribal lending was off-reservation conduct to which state law applied. The court found that while a tribe itself cannot be sued for its commercial activities, its members and officers can be.

The class-action suit alleges that tribal officials and their associates conspired to violate state lending laws, collecting millions of dollars in unlawful debts. “In sum, we allege that they are the upper level management of a purely unlawful business that makes illegal loans in Virginia, Georgia, and elsewhere throughout the country,” lawyer Andrew Guzzo said in a September 2022 hearing, referring to LDF officials.

“What I’m trying to say, in other words, is this isn’t a case that involves a lawful business, such as a real estate brokerage firm, that happens to have a secret side scheme involving a few rogue employees,” he said. “The people that are overseeing this are overseeing a business that makes unlawful loans and nothing else.”

The most consequential aspect of the settlement plan is the debt relief it would offer an estimated 980,000 people who were LDF customers over seven years — from July 24, 2016, through Oct. 1, 2023. Those who had obtained loans during that period and still owed money would not be subject to any further collection efforts, canceling an estimated $1.4 billion in outstanding debt.

Eligibility for cash awards is dependent on the state where borrowers live and how much they paid in interest. Nevada and Utah have no interest rate restrictions, so borrowers there aren’t entitled to any money back.

The tribal officials who are listed as defendants have agreed to pay $2 million of the $37.4 million cash settlement. The remaining amount would come from nontribal partners involved in five of the tribe’s lending subsidiaries.

That includes $6.5 million from Skytrail Servicing Group and Pruett, a Texas businessman who has been involved in the payday loan industry for more than two decades.

The largest portion of the settlement — $20 million — would come from unnamed “non-tribal individuals and entities” involved with LDF’s Loan at Last, the company that gave Brostek her loan.

The consumer attorneys are not done. They noted in a memorandum in the case that other LDF affiliates who did not settle in this instance “will be sued in a new case.”

Mariam Elba contributed research.

A Wisconsin tribe built a lending empire charging 600% annual rates to borrowers is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.