Kayla Bartkowski // Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

As part of its deportation efforts, the Trump administration has ordered states to hand over personal data from voter rolls, driver’s license records and programs such as Medicaid and food stamps.

At the same time, the administration is trying to consolidate the bits of personal data held across federal agencies, creating a single trove of information on people who live in the United States.

Stateline examines how many left-leaning states and cities are trying to protect their residents’ personal information amid the immigration crackdown. But a growing number of conservative lawmakers also want to curb the use of surveillance technologies, such as automated license plate readers, that can be used to identify and track people.

Conservative-led states such as Arkansas, Idaho and Montana enacted laws last year designed to protect the personal data collected through license plate readers and other means. They joined at least five left-leaning states — Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York and Washington — that specifically blocked U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement from accessing their driver’s license records.

In addition, Democratic-led cities in Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Texas and Washington last year terminated their contracts with Flock Safety, the largest provider of license plate readers in the U.S.

The Trump administration’s goal is to create a “surveillance dragnet across the country,” said William Owen, communications director at the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, a nonprofit that advocates for stronger privacy

Anya Petrone Slepyan for The Daily Yonder

On Sept. 2, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a press release announcing a change that has the potential to transform law enforcement across the country, and especially in rural counties. 

A new promise to reimburse salaries, benefits, and overtime pay for county and municipal law enforcement officers who partner with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) could prove a major incentive for cash-strapped rural counties.

DHS will use funding from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, passed earlier this year, to reimburse local law enforcement agencies that partner with ICE under the Task Force model of the Section 287(g) program. 

The Task Force model deputizes local and state law enforcement officers with many of the powers of federal immigration agents, including the ability to arrest, detain, and interrogate people who are suspected of being undocumented — all without a warrant. 

These activities occur “while performing routine police duties,” according to the press release, including traffic stops and investigations of nonimmigration-related incidents. In addition to reimbursing the costs of Task Force officer salaries and benefits, DHS will cover overtime costs up to 25% of the officer’s annual salary, and “quarterly monetary performance awards based on the successful location of illegal aliens.” DHS also covers the costs of the 40-hour training each officer undergoes to participate in the Task Force model. 

“We encourage all state and local law enforcement agencies to sign a 287(g) agreement now,” said Madison Sheahan, ICE deputy director, in the press release. “By joining forces with ICE, you’re not just gaining access to these unprecedented reimbursement opportunities — you’re becoming part of a national effort to ensure the safety of every American family.”

But experts say these kinds of federal-local partnerships often face difficulties. 

One question is the proper role and priorities of local law enforcement. Justin Smith served in county sheriffs’ departments in Kansas and Colorado for 36 years and is the incoming executive director for the National Sheriffs Association. He said that even finding enough time and manpower to send deputies to the 40-hour training could be a challenge for understaffed rural departments.

Smith said it’s also important to recognize that ICE and law enforcement have fundamentally different goals and responsibilities. 

“When we got a 911 call, our primary focus was on

Good dreams – Studio // Shutterstock

As we step into 2026, the fundamental backdrop for markets appears more favorable than anything we’ve seen since 2021. It may be hard to remember after wrapping up a strong year for global markets, but investors climbed a significant wall of worry throughout 2025. Policy uncertainty dominated headlines: Would DOGE trigger a recession? Was the U.S. heading into a trade war? Would the Fed prioritize fighting inflation or supporting the markets?

Many of these questions have been answered, and two powerful forces are now working in investors’ favor: policy clarity and Federal Reserve support. Range looks at the potential impact of policy on markets this year.

The Macro Reset: Policy Fog Has Lifted

Investors hate uncertainty more than they hate bad news. Throughout 2025, they faced three major policy unknowns that froze decision-making and weighed on markets. Now, they finally have answers.

The Fear of DOGE

Following the creation of the Department of Government Efficiency, headlines suggested a staggering $2 trillion in immediate spending cuts. Markets worried about the risk of “shock therapy” that could trigger a government-induced recession.

The 2026 Setup: The U.S. endured some hiring freezes and increased scrutiny on government waste, but the catastrophic demand shock never arrived. DOGE quietly wound down in November 2025 and a “slash and burn” approach to government spending is no longer a market concern.

The Tax Cliff

The looming expiration of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act created a massive overhang at the beginning of 2025. CFOs froze spending plans and M&A slowed, as it was difficult to model returns on investment without knowing tax policy.

The 2026 Setup: The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” was enacted in July 2025, setting tax rates for the next several years. Businesses now have the visibility they need to unlock their balance sheets.

Tariff Russian Roulette

Perhaps the most traumatic policy risk of 2025 was trade rhetoric that seemed to escalate daily. Threats of 100% tariff rates became a regular occurrence, and investors feared an extreme universal tax that would reignite 1970s-style stagflation.

The 2026 Setup: Tariff-related fears briefly sent us into a bear market in 2025, but investors now recognize that tariff-related inflation is a manageable friction, not an existential risk to margins.

The Fed Has Shown Its Cards: Support, Not Restraint

Perhaps more than fiscal policy, valuations, or even earnings, a highly important variable for markets is the Federal Reserve. In 2026, the Fed appears ready to shift from fighting inflation to protecting expansion, acting as a powerful backer for markets.

For the first time since 2021, the Fed is using both of its primary tools to support asset prices:

1. Lowering Short-Term Rates‍

The Fed cut rates three consecutive times through December, bringing the target range down to 3.5%-3.75%. This directly stimulates economic activity.

