WASHINGTON, D.C. –&nbsp;Governor Jim Pillen released the following statement regarding President Donald J. Trump’s U.S. Department of Education executive order. He was invited to the White House and attended the signing ceremony.

“Our kids and grandkids must be a priority, because they are Nebraska’s future,” said Gov. Pillen. “Since the Department of Education was formed as a standalone entity in 1980, we’ve seen its budget and workforce bloat – but the U.S. has not seen improved outcomes for students, parents or classrooms. Our kids’ education and our teachers are too important for us to keep pursuing mediocre results that cost us billions. The best thing we can do to help families and schools is to increase local influence and restore decision making to those nearest our students -- because they care the most. This is a pro-kid, pro-parent, pro-teacher, pro-school position.”

Additionally, Gov. Pillen met with Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins and other Trump Administration officials to promote Nebraska agriculture and industry.

“Building these relationships is critical for our state,” continued Gov. Pillen. “The good folks in the Trump Administration are working hard to serve our country, and the state of Nebraska looks forward to partnering with them in many more ways.”

Office of Govenor Jim PillenWASHINGTON, D.C. –&nbsp;Governor Jim Pillen released the following statement regarding President Donald J. Trump’s U.S. Department of Education executive order. He was invited to the White House and attended the signing ceremony.“Our kids and grandkids must be a priority, because they are Nebraska’s future,” said Gov. Pillen. “Since the Department of Education was formed as a standalone entity in 1980, we’ve seen its budget and workforce bloat – but the U.S. has not seen improved outcomes for students, parents or classrooms. Our kids’ education and our teachers are too important for us to keep pursuing mediocre results that cost us billions. The best thing we can do to help families and schools is to increase local influence and restore decision making to those nearest our students -- because they care the most. This is a pro-kid, pro-parent, pro-teacher, pro-school position.”Additionally, Gov. Pillen met with Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins and other Trump Administration officials to promote Nebraska agriculture and industry.“Building these relationships is critical for our state,” continued Gov. Pillen. “The good folks in the Trump Administration are working hard to serve our country, and the state of Nebraska looks forward to partnering with them in many more ways.”

Gov. Pillen Attends Trump Education EO Signing Ceremony

Nebraska State Education Association

Lincoln, NE – The Nebraska State Education Association&nbsp; announced that Trish Guinan has notified the Board of Directors of her intention to retire as NSEA Executive Director effective Dec. 31, 2025.&nbsp; Isau Metes, NSEA Associate Executive Director, has been named Executive Director effective Jan. 1, 2026.

Guinan has successfully served the Association and public education for almost 50 years. She taught mathematics at the secondary and college levels before beginning her association work as a field representative for members in 1996, becoming Director of Member Rights in 2000, Director of Advocacy in 2012, and Executive Director in 2021.

While teaching, Guinan also served as the Fremont Public Schools Staff Development Coordinator. She served as a building representative, negotiator, vice president, and president of the Fremont Education Association, vice president of NSEA’s Metro District Board of Directors, and as a delegate to the NEA Representative Assembly and the NSEA Delegate Assembly. Guinan earned a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Mathematics from Buena Vista College (Magna Cum Laude) and a Master of Arts for Teachers of Mathematics Degree from the University of&nbsp; Nebraska Omaha (Summa Cum Laude).

“On behalf of NSEA’s 26,000 members, I want to thank Trish for her many years of service to the Association and public education,” said Tim Royers, NSEA President. “Her contributions, leadership and the positive impact she has had on the Association is stellar and is very much appreciated.”

In announcing her decision to retire at the end of the year, Guinan said she wanted to ensure time for a smooth transition.

“Advocating for our members and our Nebraska public schools and students is an honor and privilege,” said Guinan. “My deep belief in servant leadership, proactive thinking and collaboration has guided me throughout my career. The support of the Board of Directors and our dedicated, talented NSEA members and staff have led to many rewarding accomplishments.”

Guinan said the Board’s appointment of Metes as her successor ensures “continuity for our members” and means the Association “won’t miss a beat” in supporting members and advocating for Nebraska public schools.

“Isau and I have worked together on a daily basis for more than six years,” said Guinan. “I have complete confidence in her leadership, and I am thrilled that the Board of Directors has selected her as my successor.”

Metes, a U.S. Army veteran, was a Lincoln Public Schools teacher for 10 years before joining the NSEA as an Organizational Specialist in 2019. She added Assistant Director of Advocacy work to her duties in January 2020, and assumed the Teaching and Learning position duties in the fall of 2020. She was named Director of Advocacy in November 2021, and became the&nbsp; Associate Executive Director in July 2023. Metes earned a Bachelor of Science Degree in English Language and Literature from Wayne State College and a Master of Education Degree from Doane University.

“Isau is ideally prepared to assume the duties as our next Executive Director,” said Royers. “In addition to being knowledgeable and collaborative, Isau possesses high personal integrity and character. She will continue to well serve the Association in her new role.”

“I am grateful for the Board’s confidence in me, and I am honored to succeed Trish as NSEA’s Executive Director,” said Metes. “Trish has been and continues to be a mentor to me. Her leadership has put the Association on solid footing – and she has done so with humility, exceptional character, and a servant mindset.”

Metes will be the 12th&nbsp;Executive Director in the Association’s 158-year history.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/3/1742570813653.jpeg" alt="Trish Guinan (Courtesy)" />
 <figcaption>Trish Guinan (Courtesy)</figcaption>
 </figure>Nebraska State Education AssociationLincoln, NE – The Nebraska State Education Association&nbsp; announced that Trish Guinan has notified the Board of Directors of her intention to retire as NSEA Executive Director effective Dec. 31, 2025.&nbsp; Isau Metes, NSEA Associate Executive Director, has been named Executive Director effective Jan. 1, 2026.Guinan has successfully served the Association and public education for almost 50 years. She taught mathematics at the secondary and college levels before beginning her association work as a field representative for members in 1996, becoming Director of Member Rights in 2000, Director of Advocacy in 2012, and Executive Director in 2021.While teaching, Guinan also served as the Fremont Public Schools Staff Development Coordinator. She served as a building representative, negotiator, vice president, and president of the Fremont Education Association, vice president of NSEA’s Metro District Board of Directors, and as a delegate to the NEA Representative Assembly and the NSEA Delegate Assembly. Guinan earned a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Mathematics from Buena Vista College (Magna Cum Laude) and a Master of Arts for Teachers of Mathematics Degree from the University of&nbsp; Nebraska Omaha (Summa Cum Laude).“On behalf of NSEA’s 26,000 members, I want to thank Trish for her many years of service to the Association and public education,” said Tim Royers, NSEA President. “Her contributions, leadership and the positive impact she has had on the Association is stellar and is very much appreciated.”In announcing her decision to retire at the end of the year, Guinan said she wanted to ensure time for a smooth transition.“Advocating for our members and our Nebraska public schools and students is an honor and privilege,” said Guinan. “My deep belief in servant leadership, proactive thinking and collaboration has guided me throughout my career. The support of the Board of Directors and our dedicated, talented NSEA members and staff have led to many rewarding accomplishments.”Guinan said the Board’s appointment of Metes as her successor ensures “continuity for our members” and means the Association “won’t miss a beat” in supporting members and advocating for Nebraska public schools.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/3/1742570848614.jpeg" alt="Isau Metes (Courtesy)" />
 <figcaption>Isau Metes (Courtesy)</figcaption>
 </figure>“Isau and I have worked together on a daily basis for more than six years,” said Guinan. “I have complete confidence in her leadership, and I am thrilled that the Board of Directors has selected her as my successor.”Metes, a U.S. Army veteran, was a Lincoln Public Schools teacher for 10 years before joining the NSEA as an Organizational Specialist in 2019. She added Assistant Director of Advocacy work to her duties in January 2020, and assumed the Teaching and Learning position duties in the fall of 2020. She was named Director of Advocacy in November 2021, and became the&nbsp; Associate Executive Director in July 2023. Metes earned a Bachelor of Science Degree in English Language and Literature from Wayne State College and a Master of Education Degree from Doane University.“Isau is ideally prepared to assume the duties as our next Executive Director,” said Royers. “In addition to being knowledgeable and collaborative, Isau possesses high personal integrity and character. She will continue to well serve the Association in her new role.”“I am grateful for the Board’s confidence in me, and I am honored to succeed Trish as NSEA’s Executive Director,” said Metes. “Trish has been and continues to be a mentor to me. Her leadership has put the Association on solid footing – and she has done so with humility, exceptional character, and a servant mindset.”Metes will be the 12th&nbsp;Executive Director in the Association’s 158-year history.

NSEA Executive Director Announces Upcoming Retirement

Office of Nebraska Attorney General Office

Lincoln— Attorney General Mike Hilgers joined 51 other attorneys general in filing an amicus brief before the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in support of two military veterans and their families who were unlawfully denied their full G.I. Bill education benefits by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

 In this case, U.S. Army veteran Lieutenant Colonel Paul Yoon and U.S. Air Force veteran Colonel Toby Doran were denied crucial education benefits to which they are clearly entitled.

The brief argues that the VA has taken a restrictive interpretation of the G.I. Bills that contradicts the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in&nbsp;Rudisill v. McDonough, which confirmed that veterans who qualify under both the Montgomery and Post-9/11 G.I. Bills are entitled to a full 48 months of education benefits. Despite the clear precedent, the VA has continued to limit benefits based on an erroneous reading of the ruling, depriving veterans and their families of critical educational opportunities.

“The dedicated service of our veterans establishes a special covenant between those brave men and women and our government. I am proud to join my fellow Attorneys General in the fight to ensure that our veterans receive the benefits they have been promised,” stated Attorney General Mike Hilgers.

