The Trump administration and some House Republicans, including Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., have floated the idea of privatizing the United States Postal Service.
Experts said operating the agency like a private business could leave Kentucky's rural areas without mail options for essential functions such as receiving checks or paying taxes.
Tyler Offerman, manager of policy initiatives at the Kentucky Equal Justice Center, said privatization would eliminate essential infrastructure in rural counties, noting 54 of the Commonwealth's 120 counties are entirely rural, with no urban center.
"Many parts of Kentucky are not profitable based on some of these companies business models, and they're considered expendable," Offerman explained.
The Postal Service saw $1.8 billion in controllable losses in fiscal year 2024, compared to more than $2 billion the prior year, according to the agency. Supporters of privatization argued mail volume is dwindling and the agency has lost billions of dollars over the past decade.
Similar to how the decline in rural Kentucky hospitals has forced people to travel farther or skip medical care, Offerman pointed out the state's most vulnerable people would have to travel farther for mail service or go without timely delivery and access to information they need to make ends meet.
"I help people in food stamps and WIC, and we've got people that help people with Medicaid," Offerman outlined. "The way that you sign up and you get information around those programs is either the internet or the notices you get in the mail."
Porter McConnell, senior director for Take on Wall Street and founder of the Save the Post Office Coalition, said the agency was designed for the public good in a functioning democracy. She added legislation requiring the agency to break even and poor decisions leaving it behind in the digital age need to be addressed to keep it robust.
"It's a terrible candidate for privatization, because it's a core service that everybody needs and everybody needs to be able to use affordably," McConnell argued. "The consequences would be disastrous."
An April 2024 poll by the Pew Research Center found overall, 72% of Americans have a favorable view of the Postal Service. That number jumps to 76% among Democrats, and dips to 68% among Republicans.
get more stories like this via email
The Trump administration has frozen funds used for abandoned mine land cleanup.
Through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, Congress invested around $11 billion into a trust fund to help address the backlog of sites needing reclamation but the federal Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement has stopped releasing the money.
Chelsea Barnes, director of government affairs and strategy for the advocacy group Appalachian Voices, said with ongoing flooding in eastern Kentucky, heavy rainfall can worsen problems on abandoned mine sites, triggering erosion, landslides and "blowout" events, leading to property damage.
"There's a buildup of water and then it all of a sudden, releases really fast," Barnes explained. "That can go downstream, down a mountainside and crash into homes, businesses, destroy roads."
In addition to tackling environmental hazards, research shows cleanup projects also create jobs. One analysis by the Sierra Club found investing in reclamation will create nearly 3,000 jobs and billions in economic growth in a handful of Appalachian states.
While some states have decided to operate business as usual, assuming federal funds will be unlocked soon, Barnes noted for others, the freeze has halted projects.
"Maybe they have enough money on hand to kind of keep things rolling for a little bit," Barnes acknowledged. "But the longer this goes on, the worse it's going to get."
She emphasized water polluted with metals and chemicals from mining can seep into waterways and kill fish and other aquatic life, and contaminate drinking water. She added federal funds are often used for acid mine drainage cleanup.
"A cleanup project for that might look like a water treatment facility to clean up an old acid mine drainage site," Barnes observed.
There are 12,000 acres of disturbed former mine land in eastern Kentucky which could be reclaimed to reduce environmental and safety hazards, according to a 2024 report by the Appalachian Citizens' Law Center.
get more stories like this via email
Minnesota is little less than a year away from launching its paid-leave law, but state lawmakers are debating whether to delay the start until 2027.
Paid leave was considered one of the crowning achievements of the 2023 legislative session, when Democrats controlled both chambers. But the GOP now has a slight edge in the House, so the policy is getting a second look.
Employers will be required to provide up to 20 weeks of paid time off each year to a worker dealing with a health issue, or caring for a loved one. During committee debate Thursday, Minnesota AFL-CIO president Bernie Burnham argued against pushing things back.
"Working Minnesotans are ready for the peace of mind that comes from knowing we will have the freedom to care for ourselves, and the people we love, without sacrificing a paycheck," she said.
Supporters of the later start date have said there's still uncertainty about the impact on businesses, especially smaller companies, as they prepare to comply. Others testified there aren't enough safeguards in place yet for the state to smoothly roll out the program. But Burnham said the effort has been vetted, and any kinks can be sorted out after the currently scheduled launch of January 2026.
Some voices in the education field testified in support of the bill calling for a one-year delay. Kim Lewis, associate director of government relations for the Minnesota School Boards Association, said the timing isn't good for school districts around the state.
"A significant number of the 331 districts are currently making staffing cuts to balance budgets," she said. "No one wants to do that, but the increased costs and the increased needs are a reality. Our biggest issue and question is, how do we pay for the paid leave benefit?"
But the Minnesota Association of Professional Employees, which represents more than 18-thousand state workers, has said not only would this halt a critical benefit they've fought for over the past decade, but also result in additional administrative costs for the state.
Minnesota set aside funds to help cover the program's launch. After that, benefits would be funded by payroll taxes shared by employers and workers.
Disclosure: Minnesota AFL-CIO and Minnesota Association of Professional Employees contribute to our fund for reporting on Budget Policy & Priorities, Civil Rights, Livable Wages/Working Families, Social Justice. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
A lawsuit has been filed against the Trump administration over its budget-cutting plans targeting medical research led by colleges and universities.
Their allies warn of negative consequences for curing diseases, as well as local economies. The suit was brought by Minnesota and 21 other states after the National Institutes of Health said it would follow through on orders to cut $4 billion through a grant funding formula for indirect expenses.
North Dakota is not part of the legal case, but an analysis said the state could lose more than $3 million in research funds.
Ellie Dehoney, senior vice president of policy and advocacy for the group Research!America, said no matter the state, the pain will be quickly felt.
"The suddenness of it is one of the ways that you degrade your research capacity," Dehoney pointed out.
Beyond the effects on finding cures for diseases such as Alzheimer's, Dehoney warned of job losses at lab equipment makers and other supporting businesses. Trump advisers suggest too much grant money goes to overhead costs but advocates countered the argument misrepresents the facts. They said even indirect funds keep the lights on at university labs and support other key infrastructure such as data storage. A federal judge on Monday temporarily halted the cuts as the case proceeds.
Dehoney said medical research at the academic level needs to play out first because the private sector does not have the resources or patience to play the long game in advancing treatments. She also warned slowing scientific progress could keep more people dealing with chronic health issues from improving their quality of life and participating in the workforce.
"I know a person who is on Social Security disability," Dehoney observed. "She went on a biologic (drug), she has rheumatoid arthritis, and now she's working full-time."
Dehoney argued abruptly stalling important research work also benefits global competitors such as China. She feels there is room for groups like hers to work with the Trump administration on finding efficiencies but only if they actually boost research capacity, not reduce it.
get more stories like this via email