More trial balloons, legislature wraps up, court partly blocks "don't say gay/trans"

May 19 edition of "KHOI's Capitol Week"

My view of the Iowa House chamber from my seat on the press bench on May 13, 2025. I’ll never take it for granted, because I had to fight for years to be here.

Greetings from Boston, where I spent a long weekend celebrating my son’s college graduation. Fortunately, the Iowa legislature adjourned for the year about 24 hours before I needed to be on the plane. Unfortunately, I’ve had very little time to write since last Wednesday. Looking forward to catching up when I get home.

Spencer Dirks

and I tried to cover as much ground as possible on Monday night, but we had to save many legislative stories for next week.

The sound file from our May 19 show is embedded at the top of this message. If you mainly want to listen, can also subscribe to “KHOI’s Capitol Week” on any podcast platform, or find it through smart speakers. If you do subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, etc., please rate and review us. The full show archive (going back to February 2021) is available on KHOI’s website.

For those who would rather read than listen, here’s your written recap. If your email provider truncates this post, you can read the whole article without interruption at this link.

Feenstra takes more steps toward running for governor

U.S. Representative Randy Feenstra (IA-04) filed paperwork last week to create a campaign committee to run for governor. And his campaign is spending $400,000 to run a new ad on network and cable television. The ad leads with how tall Feenstra is (he’s 6 foot 5) and says Iowa “needs a proven conservative to take us to new heights.”

I try to avoid editorializing on the show, but this spot looks stale to me.

The narrator says Feenstra “stood with President Trump and battled Biden and the left,” is “leading the fight” to stop China from buying Iowa farmland, and “backed Trump to secure our border.”

I have trouble understanding who is supposed to be Feenstra’s base in a statewide primary. He barely cracked 60 percent against little-known Kevin Virgil in the 2024 primary to represent IA-04. He’s been nowhere on the eminent domain/private property rights issue, even though the Summit Carbon Solutions CO2 pipeline would cross many counties in his district.

Social conservative organizations boosted Feenstra’s 2020 campaign against then Representative Steve King, but I don’t see them getting behind him early in a governor’s race.

Feenstra’s exploratory campaign committee claimed to have raised $1.1 million in the first 24 hours, all from Iowans. I don’t like to report on campaigns’ claims about their fundraising, because we have no clue how many donors they had, or how much of the total came from individuals versus PACs. The next campaign finance disclosures for state candidates in Iowa aren’t due until mid-January 2026.

Feenstra endorsed Ted Cruz before the 2016 caucuses and didn’t endorse any candidate before the 2024 caucuses. According to Jonathan Martin of Politico, he thought seriously about endorsing Nikki Haley for president. So no matter how much they spend on TV ads, I question whether the MAGA base will embrace Feenstra as a guy who stands with Trump—especially if he ends up competing against one or more Republicans who campaigned with Trump around Iowa in 2023.

Bird hints at running for governor

Attorney General Brenna Bird got a lot of people talking with a video she posted to social media on May 16. The video (you can watch it here) shows several clips of Trump thanking her for her support, calling Bird “so wonderful,” “somebody who was with us early on,” “a big star.” It ends with Trump saying of Bird, “she’s gonna be your governor someday, I predict.”

Bird shared the video, adding the word “Someday” and the wide eyes emoji. Her campaign is hosting a high-dollar fundraiser on May 29.

It sure sounds like Bird wants to run for governor. ​​My sense is that the only thing that could keep her from running would be Trump, if he told her she wouldn’t get his endorsement.

If Bird ends up seeking a second term as attorney general, she’s likely to face Democrat Nate Willems, who announced his campaign earlier this month.

Sand reports big fundraising haul

We covered State Auditor Rob Sand’s campaign for governor on last week’s show, but I wanted to mention a couple of developments from last week. First, Sand’s campaign said it raised $2.25 million in the first 24 hours after he announced he’s running for governor. According to a news release, “This over $2.25 million haul does not include any self-funding or donations from the candidate’s in-laws, and includes donations from Democrats, Republicans, and Independents across the state.”

I asked the campaign how much of that total came from individuals, and how much from entities like PACs or the Democratic Governors Association. They told me: “100% came from individual donors and $0 came from PACs or organizations.“

Again, I don’t like to report on fundraising based on any statement from a campaign. It could be that a handful of people writing six-figure checks contributed the majority of the funds. But Sand has a lot of small-dollar donors, and I would guess thousands of them kicked in last week, since the campaign sent numerous fundraising appeals through emails, text messages, and just about every social media platform.