The brief was joined by the attorneys general of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Northern Mariana Islands, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

Office of Nebraska Attorney General OfficeLincoln— Attorney General Mike Hilgers joined 51 other attorneys general in filing an amicus brief before the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in support of two military veterans and their families who were unlawfully denied their full G.I. Bill education benefits by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In this case, U.S. Army veteran Lieutenant Colonel Paul Yoon and U.S. Air Force veteran Colonel Toby Doran were denied crucial education benefits to which they are clearly entitled.The brief argues that the VA has taken a restrictive interpretation of the G.I. Bills that contradicts the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in&nbsp;Rudisill v. McDonough, which confirmed that veterans who qualify under both the Montgomery and Post-9/11 G.I. Bills are entitled to a full 48 months of education benefits. Despite the clear precedent, the VA has continued to limit benefits based on an erroneous reading of the ruling, depriving veterans and their families of critical educational opportunities.“The dedicated service of our veterans establishes a special covenant between those brave men and women and our government. I am proud to join my fellow Attorneys General in the fight to ensure that our veterans receive the benefits they have been promised,” stated Attorney General Mike Hilgers.The brief was joined by the attorneys general of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Northern Mariana Islands, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

52 Attorneys General Join Amicus Brief in Support of Military Veterans

Many of us have heard the sobering facts about China’s growing military might. Beyond its rapidly advancing military, China is also becoming increasingly aggressive in the Indo-Pacific region. In the South China Sea, for example, Chinese military ships continue to harass Filipino vessels to bully the Philippines into submission; and in the Taiwan Strait, China regularly sends military aircraft to intimidate Taiwan.&nbsp;

At some point, China could miscalculate and provoke an all-out war or intentionally initiate military action, potentially drawing the United States into a conflict. A war against a technologically advanced adversary like China would almost certainly result in massive numbers of casualties, unlike anything we’ve seen this century. If deterrence fails, we cannot be caught unprepared, and we must have plans to quickly transport and treat injured servicemembers.

Today, the Military Health System is not prepared to respond to casualties resulting from conflict against a military power such as China. It’s something we must address now—both to fulfill our sacred obligation to those who risk their lives for our country and because our adversaries are becoming increasingly aggressive.

This includes modernizing the National Disaster Medical System (NDMS), which would be called upon to plan, coordinate, and execute our medical response to a mass casualty event like a war. The NDMS is comprised of multiple federal agencies that partner with civilian health care organizations to create a network to care for civilian or military casualties in crises. For this reason, for the past several years I have authorized and funded a pilot program to improve the NDMS, making it easier for different entities to work together and expanding NDMS’s surge capacity to care for more patients.

Last week, during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, I questioned experts on how we can continue to strengthen NDMS and prepare our nation for an attack that could quickly overwhelm our health system. At the hearing, the experts urged Congress to find a way to take the lessons learned from the pilot program and apply them going forward.

The experts also underscored the importance of the military partnering with civilian entities such as academic institutions. One institution that works closely with the Military Health System is our own University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC). Specifically, UNMC has a leading program for treating patients with highly contagious infectious diseases and on-site training built in partnership with the U.S. Air Force. Military-civilian partnerships like these strengthen the NDMS, while also improving care for both military and civilian patients, by accelerating the exchange of ideas between institutions that would need to collaborate closely if a major war erupted. These partnerships build up future leaders to specialize in medical areas that are relevant to combat.

We all hope that we will never see war against a major military power, but we must live in reality and recognize the growing aggression and capabilities of our adversaries. I’ll be working with my colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee to strengthen our national security, which includes improving our Military Health System.

Thank you for participating in the democratic process. I look forward to visiting with you again next week.

U.S. Senator Deb FischerMany of us have heard the sobering facts about China’s growing military might. Beyond its rapidly advancing military, China is also becoming increasingly aggressive in the Indo-Pacific region. In the South China Sea, for example, Chinese military ships continue to harass Filipino vessels to bully the Philippines into submission; and in the Taiwan Strait, China regularly sends military aircraft to intimidate Taiwan.&nbsp;At some point, China could miscalculate and provoke an all-out war or intentionally initiate military action, potentially drawing the United States into a conflict. A war against a technologically advanced adversary like China would almost certainly result in massive numbers of casualties, unlike anything we’ve seen this century. If deterrence fails, we cannot be caught unprepared, and we must have plans to quickly transport and treat injured servicemembers.Today, the Military Health System is not prepared to respond to casualties resulting from conflict against a military power such as China. It’s something we must address now—both to fulfill our sacred obligation to those who risk their lives for our country and because our adversaries are becoming increasingly aggressive.This includes modernizing the National Disaster Medical System (NDMS), which would be called upon to plan, coordinate, and execute our medical response to a mass casualty event like a war. The NDMS is comprised of multiple federal agencies that partner with civilian health care organizations to create a network to care for civilian or military casualties in crises. For this reason, for the past several years I have authorized and funded a pilot program to improve the NDMS, making it easier for different entities to work together and expanding NDMS’s surge capacity to care for more patients.Last week, during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, I questioned experts on how we can continue to strengthen NDMS and prepare our nation for an attack that could quickly overwhelm our health system. At the hearing, the experts urged Congress to find a way to take the lessons learned from the pilot program and apply them going forward.The experts also underscored the importance of the military partnering with civilian entities such as academic institutions. One institution that works closely with the Military Health System is our own University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC). Specifically, UNMC has a leading program for treating patients with highly contagious infectious diseases and on-site training built in partnership with the U.S. Air Force. Military-civilian partnerships like these strengthen the NDMS, while also improving care for both military and civilian patients, by accelerating the exchange of ideas between institutions that would need to collaborate closely if a major war erupted. These partnerships build up future leaders to specialize in medical areas that are relevant to combat.We all hope that we will never see war against a major military power, but we must live in reality and recognize the growing aggression and capabilities of our adversaries. I’ll be working with my colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee to strengthen our national security, which includes improving our Military Health System.Thank you for participating in the democratic process. I look forward to visiting with you again next week.

 Stabilizing the Military Health System

LINCOLN, NE –&nbsp;Governor Jim Pillen is providing an update on the statewide damage assessment in the aftermath of Wednesday’s blizzard. Emergency managers continue to collect information to determine any local needs. Additionally, the Governor’s office has been in constant contact with leadership&nbsp; from the Nebraska Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) and continues to receive updates on needs and progress made toward storm restoration.

Numerous crews from other states have provided personnel to assist in repairing downed powerlines and restoring power, through mutual aid agreements. Gov. Pillen expressed his gratitude for their quick response and support. He continues to receive updates from utility companies as progress is made in restoring electricity.&nbsp;

If any additional resources are required to help manage impacts from the storm, the Governor will &nbsp;ensure they are acted&nbsp; upon quickly. Gov. Pillen plans to issue an emergency declaration upon NEMA's recommendation, after initial damage assessments are completed.

Office of Governor Jim PillenLINCOLN, NE –&nbsp;Governor Jim Pillen is providing an update on the statewide damage assessment in the aftermath of Wednesday’s blizzard. Emergency managers continue to collect information to determine any local needs. Additionally, the Governor’s office has been in constant contact with leadership&nbsp; from the Nebraska Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) and continues to receive updates on needs and progress made toward storm restoration.Numerous crews from other states have provided personnel to assist in repairing downed powerlines and restoring power, through mutual aid agreements. Gov. Pillen expressed his gratitude for their quick response and support. He continues to receive updates from utility companies as progress is made in restoring electricity.&nbsp;If any additional resources are required to help manage impacts from the storm, the Governor will &nbsp;ensure they are acted&nbsp; upon quickly. Gov. Pillen plans to issue an emergency declaration upon NEMA's recommendation, after initial damage assessments are completed.

Gov. Pillen Provides Update on Statewide Damage Assessment Following Blizzard

WASHINGTON —The Iranian regime continues to fuel conflict in Middle East, pursue its nuclear program, and support its terrorist proxies.&nbsp; Iran’s oil exports are enabled by a network of illicit shipping facilitators in multiple jurisdictions who, through obfuscation and deception, load and transport Iranian oil for sale to buyers in Asia, according to a statement from the U.S. Department of State.

On Thursday, the United States announced it is taking action under National Security Presidential Memorandum/NSPM-2, President Trump’s maximum pressure campaign on Iran.&nbsp; This action marks the fourth round of sanctions targeting Iranian oil sales to stop the flow of revenue the regime uses to fund their destabilizing activities.&nbsp; The Department of State is imposing sanctions on one entity engaged in the acquisition of Iranian petroleum.&nbsp; This target is being designated pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13846, which authorizes and reimposes certain sanctions with respect to Iran.&nbsp; In a separate action, the Department of the Treasury is imposing sanctions on 19 entities and vessels pursuant to E.O. 13902, which targets Iran’s petroleum and petrochemical sectors.

Specifically, the Department of State is taking action against a crude oil and petroleum products storage terminal in the port of Huizhou in China.&nbsp; The terminal received and stored Iranian-origin crude oil onboard a blocked tanker.&nbsp; Crude oil and petroleum products terminals based in China serve as the gateway for Iranian petroleum products to enter the Chinese market.&nbsp; As China is the largest importer of Iranian crude oil and petroleum products, terminals in China play a critical role in supporting Iran’s efforts to maintain revenues from its energy exports and fuel its destabilizing activities.

The Department is designating the following entity pursuant to section 3(a)(ii) of E.O. 13846 for knowingly engaging in a significant transaction for the purchase, acquisition, sale, transport, or marketing of petroleum or petroleum products from Iran:

As a result of today’s sanctions-related actions, and in accordance with E.O. 13846, all property and interests in property of the designated persons described above that are in the United States or in possession or control of U.S. persons are blocked and must be reported to the Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC).&nbsp; Additionally, all entities and individuals that have ownership, either directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more by one or more blocked persons are also blocked.

All transactions by U.S. persons or within (or transiting) the United States that involve any property or interests in property of designated or otherwise blocked persons are prohibited unless authorized by a general or specific license issued by OFAC or exempt.&nbsp; These prohibitions include the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any blocked person and the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

The power and integrity of U.S. government sanctions derive not only from the U.S. government’s ability to designate and add persons to the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN) List, but also from its willingness to remove persons from the SDN List consistent with the law. The ultimate goal of sanctions is not to punish, but to bring about a positive change in behavior.