Mumumutelu // Shutterstock

Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are used to treat obesity, Type 2 diabetes, and more. These medications, while helpful for these conditions, could indirectly cause fluid or electrolyte imbalances. LMNT shares what to watch for and how to strategize with electrolytes.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) medications — sold under the blockbuster brand names Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro, and more — have dominated headlines in recent years.

These marvels of modern medicine help treat the chronic conditions of obesity and Type 2 diabetes. They do this by mimicking the natural GLP-1 gut hormone, which has beneficial effects on glucose (blood sugar), appetite management, and more.

They’ve revolutionized weight management and diabetes care, and these effects are much talked about on social media and beyond.

What’s rarely discussed is how these medications may affect your body’s electrolyte levels — something people taking them should be aware of.

More research is needed on how GLP-1 RAs affect electrolyte balance (and it’s likely highly individual depending on each person’s unique circumstances), but the topic deserves attention given hydration’s role in metabolic health.

This article explores how GLP-1 RAs work, why they might alter your fluid and electrolyte needs, how lifestyle changes play a role, strategies for maintaining proper fluid and electrolyte balance, and red flags to watch for.

What Are GLP-1s and Why Are Electrolytes Important?

“GLP-1 is a keystone hormone of metabolism with a wide range of metabolic effects,” says Nicholas Norwitz, MD, a leading voice in the science of metabolic health.

GLP-1 RAs mimic the body’s natural GLP-1 gut hormone, which people who have obesity or Type 2 diabetes may secrete less of.

When it comes to weight management and Type 2 diabetes, GLP-1 RAs:

• Help with blood sugar regulation and improve insulin sensitivity.
• Alter the hunger and fullness signals the brain receives.
• Slow gastric emptying, the rate of food moving from the stomach to the small intestine.

“GLP-1 RAs are dosed in such a way as to give supraphysiologic levels of the hormone,” Dr. Norwitz says.

“Therefore, at a high level, it’s easy to see why metabolic function — and electrolyte balance — could be altered by starting GLP-1 RA therapy.”

In other

Por Annie Grayer, CNN

Bill y Hillary Clinton se negaron a testificar este martes en el Capitolio ante la Comisión de Supervisión de la Cámara de Representantes en el marco de la investigación sobre Jeffrey Epstein, pese a la amenaza de legisladores de declararlos en desacato.

“Usted dirá que no es nuestra decisión. Pero ya la tomamos. Ahora le toca tomar la suya”, escribieron los Clinton en lo que parece ser un desafío al presidente republicano de la comisión, James Comer, quien fijó un plazo final esta semana para que comparecieran.

Comer dijo a periodistas este miércoles que la comisión se reunirá la próxima semana para avanzar con los procedimientos contra Bill Clinton, aunque dejó abierta la posibilidad de que la exsecretaria de Estado aún pueda cambiar de opinión.

La medida supone una escalada en los esfuerzos del panel por llevar al expresidente a una entrevista a puerta cerrada como parte de su investigación sobre Epstein. Los votos favorables a la acusación de desacato por parte de la Cámara de Representantes, controlada por el Partido Republicano, serían tanto simbólicos —como reprimenda a los Clinton— como una herramienta para obligarlos a testificar. También podría tener consecuencias legales si el expresidente sigue resistiéndose a cooperar y los tribunales o el Departamento de Justicia deciden tomar cartas en el asunto.

“Es importante señalar que esta citación fue votada de manera bipartidista por esta comisión. No fue algo que yo emitiera unilateralmente como presidente de la comisión. Fue aprobada por toda la Comisión de Supervisión de la Cámara en una votación unánime para citar al expresidente Clinton y a la exsecretaria de Estado, Hillary Clinton”, dijo Comer. “Ahora se supone que Hillary Clinton debe presentarse mañana. Veremos qué sucede”.

Los Clinton expusieron sus objeciones personales y legales a la solicitud en una serie de cartas, obtenidas por CNN, firmadas por ellos y por sus abogados.

La pareja afirmó en las cartas que estaban siendo señalados de manera injusta y señalan que se han eximido siete comparecencias presenciales citadas previamente. Al calificar las citaciones de la comisión como “inválidas y legalmente inexigibles”, describieron lo que, según ellos, eran perjuicios sin precedentes impulsados por el Gobierno.

“Cada persona tiene que decidir cuándo ya ha visto o tenido suficiente y está lista para luchar por este país, sus principios y su gente, sin importar las consecuencias. Para nosotros, ese momento es ahora”, escribieron.

Más adelante añadieron: “De hecho, paralizar la cruel agenda de los republicanos mientras ustedes se esfuerzan más por aprobar una acusación de desacato contra nosotros que por investigar durante el último año sería nuestra contribución a la lucha contra la locura”.

Después de que el panel se reúna la próxima semana, el liderazgo republicano de la Cámara tendría que programar una votación en el pleno. Una votación de la Cámara en pleno para declarar a Clinton en desacato penal al Congreso implicaría una remisión al Departamento de Justicia, que tendría que decidir si procede penalmente.

El panel emitió citaciones de manera unánime a los Clinton en agosto para declaraciones y ha estado negociando de forma privada con sus abogados para intentar fijar una fecha para que ambos comparezcan a entrevistas a puerta cerrada.

Los Clinton afirmaron que “han intentado dar toda la poca información que tienen”.

“Lo hemos hecho porque los crímenes del señor Epstein fueron horribles”, dijeron a Comer. “Si el Gobierno no hizo todo lo posible para investigar y procesar estos crímenes, por la razón que sea, ese debería ser el foco de su trabajo: aprender por qué y evitar que vuelva a ocurrir. No hay evidencia de que usted esté haciendo eso”.

Comer, sin embargo, no se ha mostrado impresionado.

El presidente de la comisión ha señalado que Epstein visi