A lot of Iowa candidates don’t raise $2 million in a year, let alone in a day. So it’s a big statement, and makes it more likely the Democratic Governors Association will invest heavily in Iowa next year. (They didn’t in 2022.)

Buttigieg backs Sand for governor

Former Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg came to Cedar Rapids last Tuesday for a town hall organized by VoteVets. In email and text messages that reached many Iowa Democrats last Wednesday, Mayor Pete said he was “excited” to support Sand’s campaign.

The messages praised Sand’s work, saying he is “the right person for this moment” and has “showed again and again that he was always prepared to speak up and take action, even when that meant bucking his own party.” (You can read one example here.)

I think the subtext here is that Julie Stauch, who was the political director for Buttigieg's 2020 Iowa caucus campaign, has filed paperwork for a Democratic campaign for governor. She hasn't formally launched her campaign yet, and I wonder whether Sand’s team hopes this early endorsement will discourage her from running.

Sand didn’t endorse any presidential candidate before the 2020 Iowa caucuses. But he and Buttigieg share a willingness to venture into unfriendly media spaces. Buttigieg regularly appears on Fox News. Sand is an occasional guest on Simon Conway’s WHO Radio drive time show; you can listen here to his interview with Conway from last week.

Lynn Evans may run for Congress in IA-04

State Senator Lynn Evans announced over the weekend that he’s created an exploratory committee to consider running for Congress in the fourth district, which will be open if Feenstra follows through on running for governor. He said in a statement, “Iowans deserve true conservative representation—someone who understands rural values, works hard, and puts people ahead of politics.”

Evans is serving his first term in the legislature, representing a heavily Republican area in northwest Iowa. A former public school superintendent, he is best known for floor managing last year’s overhaul of Area Education Agencies. He was also among the twelve Republican senators who recently pledged not to vote for budget bills until the chamber debated legislation restricting eminent domain for CO2 pipelines.

I don’t see Evans as the kind of candidate who could clear the field. There’s no major interest group that would get behind his campaign early. Filings with the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board indicate that Evans’ campaign raised a little more than $3,000 in 2023 and just under $10,000 last year, mostly from PACs that give to a lot of state lawmakers. It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to run for Congress across 36 counties.

If Evans does run for Congress, it will open up a safe Republican seat in Iowa Senate district 3, covering all of Osceola, O’Brien, and Buena Vista counties, and parts of Cherokee and Clay counties. That could be an interesting GOP primary for 2026.

Steven Holt rules out running for Congress in IA-04

Late last week, State Representative Steven Holt posted on Facebook that he was considering running for Congress. But less than 24 hours later, he announced he’d decided to stay in the Iowa House.

A former Marine and retired law enforcement officer, Holt chairs the Iowa House Judiciary Committee. In that role he has floor managed many high-profile bills, including this year’s transgender discrimination bill, some previous anti-trans legislation, as well as bills related to firearms and immigration. He has been a leading voice for prohibiting the use of eminent domain for CO2 pipelines.

At the capitol last week, Holt was frequently spotted talking on the phone. I thought he might be laying the groundwork to run for Congress, and think he would have had a pretty good shot in a GOP primary. Holt wrote on Facebook that while “numerous consulting firms” told him he had an “outstanding chance” to win a Congressional race,

I have had great success serving in the Iowa House and have been highly effective in advancing legislation in a chamber that is functional and responsive to the people. I am grateful that I run the hard bills that truly make a difference for the future of our state.

Why would I want to trade this reality for Washington DC? I have felt for many years that the fight for the future of our Republic will most effectively be fought in state legislatures as opposed to a dysfunctional Congress.

The decision makes a lot of sense to me. As chair of an important committee, Holt has a lot of influence over what happens in the legislature. In Washington, he would be just one of 435 U.S. House members, and maybe in the minority. He’s 67 years old, so he wouldn’t ever be in contention to chair a committee in Congress.

I expect a competitive GOP primary in IA-04, possibly including one or more state legislators or people from the business community.

Iowa lawmakers approve state budget, adjourn for the year

Most Iowa House and Senate members spent all night at the capitol last Wednesday, and plenty of reporters and lobbyists stuck it out until adjournment not long after sunrise on Thursday. We touched on why every legislative session seems to end with these late nights, instead of letting lawmakers get some sleep before putting in one more normal work day.