WASHINGTON —The Iranian regime continues to fuel conflict in Middle East, pursue its nuclear program, and support its terrorist proxies.&nbsp; Iran’s oil exports are enabled by a network of illicit shipping facilitators in multiple jurisdictions who, through obfuscation and deception, load and transport Iranian oil for sale to buyers in Asia, according to a statement from the U.S. Department of State.On Thursday, the United States announced it is taking action under National Security Presidential Memorandum/NSPM-2, President Trump’s maximum pressure campaign on Iran.&nbsp; This action marks the fourth round of sanctions targeting Iranian oil sales to stop the flow of revenue the regime uses to fund their destabilizing activities.&nbsp; The Department of State is imposing sanctions on one entity engaged in the acquisition of Iranian petroleum.&nbsp; This target is being designated pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13846, which authorizes and reimposes certain sanctions with respect to Iran.&nbsp; In a separate action, the Department of the Treasury is imposing sanctions on 19 entities and vessels pursuant to E.O. 13902, which targets Iran’s petroleum and petrochemical sectors.Specifically, the Department of State is taking action against a crude oil and petroleum products storage terminal in the port of Huizhou in China.&nbsp; The terminal received and stored Iranian-origin crude oil onboard a blocked tanker.&nbsp; Crude oil and petroleum products terminals based in China serve as the gateway for Iranian petroleum products to enter the Chinese market.&nbsp; As China is the largest importer of Iranian crude oil and petroleum products, terminals in China play a critical role in supporting Iran’s efforts to maintain revenues from its energy exports and fuel its destabilizing activities.The Department is designating the following entity pursuant to section 3(a)(ii) of E.O. 13846 for knowingly engaging in a significant transaction for the purchase, acquisition, sale, transport, or marketing of petroleum or petroleum products from Iran:<ul>
 <li>HUAYING HUIZHOU DAYA BAY PETROCHEMICAL TERMINAL STORAGE CO., LTD (HUAYING PETROCHEMICAL)&nbsp;knowingly engaged in a significant transaction for the acquisition of crude oil from Iran in late January 2025, when the U.S.-designated tanker, formerly SPIRIT OF CASPER, also known as NICHOLA, offloaded approximately one million barrels of Iranian-origin crude oil at the Huaying Daya Bay terminal, a China-based petroleum products storage terminal that is owned and operated by HUAYING PETROCHEMICAL.</li><li>NICHOLA, which was added to the SDN List in October 2024 in connection with transporting multiple shipments of Iranian oil to China-based refineries, loaded Iranian-origin petroleum in December 2024, when it engaged in a ship-to-ship (STS) transfer in the eastern outer port limits near Singapore with U.S.-designated SALINA, an Iran-flagged tanker associated with the U.S.-designated NATIONAL IRANIAN TANKER COMPANY (NITC). At the time of the transfer, SALINA was laden with petroleum from Kharg Island, Iran, which it had loaded a month earlier in November 2024.</li><li>Several days before the NICHOLA arrived at the Huaying terminal, multiple sources reported that the vessel was laden with Iranian-origin petroleum. On January 22, 2025, HUAYING PETROCHEMICAL received NICHOLA at its petroleum products berth, where the vessel subsequently discharged approximately one million barrels of Iranian crude oil.&nbsp; Since March 2021, HUAYING PETROCHEMICAL has received at least nine shipments of Iranian petroleum at its terminal facility, seven of which came from the U.S.-designated NATIONAL IRANIAN OIL COMPANY).</li>
 </ul>SANCTIONS IMPLICATIONSAs a result of today’s sanctions-related actions, and in accordance with E.O. 13846, all property and interests in property of the designated persons described above that are in the United States or in possession or control of U.S. persons are blocked and must be reported to the Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC).&nbsp; Additionally, all entities and individuals that have ownership, either directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more by one or more blocked persons are also blocked.All transactions by U.S. persons or within (or transiting) the United States that involve any property or interests in property of designated or otherwise blocked persons are prohibited unless authorized by a general or specific license issued by OFAC or exempt.&nbsp; These prohibitions include the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any blocked person and the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.The power and integrity of U.S. government sanctions derive not only from the U.S. government’s ability to designate and add persons to the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN) List, but also from its willingness to remove persons from the SDN List consistent with the law. The ultimate goal of sanctions is not to punish, but to bring about a positive change in behavior.

U.S. sanctions additional entities that trade in Iran’s oil exports

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/shauneen-miranda/">SHAUNEEN MIRANDA</a>

WASHINGTON — In a sweeping executive order signed Thursday, President Donald Trump called on Education Secretary Linda McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure” of the U.S.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/protesters-rally-against-sweeping-cuts-us-education-department" target="_blank">Education Department</a>.

Trump&nbsp;<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/improving-education-outcomes-by-empowering-parents-states-and-communities/" target="_blank">signed the order</a>&nbsp;at a major White House ceremony, flanked by children seated at desks. It directs McMahon to “return authority over education to the States and local communities while ensuring the effective and uninterrupted delivery of services, programs, and benefits on which Americans rely.”

Trump spoke to an audience packed with top GOP state officials, and he cited Republican Govs. Greg Abbott of Texas, Mike Braun of Indiana, Ron DeSantis of Florida, Bill Lee of Tennessee, Kim Reynolds of Iowa, Jeff Landry of Louisiana, Brad Little of Idaho, Jim Pillen of Nebraska and Mike DeWine of Ohio.

Deena Bishop, commissioner of Alaska’s&nbsp;<a href="https://alaskabeacon.com/briefs/alaska-board-of-education-and-early-development-selects-new-commissioner/" target="_blank">Department of Education and Early Development</a>, was slated to attend, though she was not cited by Trump.

“After 45 years, the United States spends more money in education by far than any other country and spends, likewise, by far, more money per pupil than any country, and it’s not even close, but yet we rank near the bottom of the list in terms of success,” Trump said at the brief ceremony.&nbsp;

GOP Reps. Tim Walberg of Michigan and Virginia Foxx of North Carolina, the respective current and former chairs of the House Committee on Education and Workforce, were also in attendance.&nbsp;

The children each signed their own individual executive orders, proudly displaying them alongside Trump.&nbsp;

The order, which is sure to draw legal challenges, “also directs that programs or activities receiving any remaining Department of Education funds will not advance DEI or gender ideology,” referring to diversity, equity and inclusion.

Widespread reports ahead of the signing drew intense blowback from leading education groups, labor unions and congressional Democrats.

Rep. Bobby Scott, ranking member of the House Committee on Education and Workforce, noted that the department “was founded in part to guarantee the enforcement of students’ civil rights” in a statement Thursday.

“Legality aside, dismantling (the department) will exacerbate existing disparities, reduce accountability, and put low-income students, students of color, students with disabilities, rural students, and English as a Second Language (ESL) students at risk,” the Virginia Democrat added.&nbsp;

The department’s many responsibilities include administering federal student aid, carrying out civil rights investigations, providing Title I funding for low-income school districts and guaranteeing a free public education for children with disabilities via the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA.

Following the signing, McMahon clarified in a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/statement-president-trumps-executive-order-return-power-over-education-states-and-local-communities" target="_blank">statement</a>&nbsp;that “closing the Department does not mean cutting off funds from those who depend on them — we will continue to support K-12 students, students with special needs, college student borrowers, and others who rely on essential programs.”

“We’re going to follow the law and eliminate the bureaucracy responsibly by working through Congress to ensure a lawful and orderly transition,” McMahon said.&nbsp;

Trump’s long-held campaign promise to move education “back to the states” comes despite much of the funding and oversight of schools already occurring at the state and local levels. The department also legally cannot dictate the curriculum of schools across the country.

Congress has the sole authority to shut down the department, and any bill to completely close the agency would face extreme difficulties getting through the narrowly GOP-controlled Senate, with at least 60 senators needed to advance past the filibuster.

However, it could be possible for the administration to take significant actions short of closure, such as moving some Education Department functions to other agencies.

The agency has an annual budget of $79 billion in discretionary spending, or funds appropriated yearly by Congress.&nbsp;

The department has already witnessed&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/advocates-brace-trump-cuts-education-department-step-toward-elimination" target="_blank">mass layoffs</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/elon-musks-doge-targets-us-department-education-millions-funding-cuts" target="_blank">contract cuts</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/28/education-department-quit-00206765" target="_blank">staff buyouts</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-education-department-threatens-yanking-funds-schools-use-race-decisions" target="_blank">major policy changes</a>&nbsp;in the weeks since Trump took office.

Earlier in March, the department announced that more than 1,300 employees&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-education-department-cut-hundreds-staff-members" target="_blank">would be cut</a>&nbsp;through a “<a href="https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/workforce-restructuring/reductions-in-force-rif/" target="_blank">reduction in force</a>” process — sparking concerns across the country over how the mass layoffs would impact the agency’s abilities to carry out its core functions.

The department had 4,133 employees when Trump took office, but the cuts brought the total number of workers remaining down to roughly 2,183.

A group of&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/democratic-attorneys-general-sue-trump-over-us-education-department-layoffs" target="_blank">21 Democratic attorneys general</a>&nbsp;quickly sued over that effort and asked a federal court in Massachusetts to block the department from implementing the “reduction in force” action and Trump’s “directive to dismantle the Department of Education.”

Opponents of the closure said it’s one more example of how Trump and billionaire Elon Musk, head of the temporary U.S. DOGE Service, are seeking to destroy the federal government as they reduce the workforce and spending.

“Donald Trump and Elon Musk have aimed their wrecking ball at public schools and the futures of the 50 million students in rural, suburban, and urban communities across America, by dismantling public education to pay for tax handouts for billionaires,” said Becky Pringle, president of the National Education Association, in a Wednesday night&nbsp;<a href="https://www.nea.org/about-nea/media-center/press-releases/nea-president-trumps-continued-actions-will-hurt-all-students" target="_blank">statement</a>.

“Now, Trump is at it again with his latest effort to gut the Department of Education programs that support every student across the nation,” added Pringle, who leads the largest labor union in the country.

“If successful, Trump’s continued actions will hurt all students by sending class sizes soaring, cutting job training programs, making higher education more expensive and out of reach for middle class families, taking away special education services for students with disabilities, and gutting student civil rights protections,” she said.