For a while on Wednesday, it seemed that the legislature might wrap up at a reasonable hour. But negotiations over the last few appropriations bills held up the process. Oddly, the Rebuild Iowa Infrastructure Fund bill—which allocates gambling revenues, mostly to infrastructure projects—ended up being one of the hardest to finalize. Several projects House members wanted didn’t make it into the bill approved early Thursday morning.

The “standings” bill, whieh includes more than $4 billion in school funding, is usually one of the last to be approved every year, and that held true this year. Many lawmakers try to get funding for favored projects in that bill. One example from this year: House Republicans were unable to get the Senate to agree to an appropriation to help school districts make period products available for free in restrooms.

We talked about a few other contentious points in the budget. The Regents universities will receive no general fund increase, despite rising costs. The health and human services budget will increase spending on Medicaid to address an expected shortfall, but several Democrats warned that funding is inadqueate. I won’t be surprised if lawmakers have to revisit the Medicaid budget next year; the “big, beautiful bill” Trump wants Congress to pass will include significant Medicaid cuts.

The judicial branch budget includes a 2.5 percent raise for judges, but not the plan to tie Iowa judges’ salaries to what federal judges earn (as House Republicans and the judicial branch wanted). Senate Republicans didn’t get an appropriation for a new state Business Court, a pet project for State Senator Mike Bousselot.

In total, the state will spend about $9.425 billion from the general fund during fiscal year 2026, which begins on July 1. That’s approximately $917 million more than the Revenue Estimating Conference has said the state will collect in revenue during the coming fiscal year. How can they do that, when the law requires a balanced budget? Republicans plan to pull hundreds of millions from the ending balance (last year’s surplus) and various reserve funds which now have about $4 billion.

During several of last week’s debates over appropriations bills, House and Senate Democrats called out Republicans for their deficit budget. For many years, GOP lawmakers have said they’re against using one-time funds to cover ongoing expenses.

Republicans say using the surplus was always part of their plan when they approved income and corporate tax cuts several years ago. I’m skeptical that revenues will rebound later this decade, which is also part of GOP planning.

During one sharp exchange, Senate Appropriations Committee chair Tim Kraayenbrink accused Democrats of fiscal mismanagement. He pointed out that in 2017, lawmakers had to cut spending in the middle of a fiscal year. That’s true, but there’s a big difference between then and now: in 2016, the legislature approved spending that matched projected revenues for FY2017. They had to make cuts later because revenues fell short of projections. This year, Republicans are planning to spend way more than the state will take in.

I hope to write more about the budget in the near future. You can find more details about FY2026 appropriations in Cedar Rapids Gazette and Iowa Capital Dispatch.

No big surprises in late budget bills

Some years, Republicans sneak a lot of policy language into appropriations bills. The standings bill in particular has sometimes been loaded with policies that have nothing to do with spending. There was generally less of that this year.

Lobbyists were rumored to be working hard to get some controversial policies into the budget. But we didn’t see last-minute language giving pesticide manufacturers immunity from lawsuits, or giving existing utility companies a “right of first refusal” to build electric transmission lines.

The health and human services budget includes another cruel blow to transgender Iowans: Iowa Medicaid will no longer cover most gender-affirming care, such as hormones or surgery. That language wasn’t part of the initial House HHS budget, but Senate Republicans were able to get it into the final version. The ban won’t save the state much money—perhaps a few hundred thousand dollars in a budget that will spend $1.9 billion on Medicaid. But it will create hardship for many transgender people. State Representative Aime Wichtendahl, who is transgender, warned during floor debate that people may be “red-taped to death,” because gender-affirming care can be lifesaving.

A mind-blowing Iowa Senate debate on eminent domain

We had a cliffhanger on last week’s show, which Spencer and I recorded live while the Iowa Senate was in the middle of debating House File 639, a bill restricting eminent domain for carbon capture pipelines. Shortly before we went on the air, a group of Republicans had joined Democrats to defeat the floor manager Mike Bousselot’s amendment. Bousselot wanted to allow Summit Carbon Solutions’ project to go forward, but ban eminent domain for future CO2 pipelines.