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, one of the largest teachers unions in the country, kept her&nbsp;<a href="https://www.aft.org/press-release/afts-weingarten-responds-trumps-attempt-eliminate-federal-role-education" target="_blank">response</a>&nbsp;to reports of the forthcoming order succinct.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/3/1742504343223.png" alt="Image courtesy White House" />
 <figcaption>Image courtesy White House</figcaption>
 </figure>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/shauneen-miranda/">SHAUNEEN MIRANDA</a>WASHINGTON — In a sweeping executive order signed Thursday, President Donald Trump called on Education Secretary Linda McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure” of the U.S.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/protesters-rally-against-sweeping-cuts-us-education-department" target="_blank">Education Department</a>.Trump&nbsp;<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/improving-education-outcomes-by-empowering-parents-states-and-communities/" target="_blank">signed the order</a>&nbsp;at a major White House ceremony, flanked by children seated at desks. It directs McMahon to “return authority over education to the States and local communities while ensuring the effective and uninterrupted delivery of services, programs, and benefits on which Americans rely.”Trump spoke to an audience packed with top GOP state officials, and he cited Republican Govs. Greg Abbott of Texas, Mike Braun of Indiana, Ron DeSantis of Florida, Bill Lee of Tennessee, Kim Reynolds of Iowa, Jeff Landry of Louisiana, Brad Little of Idaho, Jim Pillen of Nebraska and Mike DeWine of Ohio.Deena Bishop, commissioner of Alaska’s&nbsp;<a href="https://alaskabeacon.com/briefs/alaska-board-of-education-and-early-development-selects-new-commissioner/" target="_blank">Department of Education and Early Development</a>, was slated to attend, though she was not cited by Trump.“After 45 years, the United States spends more money in education by far than any other country and spends, likewise, by far, more money per pupil than any country, and it’s not even close, but yet we rank near the bottom of the list in terms of success,” Trump said at the brief ceremony.&nbsp;GOP Reps. Tim Walberg of Michigan and Virginia Foxx of North Carolina, the respective current and former chairs of the House Committee on Education and Workforce, were also in attendance.&nbsp;The children each signed their own individual executive orders, proudly displaying them alongside Trump.&nbsp;The order, which is sure to draw legal challenges, “also directs that programs or activities receiving any remaining Department of Education funds will not advance DEI or gender ideology,” referring to diversity, equity and inclusion.Widespread reports ahead of the signing drew intense blowback from leading education groups, labor unions and congressional Democrats.Rep. Bobby Scott, ranking member of the House Committee on Education and Workforce, noted that the department “was founded in part to guarantee the enforcement of students’ civil rights” in a statement Thursday.“Legality aside, dismantling (the department) will exacerbate existing disparities, reduce accountability, and put low-income students, students of color, students with disabilities, rural students, and English as a Second Language (ESL) students at risk,” the Virginia Democrat added.&nbsp;<h2>Title I, IDEA funds&nbsp;</h2>The department’s many responsibilities include administering federal student aid, carrying out civil rights investigations, providing Title I funding for low-income school districts and guaranteeing a free public education for children with disabilities via the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA.Following the signing, McMahon clarified in a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/statement-president-trumps-executive-order-return-power-over-education-states-and-local-communities" target="_blank">statement</a>&nbsp;that “closing the Department does not mean cutting off funds from those who depend on them — we will continue to support K-12 students, students with special needs, college student borrowers, and others who rely on essential programs.”“We’re going to follow the law and eliminate the bureaucracy responsibly by working through Congress to ensure a lawful and orderly transition,” McMahon said.&nbsp;Trump’s long-held campaign promise to move education “back to the states” comes despite much of the funding and oversight of schools already occurring at the state and local levels. The department also legally cannot dictate the curriculum of schools across the country.Congress has the sole authority to shut down the department, and any bill to completely close the agency would face extreme difficulties getting through the narrowly GOP-controlled Senate, with at least 60 senators needed to advance past the filibuster.However, it could be possible for the administration to take significant actions short of closure, such as moving some Education Department functions to other agencies.The agency has an annual budget of $79 billion in discretionary spending, or funds appropriated yearly by Congress.&nbsp;<h2>Layoffs, buyouts</h2>The department has already witnessed&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/advocates-brace-trump-cuts-education-department-step-toward-elimination" target="_blank">mass layoffs</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/elon-musks-doge-targets-us-department-education-millions-funding-cuts" target="_blank">contract cuts</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/28/education-department-quit-00206765" target="_blank">staff buyouts</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-education-department-threatens-yanking-funds-schools-use-race-decisions" target="_blank">major policy changes</a>&nbsp;in the weeks since Trump took office.Earlier in March, the department announced that more than 1,300 employees&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-education-department-cut-hundreds-staff-members" target="_blank">would be cut</a>&nbsp;through a “<a href="https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/workforce-restructuring/reductions-in-force-rif/" target="_blank">reduction in force</a>” process — sparking concerns across the country over how the mass layoffs would impact the agency’s abilities to carry out its core functions.The department had 4,133 employees when Trump took office, but the cuts brought the total number of workers remaining down to roughly 2,183.A group of&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/democratic-attorneys-general-sue-trump-over-us-education-department-layoffs" target="_blank">21 Democratic attorneys general</a>&nbsp;quickly sued over that effort and asked a federal court in Massachusetts to block the department from implementing the “reduction in force” action and Trump’s “directive to dismantle the Department of Education.”<h2>Lawsuit incoming</h2>Opponents of the closure said it’s one more example of how Trump and billionaire Elon Musk, head of the temporary U.S. DOGE Service, are seeking to destroy the federal government as they reduce the workforce and spending.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/3/1742508632556.png" alt="From left, Olivia Sawyer and Jeremy Bauer-Wolf protest the U.S. Education Department’s mass layoffs during a “honk-a-thon” and rally March 14, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Shauneen Miranda/States Newsroom)" />
 <figcaption>From left, Olivia Sawyer and Jeremy Bauer-Wolf protest the U.S. Education Department’s mass layoffs during a “honk-a-thon” and rally March 14, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Shauneen Miranda/States Newsroom)</figcaption>
 </figure>“Donald Trump and Elon Musk have aimed their wrecking ball at public schools and the futures of the 50 million students in rural, suburban, and urban communities across America, by dismantling public education to pay for tax handouts for billionaires,” said Becky Pringle, president of the National Education Association, in a Wednesday night&nbsp;<a href="https://www.nea.org/about-nea/media-center/press-releases/nea-president-trumps-continued-actions-will-hurt-all-students" target="_blank">statement</a>.“Now, Trump is at it again with his latest effort to gut the Department of Education programs that support every student across the nation,” added Pringle, who leads the largest labor union in the country.“If successful, Trump’s continued actions will hurt all students by sending class sizes soaring, cutting job training programs, making higher education more expensive and out of reach for middle class families, taking away special education services for students with disabilities, and gutting student civil rights protections,” she said.Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, one of the largest teachers unions in the country, kept her&nbsp;<a href="https://www.aft.org/press-release/afts-weingarten-responds-trumps-attempt-eliminate-federal-role-education" target="_blank">response</a>&nbsp;to reports of the forthcoming order succinct.“See you in court,” she said.&nbsp;

Trump signs order directing Education secretary to shut down her own department

Lincoln--Today, Attorney General Mike Hilgers announced his office’s expansion of its fight against illegal or unlawful synthetic THC, by issuing cease &amp; desist letters relating to 104 retail locations and franchised stores in Omaha, Nebraska, that are selling illegal or unlawful THC-containing products.

In 2025, Douglas County Sheriff’s Office and Nebraska Attorney General’s Office investigators&nbsp;made purchases of products from stores owned by 35 different companies. Each store investigated had at least one product marketed as hemp, which actually had a delta-9 concentration over the legal limit, making it marijuana, and had labels that incorrectly identified the content of the products.

The letters issued to the Omaha stores communicate that many&nbsp;of the THC-containing products their company sells misrepresent the concentrations and types of THC contained within those products. This lack of proper labeling means that the stores are engaging in deceptive, unfair, and unsafe trade practices, and also engaging in illegal conduct.

The Attorney General’s Office is sending formal letters to each of the stores, requesting they immediately cease all sales of THC-containing products to Nebraska Consumers to avoid litigation.&nbsp;The Attorney General’s Office is demanding that each store return a signed document indicating their Assurance of Voluntary Compliance. If they do not return a signed settlement, then the office will initiate litigation and will seek penalties and fees to the fullest extent allowed by law.

“We promised that we would escalate our fight, and today are fulfilling that promise. Operating in Nebraska’s largest city does not immunize you from the law. These stores are selling harmful and unlawful products despite being on notice. Because of that, once litigation ensues, we will seek penalties to the fullest extent of the law, and will refer for criminal prosecution when necessary,”&nbsp;stated Attorney General Mike Hilgers.

"I am proud to join Attorney General Hilgers in his efforts. Synthetic THC products are putting a strain on our law enforcement resources and efforts statewide and hurting innocent people who&nbsp;think they are buying a safe and legal&nbsp;product. It is time for the Legislature to step up and clarify that synthetic THC products are not legal in Nebraska,” stated Douglas County Sheriff Aaron Hanson.

Many of the stores have tobacco licenses and also sell synthetically produced THC-containing products, which may put their tobacco licenses at risk.

In addition, as part of the investigation, the Attorney General’s Office uncovered the sale of marijuana. Sale of marijuana is a felony, and the Attorney General’s Office will provide the evidence to the Douglas County Attorney for consideration of criminal charges. Names of products include: Kushy Exotic THCA Flower, Flying Horse Vape-9G, and Road Trip Gummies.

Attorney General Hilgers was also joined by Senators Kauth and Storm at the press conference. He indicated: “We appreciate Senator Kauth and Senator Storm leading the way in helping provide protections for Nebraskans with their support of&nbsp;LB316."

Senator Kauth introduced LB316, and it was prioritized by Senator Storm. It is designed to stop the influx of dangerous products masquerading as hemp and clean up the illegal marketplace that has developed in Nebraska.

To date, the Attorney General’s Office has filed 15 lawsuits alleging violations of the Consumer Protection Act (Unfairness), Consumer Protection Act (Deception), and Nebraska Pure Food Act. The Attorney General reported that 12 out of 15 of the lawsuits have been settled. The remaining three are being actively litigated.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/11/1731528536578.jpeg" alt=" " />
 <figcaption> </figcaption>
 </figure>Attorney General Mike HilgersLincoln--Today, Attorney General Mike Hilgers announced his office’s expansion of its fight against illegal or unlawful synthetic THC, by issuing cease &amp; desist letters relating to 104 retail locations and franchised stores in Omaha, Nebraska, that are selling illegal or unlawful THC-containing products.In 2025, Douglas County Sheriff’s Office and Nebraska Attorney General’s Office investigators&nbsp;made purchases of products from stores owned by 35 different companies. Each store investigated had at least one product marketed as hemp, which actually had a delta-9 concentration over the legal limit, making it marijuana, and had labels that incorrectly identified the content of the products.The letters issued to the Omaha stores communicate that many&nbsp;of the THC-containing products their company sells misrepresent the concentrations and types of THC contained within those products. This lack of proper labeling means that the stores are engaging in deceptive, unfair, and unsafe trade practices, and also engaging in illegal conduct.The Attorney General’s Office is sending formal letters to each of the stores, requesting they immediately cease all sales of THC-containing products to Nebraska Consumers to avoid litigation.&nbsp;The Attorney General’s Office is demanding that each store return a signed document indicating their Assurance of Voluntary Compliance. If they do not return a signed settlement, then the office will initiate litigation and will seek penalties and fees to the fullest extent allowed by law.“We promised that we would escalate our fight, and today are fulfilling that promise. Operating in Nebraska’s largest city does not immunize you from the law. These stores are selling harmful and unlawful products despite being on notice. Because of that, once litigation ensues, we will seek penalties to the fullest extent of the law, and will refer for criminal prosecution when necessary,”&nbsp;stated Attorney General Mike Hilgers."I am proud to join Attorney General Hilgers in his efforts. Synthetic THC products are putting a strain on our law enforcement resources and efforts statewide and hurting innocent people who&nbsp;think they are buying a safe and legal&nbsp;product. It is time for the Legislature to step up and clarify that synthetic THC products are not legal in Nebraska,” stated Douglas County Sheriff Aaron Hanson.Many of the stores have tobacco licenses and also sell synthetically produced THC-containing products, which may put their tobacco licenses at risk.In addition, as part of the investigation, the Attorney General’s Office uncovered the sale of marijuana. Sale of marijuana is a felony, and the Attorney General’s Office will provide the evidence to the Douglas County Attorney for consideration of criminal charges. Names of products include: Kushy Exotic THCA Flower, Flying Horse Vape-9G, and Road Trip Gummies.Attorney General Hilgers was also joined by Senators Kauth and Storm at the press conference. He indicated: “We appreciate Senator Kauth and Senator Storm leading the way in helping provide protections for Nebraskans with their support of&nbsp;LB316."Senator Kauth introduced LB316, and it was prioritized by Senator Storm. It is designed to stop the influx of dangerous products masquerading as hemp and clean up the illegal marketplace that has developed in Nebraska.To date, the Attorney General’s Office has filed 15 lawsuits alleging violations of the Consumer Protection Act (Unfairness), Consumer Protection Act (Deception), and Nebraska Pure Food Act. The Attorney General reported that 12 out of 15 of the lawsuits have been settled. The remaining three are being actively litigated.

 Announcement of New Developments in Delta-8 Enforcement Efforts

Paul Hammel <a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2025/03/20/legal-battle-erupts-over-whether-ags-office-failed-to-properly-file-appeal-in-trevor-jones-case/">Nebraska Examiner</a>

LINCOLN — A legal battle has erupted over whether a felony theft charge against the former director of History Nebraska, Trevor Jones, should finally be dismissed.

The issue is whether the Nebraska Attorney General’s Office failed to promptly file an appeal over the dismissal of a theft by deception charge that had been filed against Jones.

If the appeal was filed too late, the prosecution of Jones, who resigned the $164,800-a-year director’s job in 2022, could be over before any arguments are heard by the Nebraska Court of Appeals.

In January, Lancaster County District Judge Susan Strong tossed out the felony charge Jones faced, ruling that prosecutors had failed to bring him to trial within the state’s speedy trial deadline.

On March 5, Nebraska Court of Appeals Judge Frankie Moore asked state lawyers to demonstrate whether they had properly complied with a statute that requires appeals be applied within 20 days of such a dismissal, and whether the fee to appeal had been paid.

“The record now before us does not indicate that the State (Attorney General’s Office) has followed the requirements,” the judge wrote.

In a March 12 response, the AG’s office said the clerk of the Appeals Court had filed their appeal under the incorrect statute, and that prosecutors had complied with another statute that allows 30 days to appeal a final order by a district court judge.

A notice of appeal was filed on Feb. 20 to the Jan. 21 dismissal of the charge, according to a brief listing Attorney General Mike Hilgers and Assistant Attorney General Erin Tangeman, and that the docket fee was intended to be paid via an AG’s account kept by the court system.

That give and take was followed Monday by a request from Jones’ lawyers to sustain a “summary dismissal” of the charge against Jones because prosecutors had cited the wrong state statute and had failed to properly file their appeal.

The Appeals Court had not issued a ruling on the purported errors as of Wednesday afternoon.

Jones, now 52, was a controversial figure during the six years he headed the Nebraska State Historical Society. He changed the agency’s name to “History Nebraska” during his tenure and won praise for seeking to modernize and digitize the agency’s collections.

But he earned scorn from some employees — and high turnover — for a heavy-handed management system he imposed requiring workers to, for instance, frequently document how many files they had scanned.

He resigned shortly before a critical state audit was released in 2022. The audit raised concerns about his handling of $270,000 in donations from the Nebraska State Historical Society Foundation to cover the agency’s financial losses expected due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Instead of depositing the donations with the State Treasurer, as legally required, Jones funneled the money into a new private foundation he had set up to replace the State Historical Society Foundation. He had quarreled with its leaders. The money was never used to cover COVID losses.

Ultimately, the Attorney General’s office filed the felony charge against Jones, which carried a possible prison sentence of up to 20 years.

Jones had pleaded not guilty and maintained that he could manage the donations how he saw fit.

Prosecutors have maintained that the speed trial clock had been “halted” for a time due to a change in Jones’ legal defense team and that he should still stand trial for the theft offense.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/3/1742480386914.jpeg" alt="The Nebraska State Historical Society is located just off the University of Nebraska-Lincoln campus at 1500 R St. (Paul Hammel/Nebraska Examiner)" />
 <figcaption>The Nebraska State Historical Society is located just off the University of Nebraska-Lincoln campus at 1500 R St. (Paul Hammel/Nebraska Examiner)</figcaption>
 </figure>Paul Hammel <a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2025/03/20/legal-battle-erupts-over-whether-ags-office-failed-to-properly-file-appeal-in-trevor-jones-case/">Nebraska Examiner</a>LINCOLN — A legal battle has erupted over whether a felony theft charge against the former director of History Nebraska, Trevor Jones, should finally be dismissed.The issue is whether the Nebraska Attorney General’s Office failed to promptly file an appeal over the dismissal of a theft by deception charge that had been filed against Jones.If the appeal was filed too late, the prosecution of Jones, who resigned the $164,800-a-year director’s job in 2022, could be over before any arguments are heard by the Nebraska Court of Appeals.In January, Lancaster County District Judge Susan Strong tossed out the felony charge Jones faced, ruling that prosecutors had failed to bring him to trial within the state’s speedy trial deadline.On March 5, Nebraska Court of Appeals Judge Frankie Moore asked state lawyers to demonstrate whether they had properly complied with a statute that requires appeals be applied within 20 days of such a dismissal, and whether the fee to appeal had been paid.“The record now before us does not indicate that the State (Attorney General’s Office) has followed the requirements,” the judge wrote.In a March 12 response, the AG’s office said the clerk of the Appeals Court had filed their appeal under the incorrect statute, and that prosecutors had complied with another statute that allows 30 days to appeal a final order by a district court judge.A notice of appeal was filed on Feb. 20 to the Jan. 21 dismissal of the charge, according to a brief listing Attorney General Mike Hilgers and Assistant Attorney General Erin Tangeman, and that the docket fee was intended to be paid via an AG’s account kept by the court system.That give and take was followed Monday by a request from Jones’ lawyers to sustain a “summary dismissal” of the charge against Jones because prosecutors had cited the wrong state statute and had failed to properly file their appeal.The Appeals Court had not issued a ruling on the purported errors as of Wednesday afternoon.Jones, now 52, was a controversial figure during the six years he headed the Nebraska State Historical Society. He changed the agency’s name to “History Nebraska” during his tenure and won praise for seeking to modernize and digitize the agency’s collections.But he earned scorn from some employees — and high turnover — for a heavy-handed management system he imposed requiring workers to, for instance, frequently document how many files they had scanned.He resigned shortly before a critical state audit was released in 2022. The audit raised concerns about his handling of $270,000 in donations from the Nebraska State Historical Society Foundation to cover the agency’s financial losses expected due to the COVID-19 pandemic.Instead of depositing the donations with the State Treasurer, as legally required, Jones funneled the money into a new private foundation he had set up to replace the State Historical Society Foundation. He had quarreled with its leaders. The money was never used to cover COVID losses.Ultimately, the Attorney General’s office filed the felony charge against Jones, which carried a possible prison sentence of up to 20 years.Jones had pleaded not guilty and maintained that he could manage the donations how he saw fit.Prosecutors have maintained that the speed trial clock had been “halted” for a time due to a change in Jones’ legal defense team and that he should still stand trial for the theft offense.

Legal Battle Erupts Over Whether AG’s Office Failed to Properly File Appeal in Trevor Jones Case

<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2025/03/19/lawmakers-advance-bill-to-tax-nicotine-like-products-in-nebraska-such-as-zyn-pouches/">Nebraska Examiner</a>

LINCOLN — State lawmakers took another step Wednesday toward cracking down on nicotine and “nicotine-like” products in Nebraska, advancing a bill to add a 20% wholesale excise tax on alternative products.

The Legislature&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_votes.php?KeyID=11846" target="_blank">voted 41-0</a>&nbsp;to advance&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=59013" target="_blank">Legislative Bill 9</a>, from State Sen. Jana Hughes of Seward. It would define “alternative nicotine products” and “nicotine analogues” in state law. Hughes’ goal is to target all future products rather than requiring specific legislation each time.

“Next year, when the new product comes out, we don’t have to bring back a bill to grab on to that new product,” Hughes said during debate. “It’ll automatically fall under our regulation.”

The change would capture nicotine pouches like the brand Zyn, creating an “umbrella” for enforcement that Hughes said is needed to help curb youth usage of the drugs, while generating revenue.

Currently, such new products are taxed the same as other taxable products —&nbsp;a generic statewide 5.5-cent sales tax rate, plus local sales taxes.

If passed, Hughes’ latest bill would take effect Jan. 1. It is estimated to bring in&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/109/PDF/FN/LB125_20250221-114731.pdf" target="_blank">$3.4 million</a>&nbsp;in the first two fiscal years, by June 30, 2027.

Hughes has pushed multiple bills in her first two years to increase or add taxes and regulations to nicotine products, namely vaping. She has a separate bill this year,&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=58761" target="_blank">LB 712</a>, to change the state excise tax on vapes to 40% wholesale effective Oct. 1, rather than a lower two-tiered rate.&nbsp;

That proposal is estimated to bring in&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/109/PDF/FN/LB712_20250227-121304.pdf" target="_blank">$56.4 million</a>&nbsp;by the middle of 2027.

Both efforts could be key in helping plug the&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/briefs/decrease-in-federal-share-of-nebraska-medicaid-costs-increases-state-budget-shortfall/">state’s projected budget shortfall</a>&nbsp;or help cover some costs of Hughes’ 2025 priority bill,&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=58984" target="_blank">LB 303</a>, to help&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2025/02/10/school-ag-advocates-largely-endorse-nebraska-school-finance-reform-proposal/">lower property taxes</a>&nbsp;by&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2025/01/15/gov-pillen-proposes-his-answer-to-432-million-projected-budget-shortfall/">directing more state dollars to K-12 schools</a>.

Former State Sen. Lou Ann Linehan of the Elkhorn area proposed an&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2024/08/12/revenue-committee-advances-ne-property-tax-relief-package-with-debate-to-start-tuesday/">alternative nicotine products tax</a>&nbsp;at 10 cents per ounce during last year’s summer special session, but it ultimately wasn’t adopted.

Hughes at the time said she&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/108/PDF/Transcripts/Revenue/2024-08-07.pdf" target="_blank">planned to look at such a tax</a>&nbsp;in the interim. As she repeated Wednesday, the proposal shifted toward a wholesale tax as a more “fair and equitable” approach. She said a weight-based tax could incentivize companies to concentrate nicotine, which could hurt children the most.

“This would be short-sighted and potentially dangerous to the customer,” Hughes said. “We don’t want to do it by weight, because it is a chemical substance.”

State Sen. Jane Raybould of Lincoln proposed an amendment to move to the weight-based tax anyway, echoing concerns of some tobacco lobbyists that the 20% wholesale tax could equate to a 700% tax increase on some products, which she said would be “regressive.”

Raybould’s amendment sought the same tax rate as snuff: 44 cents per ounce. Raybould said it didn’t make sense that the bill went to the General Affairs Committee and not the Revenue Committee, or that alternative nicotine products shouldn’t be taxed more than snuff or cigarettes. General Affairs has general jurisdiction over topics such as alcohol, tobacco, marijuana and gambling.

“Imposing taxes on products designed to reduce smoking-related harm really might even deter harm-reduction efforts and drive consumers to riskier behaviors,” Raybould said. “I know Senator Hughes and I are not fans of vaping, either. But I just want to make sure that we’re looking at this fairly.”

State Sen. Brad von Gillern of the Elkhorn area, Revenue Committee chair, said the committee destination critique was a “red herring” intended to distract. He said nothing would have changed and argued the lobby had “shopped” the amendment as early as Wednesday morning.

“Clearly, it’s nothing that Senator Raybould has been working on or considering for some time,” von Gillern said.

Hughes pushed Raybould on where she got her amendment. Raybould said she brought it “on behalf of one of our industries that advocate the lobby for these issues.” Pressed further, Raybould added it was “one that deals with tobacco products.”

Hughes specifically asked whether the change came from Philip Morris International, a multinational tobacco company with products sold in over 180 countries, including Marlboro cigarettes. The company is represented in the statehouse by&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskastrategies.com/" target="_blank">Nebraska Strategies</a>, a local lobbying firm.

Raybould told Hughes: “Perhaps … but I don’t feel comfortable sharing the name with you, if that’s OK.”

Raybould similarly declined to answer a reporter’s question on the lobbyist’s identity.

Her amendment&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_votes.php?KeyID=11846" target="_blank">failed 24-5</a>, with just Raybould and State Sens. Beau Ballard of Lincoln, Carolyn Bosn of Lincoln, Mike Jacobson of North Platte and Dave Murman of Glenvil in support.

LB 9, one of this year’s two&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/session/priority.php" target="_blank">General Affairs Committee priority bills</a>, will have two more rounds of debate.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/3/1742414395517.jpeg" alt=" A Nebraska bill seeks to add a 20% wholesale tax to “alternative nicotine products” such as the ones shown here. State Sen. Jana Hughes of Seward, who is leading the legislation, brought these items during debate on Wednesday, March 19, 2025, to show to her colleagues what they are and why a weight-based tax for the light items would not be a proper approach. (Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner)" />
 <figcaption> A Nebraska bill seeks to add a 20% wholesale tax to “alternative nicotine products” such as the ones shown here. State Sen. Jana Hughes of Seward, who is leading the legislation, brought these items during debate on Wednesday, March 19, 2025, to show to her colleagues what they are and why a weight-based tax for the light items would not be a proper approach. (Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner)</figcaption>
 </figure>Zach Wendling<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2025/03/19/lawmakers-advance-bill-to-tax-nicotine-like-products-in-nebraska-such-as-zyn-pouches/">Nebraska Examiner</a>LINCOLN — State lawmakers took another step Wednesday toward cracking down on nicotine and “nicotine-like” products in Nebraska, advancing a bill to add a 20% wholesale excise tax on alternative products.The Legislature&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_votes.php?KeyID=11846" target="_blank">voted 41-0</a>&nbsp;to advance&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=59013" target="_blank">Legislative Bill 9</a>, from State Sen. Jana Hughes of Seward. It would define “alternative nicotine products” and “nicotine analogues” in state law. Hughes’ goal is to target all future products rather than requiring specific legislation each time.“Next year, when the new product comes out, we don’t have to bring back a bill to grab on to that new product,” Hughes said during debate. “It’ll automatically fall under our regulation.”<h2>An ‘umbrella’ approach</h2>The change would capture nicotine pouches like the brand Zyn, creating an “umbrella” for enforcement that Hughes said is needed to help curb youth usage of the drugs, while generating revenue.Currently, such new products are taxed the same as other taxable products —&nbsp;a generic statewide 5.5-cent sales tax rate, plus local sales taxes.If passed, Hughes’ latest bill would take effect Jan. 1. It is estimated to bring in&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/109/PDF/FN/LB125_20250221-114731.pdf" target="_blank">$3.4 million</a>&nbsp;in the first two fiscal years, by June 30, 2027.Hughes has pushed multiple bills in her first two years to increase or add taxes and regulations to nicotine products, namely vaping. She has a separate bill this year,&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=58761" target="_blank">LB 712</a>, to change the state excise tax on vapes to 40% wholesale effective Oct. 1, rather than a lower two-tiered rate.&nbsp;That proposal is estimated to bring in&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/109/PDF/FN/LB712_20250227-121304.pdf" target="_blank">$56.4 million</a>&nbsp;by the middle of 2027.Both efforts could be key in helping plug the&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/briefs/decrease-in-federal-share-of-nebraska-medicaid-costs-increases-state-budget-shortfall/">state’s projected budget shortfall</a>&nbsp;or help cover some costs of Hughes’ 2025 priority bill,&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=58984" target="_blank">LB 303</a>, to help&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2025/02/10/school-ag-advocates-largely-endorse-nebraska-school-finance-reform-proposal/">lower property taxes</a>&nbsp;by&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2025/01/15/gov-pillen-proposes-his-answer-to-432-million-projected-budget-shortfall/">directing more state dollars to K-12 schools</a>.Former State Sen. Lou Ann Linehan of the Elkhorn area proposed an&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2024/08/12/revenue-committee-advances-ne-property-tax-relief-package-with-debate-to-start-tuesday/">alternative nicotine products tax</a>&nbsp;at 10 cents per ounce during last year’s summer special session, but it ultimately wasn’t adopted.Hughes at the time said she&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/108/PDF/Transcripts/Revenue/2024-08-07.pdf" target="_blank">planned to look at such a tax</a>&nbsp;in the interim. As she repeated Wednesday, the proposal shifted toward a wholesale tax as a more “fair and equitable” approach. She said a weight-based tax could incentivize companies to concentrate nicotine, which could hurt children the most.“This would be short-sighted and potentially dangerous to the customer,” Hughes said. “We don’t want to do it by weight, because it is a chemical substance.”<h2>Rejected lobbyist push</h2>State Sen. Jane Raybould of Lincoln proposed an amendment to move to the weight-based tax anyway, echoing concerns of some tobacco lobbyists that the 20% wholesale tax could equate to a 700% tax increase on some products, which she said would be “regressive.”Raybould’s amendment sought the same tax rate as snuff: 44 cents per ounce. Raybould said it didn’t make sense that the bill went to the General Affairs Committee and not the Revenue Committee, or that alternative nicotine products shouldn’t be taxed more than snuff or cigarettes. General Affairs has general jurisdiction over topics such as alcohol, tobacco, marijuana and gambling.“Imposing taxes on products designed to reduce smoking-related harm really might even deter harm-reduction efforts and drive consumers to riskier behaviors,” Raybould said. “I know Senator Hughes and I are not fans of vaping, either. But I just want to make sure that we’re looking at this fairly.”State Sen. Brad von Gillern of the Elkhorn area, Revenue Committee chair, said the committee destination critique was a “red herring” intended to distract. He said nothing would have changed and argued the lobby had “shopped” the amendment as early as Wednesday morning.“Clearly, it’s nothing that Senator Raybould has been working on or considering for some time,” von Gillern said.Hughes pushed Raybould on where she got her amendment. Raybould said she brought it “on behalf of one of our industries that advocate the lobby for these issues.” Pressed further, Raybould added it was “one that deals with tobacco products.”Hughes specifically asked whether the change came from Philip Morris International, a multinational tobacco company with products sold in over 180 countries, including Marlboro cigarettes. The company is represented in the statehouse by&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskastrategies.com/" target="_blank">Nebraska Strategies</a>, a local lobbying firm.Raybould told Hughes: “Perhaps … but I don’t feel comfortable sharing the name with you, if that’s OK.”Raybould similarly declined to answer a reporter’s question on the lobbyist’s identity.Her amendment&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_votes.php?KeyID=11846" target="_blank">failed 24-5</a>, with just Raybould and State Sens. Beau Ballard of Lincoln, Carolyn Bosn of Lincoln, Mike Jacobson of North Platte and Dave Murman of Glenvil in support.LB 9, one of this year’s two&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/session/priority.php" target="_blank">General Affairs Committee priority bills</a>, will have two more rounds of debate.

Lawmakers advance bill to tax ‘nicotine-like’ products in Nebraska, such as ‘Zyn’ pouches

The&nbsp;<a href="http://news.legislature.ne.gov/ban" target="_blank">Banking, Commerce and Insurance Committee</a>&nbsp;heard testimony March 17 on a measure that would prohibit implementation of merchant category codes in Nebraska that identify firearm retailers.

Hastings Sen. Dan Lonowski, sponsor of&nbsp;<a href="http://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/search_by_number.php?DocumentNumber=LB686&amp;Legislature=109th" target="_blank">LB686</a>, said the measure is intended to protect the privacy of Nebraska firearm owners and retailers from disclosure of information that could lead to discrimination against them.

The bill would prohibit a payment card network from requiring or incentivizing use of a merchant category code in a manner that distinguishes a firearm retailer from other retailers. In addition, a covered entity could not assign a firearm retailer a merchant category code that distinguishes them from other retailers.

LB686 also would prohibit government entities, officials, agents or employees of a government entity or official from knowingly keeping or causing to be kept any list, record or registry of privately owned firearms or the owners of firearms, except for those records kept during the regular course of a criminal investigation, prosecution or as otherwise required by law.

The Nebraska Attorney General’s Office would investigate alleged violations of the bill’s provisions and violators could be subject to injunctions and civil penalties.

Lonowski said merchant category codes are used by payment card networks to identify entities by the types of goods they sell or services they provide. Prior to 2023, he said, merchants who sold firearms or ammunition were categorized as general merchandise or sporting goods.

Nineteen states have passed laws similar to LB686, Lonowski said, in an attempt to protect the privacy of gun owners whose purchases might be identified by merchant category codes and later used against them.

“Nebraska should follow the lead of those states and protect the privacy of gun owners,” Lonowski said. “By enacting LB686, we affirm our commitment to protecting the constitutional rights and privacy of Nebraska citizens and businesses.”

Moriah Day, director of government relations and state affairs for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, testified in favor of the proposal.

He said California, New York and Colorado have passed legislation requiring implementation of the new codes for firearm and ammunition merchants. Although there currently is a pause on implementing the new codes nationally, he said, the bill would be a positive proactive step to keep implementation from happening in the future.

“To make certain this pause remains in place permanently and the status quo is maintained, I would urge you to join the growing list of 19 states that have passed similar measures and pass LB686 this session,” Day said.

Also supporting the bill was Travis Couture-Lovelady, representing the National Rifle Association. He said the measure would ensure that businesses and customers aren’t “unjustly singled out” or discriminated against by financial institutions for exercising their constitutional Second Amendment rights.

“It’s a preemptive strike to protect the rights of Nebraskans,” Couture-Lovelady said.

Ryan McIntosh of the Nebraska Bankers Association testified in opposition to LB686, saying it could disrupt interstate commerce. Some states require use of merchant category codes, he said, and it would be problematic if other states outright ban their use.

Also speaking against the proposal was Dexter Schrodt, president and CEO of the Nebraska Independent Community Bankers. While the proposal is meant to protect firearms retailers, he said, it could hamper the ability of community banks to serve their customers by limiting their ability to interact with payment card networks based on policies that banks cannot control.

“In principle, we do oppose any legislation that creates, in statute, language that protects one industry by creating requirements [on] and limiting rights of another industry,” Schrodt said.

The committee took no immediate action on LB686.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/3/1742394489286.jpeg" alt="Sen. Dan Lonowski (Unicameral Update)" />
 <figcaption>Sen. Dan Lonowski (Unicameral Update)</figcaption>
 </figure>Unicameral UpdateThe&nbsp;<a href="http://news.legislature.ne.gov/ban" target="_blank">Banking, Commerce and Insurance Committee</a>&nbsp;heard testimony March 17 on a measure that would prohibit implementation of merchant category codes in Nebraska that identify firearm retailers.Hastings Sen. Dan Lonowski, sponsor of&nbsp;<a href="http://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/search_by_number.php?DocumentNumber=LB686&amp;Legislature=109th" target="_blank">LB686</a>, said the measure is intended to protect the privacy of Nebraska firearm owners and retailers from disclosure of information that could lead to discrimination against them.The bill would prohibit a payment card network from requiring or incentivizing use of a merchant category code in a manner that distinguishes a firearm retailer from other retailers. In addition, a covered entity could not assign a firearm retailer a merchant category code that distinguishes them from other retailers.LB686 also would prohibit government entities, officials, agents or employees of a government entity or official from knowingly keeping or causing to be kept any list, record or registry of privately owned firearms or the owners of firearms, except for those records kept during the regular course of a criminal investigation, prosecution or as otherwise required by law.The Nebraska Attorney General’s Office would investigate alleged violations of the bill’s provisions and violators could be subject to injunctions and civil penalties.Lonowski said merchant category codes are used by payment card networks to identify entities by the types of goods they sell or services they provide. Prior to 2023, he said, merchants who sold firearms or ammunition were categorized as general merchandise or sporting goods.Nineteen states have passed laws similar to LB686, Lonowski said, in an attempt to protect the privacy of gun owners whose purchases might be identified by merchant category codes and later used against them.“Nebraska should follow the lead of those states and protect the privacy of gun owners,” Lonowski said. “By enacting LB686, we affirm our commitment to protecting the constitutional rights and privacy of Nebraska citizens and businesses.”Moriah Day, director of government relations and state affairs for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, testified in favor of the proposal.He said California, New York and Colorado have passed legislation requiring implementation of the new codes for firearm and ammunition merchants. Although there currently is a pause on implementing the new codes nationally, he said, the bill would be a positive proactive step to keep implementation from happening in the future.“To make certain this pause remains in place permanently and the status quo is maintained, I would urge you to join the growing list of 19 states that have passed similar measures and pass LB686 this session,” Day said.Also supporting the bill was Travis Couture-Lovelady, representing the National Rifle Association. He said the measure would ensure that businesses and customers aren’t “unjustly singled out” or discriminated against by financial institutions for exercising their constitutional Second Amendment rights.“It’s a preemptive strike to protect the rights of Nebraskans,” Couture-Lovelady said.Ryan McIntosh of the Nebraska Bankers Association testified in opposition to LB686, saying it could disrupt interstate commerce. Some states require use of merchant category codes, he said, and it would be problematic if other states outright ban their use.Also speaking against the proposal was Dexter Schrodt, president and CEO of the Nebraska Independent Community Bankers. While the proposal is meant to protect firearms retailers, he said, it could hamper the ability of community banks to serve their customers by limiting their ability to interact with payment card networks based on policies that banks cannot control.“In principle, we do oppose any legislation that creates, in statute, language that protects one industry by creating requirements [on] and limiting rights of another industry,” Schrodt said.The committee took no immediate action on LB686.

Bill would block credit card coding of firearm merchants, registries

<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2025/03/17/debate-delayed-on-proposal-to-more-frequently-change-nebraska-lawmaker-compensation/">Nebraska Examiner</a>

LINCOLN —&nbsp;A legislative proposal to let an independent, nonpartisan commission set the compensation of future Nebraska state senators is now “on pause” and will fall to the bottom of legislative priorities in 2025.

State Sen. Ben Hansen of Blair, the sponsor of&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=59042" target="_blank">Legislative Resolution 25CA</a>, announced the decision Monday after multiple senators spoke against the proposal during its first two hours of debate on Friday. Hansen said much of the opposition focused on issues that didn’t pertain to the proposal itself, and he wanted to move forward.

“In the good nature of not holding up the session for I don’t know how many more hours, I think we have some other work that needs to get done,” Hansen said.

Hansen said he&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2025/03/05/proposal-for-legislative-compensation-commission-advances-from-nebraska-committee/">still hopes to address the proposal</a>&nbsp;later this year, or early next year, which if passed would send the final decision to voters at the November 2026 general election.

The&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/109/PDF/AM/AM526.pdf" target="_blank">intent of the commission</a>&nbsp;is to remove lawmakers’ annual $12,000 salary from the Nebraska Constitution. Because it is in the Constitution, pay increases, or decreases, can’t happen without a statewide vote, unlike other state officials. The commission could also consider health care benefits, per diems or reimbursement rates.&nbsp;

Any compensation changes could occur no earlier than 2029, after lawmakers’ current terms.

Lawmakers ultimately would need to appropriate funds to cover any pay increases, Speaker John Arch of La Vista and Hansen said during debate. State Sen. John Fredrickson of Omaha suggested tightening the commission’s authority to make it a requirement.

Voters last approved a salary increase in 1988, bumping salaries up from $400 each month ($3,600 annually) to $1,000 each month ($12,000 annually).

“It’s not dead by any means,” Hansen said of his LR 25CA. “Just want to bring it up later and get the people’s work done first.”

During Friday’s debate, State Sens. Machaela Cavanaugh of Omaha, Danielle Conrad of Lincoln and Megan Hunt of Omaha said lawmakers didn’t deserve raises if they wouldn’t support working families.

Cavanaugh said “we are not doing our jobs,” and she graded the Legislature’s work an “F.”

“We are nickel and diming people of Nebraska on everything,” Cavanaugh said. “I don’t feel that, in good conscience, I can support something to raise our own salary, as measly as our salary is, so long as we can’t also raise resources we give to people who are 50% of the poverty level, who make less than $12,000 a year.”

The progressive lawmakers pointed to proposals that they said could hurt workers or weaken protections for minimum wage, child care, affordable housing, transportation, food or education.

“They think that legislators deserve more than everyday working families, and I disagree,” Conrad said.

Conrad and Hunt said supporters speaking about&nbsp;reinforcing&nbsp;institutional strength and integrity were hypocritical, with Conrad saying they were only doing so “when it has an opportunity to benefit yourself, personally, financially, individually.”

Hunt said strength comes from lawmakers with the personal integrity to stand up for the legislative branch and their constituents, “not from a paycheck.”

“Pay raises are not going to make any lawmakers fight executive overreach,” Hunt said. “That takes leadership and courage.”

State Sen. Myron Dorn of Adams, whose LR 7CA would increase legislative salaries up to $30,000, said he worked with Hansen on the commission idea.&nbsp;Dorn and Hansen will be term-limited in January 2027.

Dorn&nbsp;said lawmakers work an hourly wage of about $5.67 during the session and devote two to three days each week full time later in the year. He and others said it very much limits who even considers running for office.

In the lead-up to the debate, Dorn said emails echoed the comments from Cavanaugh, stating: “You’re not doing a good job, you’re not worth the pay that you have now.”

Dorn said he turned that around in his replies based on a philosophy his dad taught him, that “you get what you pay for.”

“When we’re answering those emails, I’m telling those people that if you’re complaining about the senators and low quality of people we have up here, just remember, you get what you pay for, and that happens quite often in life,” Dorn said.

State Sen. Christy Armendariz of Omaha said that when she was considering running for office for the 2022 election, she approached her predecessor, former State Sen. Brett Lindstrom, and told him she needed to keep her full-time job.

Lindstrom hesitated, she said, but told her he thought she could pull it off. And she did for her first two years, working 6:30 a.m. to 8 p.m. during the week and working weekends.

But this year, she said she realized that wasn’t a sustainable path and that she wasn’t giving “100%” to either her constituents or her full-time position. So, she quit.

“It just isn’t my nature to do anything part way,” Armendariz said.

Armendariz said she would still run again, knowing it is a volunteer position, but “we’re really, really far away from getting super valuable people on the floor, unless they are self-funded in some other way.”

“I do think it is fair, since the people are the ones that are the recipients of what is done on this floor, the people should be the ones to make a decision whether they want to expand that pool of people that can be elected,” Armendariz said.

State Sens. Terrell McKinney and Ashlei Spivey, both of Omaha, as well as Cavanaugh and Hunt said the Legislature needs more diversity in its membership.

Similar to Armendariz, Spivey said she puts in 18 hours of work each day into her legislative duties and paid work outside the Capitol, while still needing to be a mother and wife.&nbsp;She said LR 25CA was a “weird dichotomy” between what lawmakers say versus what they do.

“I would love to have more women in the body that are parents, more folks of color, working people that can really bring perspectives and advocate for Nebraskans in a way in which I think that doesn’t always happen currently, or in our history,” Spivey said.

McKinney said something needs to change, which could help people “who care” decide to run.

State Sen. Rob Dover of Norfolk said the proposal was a good idea but was “probably the right bill at a wrong time.”&nbsp;

He pointed to the state’s&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/briefs/decrease-in-federal-share-of-nebraska-medicaid-costs-increases-state-budget-shortfall/">$457 million projected budget shortfall for the next two years</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2025/02/18/preliminary-appropriations-committee-budget-unveiled-includes-pillen-cuts-to-nu/">prior to any legislative action</a>. Dover asked why the proposal was coming up while the state is considering cutting dollars for public health, the University of Nebraska, cancer research, dual credit reimbursement and affordable housing.

“It makes no sense to me whatsoever,” Dover said.

Dover, who will be term-limited in January 2029, warned his colleagues running for future office that if they voted for the proposal, it was a matter of when, not if, they’d have a mailer attacking them for doing so.

Conrad agreed and pointed to former State Sen. Tony Vargas of Omaha who was&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2025/03/05/proposal-for-legislative-compensation-commission-advances-from-nebraska-committee/">blasted</a>&nbsp;for a similar 2018 proposal. Conrad said LR 25CA was “nothing more than another political trap.”

“It’s not a good faith effort to strengthen the institution,” she said. “It’s an effort to force Nebraska legislators to continually vote on their own pay raise and to use it against them at election time.”

Hansen said that if lawmakers do a “crappy job,” which he said he feels has happened in some years, the commission could decide to cut compensation.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/3/1742326802552.jpeg" alt=" State Sen. Ben Hansen of Blair, left, leans in to listen to State Sen. Danielle Conrad of Lincoln at a legislative retreat in Kearney on Friday, Dec. 13, 2024. (Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner)" />
 <figcaption> State Sen. Ben Hansen of Blair, left, leans in to listen to State Sen. Danielle Conrad of Lincoln at a legislative retreat in Kearney on Friday, Dec. 13, 2024. (Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner)</figcaption>
 </figure>Zach Wendling<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2025/03/17/debate-delayed-on-proposal-to-more-frequently-change-nebraska-lawmaker-compensation/">Nebraska Examiner</a>LINCOLN —&nbsp;A legislative proposal to let an independent, nonpartisan commission set the compensation of future Nebraska state senators is now “on pause” and will fall to the bottom of legislative priorities in 2025.State Sen. Ben Hansen of Blair, the sponsor of&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=59042" target="_blank">Legislative Resolution 25CA</a>, announced the decision Monday after multiple senators spoke against the proposal during its first two hours of debate on Friday. Hansen said much of the opposition focused on issues that didn’t pertain to the proposal itself, and he wanted to move forward.“In the good nature of not holding up the session for I don’t know how many more hours, I think we have some other work that needs to get done,” Hansen said.Hansen said he&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2025/03/05/proposal-for-legislative-compensation-commission-advances-from-nebraska-committee/">still hopes to address the proposal</a>&nbsp;later this year, or early next year, which if passed would send the final decision to voters at the November 2026 general election.The&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/109/PDF/AM/AM526.pdf" target="_blank">intent of the commission</a>&nbsp;is to remove lawmakers’ annual $12,000 salary from the Nebraska Constitution. Because it is in the Constitution, pay increases, or decreases, can’t happen without a statewide vote, unlike other state officials. The commission could also consider health care benefits, per diems or reimbursement rates.&nbsp;Any compensation changes could occur no earlier than 2029, after lawmakers’ current terms.Lawmakers ultimately would need to appropriate funds to cover any pay increases, Speaker John Arch of La Vista and Hansen said during debate. State Sen. John Fredrickson of Omaha suggested tightening the commission’s authority to make it a requirement.Voters last approved a salary increase in 1988, bumping salaries up from $400 each month ($3,600 annually) to $1,000 each month ($12,000 annually).“It’s not dead by any means,” Hansen said of his LR 25CA. “Just want to bring it up later and get the people’s work done first.”<h2>‘We are not doing our jobs’</h2>During Friday’s debate, State Sens. Machaela Cavanaugh of Omaha, Danielle Conrad of Lincoln and Megan Hunt of Omaha said lawmakers didn’t deserve raises if they wouldn’t support working families.Cavanaugh said “we are not doing our jobs,” and she graded the Legislature’s work an “F.”“We are nickel and diming people of Nebraska on everything,” Cavanaugh said. “I don’t feel that, in good conscience, I can support something to raise our own salary, as measly as our salary is, so long as we can’t also raise resources we give to people who are 50% of the poverty level, who make less than $12,000 a year.”The progressive lawmakers pointed to proposals that they said could hurt workers or weaken protections for minimum wage, child care, affordable housing, transportation, food or education.“They think that legislators deserve more than everyday working families, and I disagree,” Conrad said.Conrad and Hunt said supporters speaking about&nbsp;reinforcing&nbsp;institutional strength and integrity were hypocritical, with Conrad saying they were only doing so “when it has an opportunity to benefit yourself, personally, financially, individually.”Hunt said strength comes from lawmakers with the personal integrity to stand up for the legislative branch and their constituents, “not from a paycheck.”“Pay raises are not going to make any lawmakers fight executive overreach,” Hunt said. “That takes leadership and courage.”<h2>‘You get what you pay for’</h2>State Sen. Myron Dorn of Adams, whose LR 7CA would increase legislative salaries up to $30,000, said he worked with Hansen on the commission idea.&nbsp;Dorn and Hansen will be term-limited in January 2027.Dorn&nbsp;said lawmakers work an hourly wage of about $5.67 during the session and devote two to three days each week full time later in the year. He and others said it very much limits who even considers running for office.In the lead-up to the debate, Dorn said emails echoed the comments from Cavanaugh, stating: “You’re not doing a good job, you’re not worth the pay that you have now.”Dorn said he turned that around in his replies based on a philosophy his dad taught him, that “you get what you pay for.”“When we’re answering those emails, I’m telling those people that if you’re complaining about the senators and low quality of people we have up here, just remember, you get what you pay for, and that happens quite often in life,” Dorn said.<h2>Devoting ‘100%’ to the job</h2>State Sen. Christy Armendariz of Omaha said that when she was considering running for office for the 2022 election, she approached her predecessor, former State Sen. Brett Lindstrom, and told him she needed to keep her full-time job.Lindstrom hesitated, she said, but told her he thought she could pull it off. And she did for her first two years, working 6:30 a.m. to 8 p.m. during the week and working weekends.But this year, she said she realized that wasn’t a sustainable path and that she wasn’t giving “100%” to either her constituents or her full-time position. So, she quit.“It just isn’t my nature to do anything part way,” Armendariz said.Armendariz said she would still run again, knowing it is a volunteer position, but “we’re really, really far away from getting super valuable people on the floor, unless they are self-funded in some other way.”“I do think it is fair, since the people are the ones that are the recipients of what is done on this floor, the people should be the ones to make a decision whether they want to expand that pool of people that can be elected,” Armendariz said.State Sens. Terrell McKinney and Ashlei Spivey, both of Omaha, as well as Cavanaugh and Hunt said the Legislature needs more diversity in its membership.Similar to Armendariz, Spivey said she puts in 18 hours of work each day into her legislative duties and paid work outside the Capitol, while still needing to be a mother and wife.&nbsp;She said LR 25CA was a “weird dichotomy” between what lawmakers say versus what they do.“I would love to have more women in the body that are parents, more folks of color, working people that can really bring perspectives and advocate for Nebraskans in a way in which I think that doesn’t always happen currently, or in our history,” Spivey said.McKinney said something needs to change, which could help people “who care” decide to run.<h2>‘Another political trap’</h2>State Sen. Rob Dover of Norfolk said the proposal was a good idea but was “probably the right bill at a wrong time.”&nbsp;He pointed to the state’s&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/briefs/decrease-in-federal-share-of-nebraska-medicaid-costs-increases-state-budget-shortfall/">$457 million projected budget shortfall for the next two years</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2025/02/18/preliminary-appropriations-committee-budget-unveiled-includes-pillen-cuts-to-nu/">prior to any legislative action</a>. Dover asked why the proposal was coming up while the state is considering cutting dollars for public health, the University of Nebraska, cancer research, dual credit reimbursement and affordable housing.“It makes no sense to me whatsoever,” Dover said.Dover, who will be term-limited in January 2029, warned his colleagues running for future office that if they voted for the proposal, it was a matter of when, not if, they’d have a mailer attacking them for doing so.Conrad agreed and pointed to former State Sen. Tony Vargas of Omaha who was&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2025/03/05/proposal-for-legislative-compensation-commission-advances-from-nebraska-committee/">blasted</a>&nbsp;for a similar 2018 proposal. Conrad said LR 25CA was “nothing more than another political trap.”“It’s not a good faith effort to strengthen the institution,” she said. “It’s an effort to force Nebraska legislators to continually vote on their own pay raise and to use it against them at election time.”Hansen said that if lawmakers do a “crappy job,” which he said he feels has happened in some years, the commission could decide to cut compensation.“They could actually lower our pay, that’s what I love about this,” Hansen said. “The onus is on us, as representatives of the people of Nebraska to do a good job, to listen, to do the people’s work. And if we don’t, we could be SOL.”It will ultimately be up to Speaker Arch whether he reschedules the measure. The proposal has about six hours left on first-round debate and would face two more debates, if advanced.&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/articles.php?article=XVI-1#:~:text=When%20two%20or%20more%20amendments,vote%20on%20each%20amendment%20separately." target="_blank">At least 30 lawmakers</a>&nbsp;would need to approve the bill on final reading.