I want to emphasize how unusual it is to have any significant dissent in Iowa Senate Republican ranks. We’ve often seen fractious House Republicans try to block something leaders want to pass, but that simply doesn’t happen in the Senate, where party-line votes are the norm. I assumed leadership would be able to pick off a few of the twelve GOP holdouts and keep this bill from passing. But the Republicans held firm on not passing appropriations bills unless the House was able to have a floor vote on House File 639.

The Senate ended up debating the bill late into Monday evening. I’ve never seen Republicans criticize each other so harshly in floor debate. State Senator Mike Klimesh harshly questioned State Senator Kevin Alons, one of the leaders of the GOP holdouts. Many people felt his attacks were out of line. State Senator Tim Kraayenbrink called the pipeline bill “crappy” and “a pile of crap.”

After a break for party caucuses, several Republicans withdrew their proposed amendments to the bill. Democratic State Senator Zach Wahls then offered an amendment to simplify the legislation, replacing most of the text with a few paragraphs stating that eminent domain can’t be used for CO2 pipelines. Somehow, his amendment was declared not germane. Wahls sought to suspend the rules to allow a vote on the amendment anyway, which I’ve never seen during Iowa Senate debate. (House members frequently move to suspend the rules after an amendment is declared not germane.)

In his closing remarks, Bousselot repeatedly claimed “out of state environmental extremists” were using the pipeline bill as a Trojan horse. That didn’t sit well with some conservative Republican lawmakers who have led efforts to block Summit Carbon Solutions from seizing private property without landowners’ consent. State Senator Jeff Taylor explained during the debate that he’s not against pipelines—only against using eminent domain for private gain. Taylor pointed out that the Iowa GOP state platform opposes eminent domain for such purposes.

Spencer and I only had a few minutes to go over this extraordinary debate, and I feel like we barely scratched the surface. I hope to write a deep dive about it after I get home. Dave Price and Kathie Obradovich also talked about the eminent domain debate on the latest Iowa Down Ballot podcast.

My impression is that this episode deeply fractured relationships within the Senate Republican caucus. Last Wednesday, State Senator Mark Lofgren emailed all 150 members of the Iowa House and Senate to object to “disrespect and backlash” some Republicans are facing after they stood up for private property rights. Lofgren characterized the “bullying tactics” as unethical, prompting State Senator Dan Dawson (who opposed the pipeline bill) to yell at Lofgren on the Senate floor while the chamber was at ease.

I expect some Republican lawmakers will face primary challengers in 2026 because of their stance on this issue. The fallout could also affect Bousselot’s ambitions to run for governor (or perhaps attorney general if Bird runs for governor).

Will Governor Reynolds sign House File 639? I can’t imagine that she will. Bruce Rastetter, a leading backer of the Summit Carbon project, has been a major donor to her past campaigns, and former Governor Terry Branstad, without whom Reynolds would never have become governor, is a senior policy advisor to Summit Carbon Solutions. Furthermore, Reynolds isn’t running for a third term, so doesn’t have to worry about facing the voters again after a veto.

When the Iowa House debated the “standings” appropriation bill, Democratic State Representative J.D. Scholten noted that after approving a budget, lawmakers would have no leverage to discourage a veto of the pipeline bill.

For what it’s worth, Representative Holt told reporters shortly after the legislature adjourned on Thursday that he’s “confident” Reynolds will sign the eminent domain bill.

Final point: one casualty of the discord over the Summit Carbon pipeline is Erik Helland. The Senate did not take up his nomination to continue serving as chair of the Iowa Utilities Commission. Governor Reynolds ended up pulling that nomination and naming fellow commissioner Sarah Martz to chair the three-member panel on May 19. Helland can continue to serve on the commission, because in 2023 he was confirmed to a term ending in 2029.

A few late wins for the governor’s agenda

Several of Governor Reynolds’ proposals made it across the finish line last week. Two were highly partisan: Senate File 615 would impose new work requirements for Medicaid recipients. We’ll be talking more about this policy as it’s implemented. Experience from other states suggests that work requirements won’t increase employment, since most able-bodied Iowans on Medicaid are already working. But the new bureaucratic hurdles will cause many eligible Iowans to lose their health care coverage. That’s terrible for vulnerable people, and also for the hospitals that will likely see more uninsured people showing up at emergency rooms in the future.

On their last day of work, both chambers took up Senate File 607, which will reduce what businesses have to pay into Iowa’s unemployment trust fund. The fund balance is nearly $2 billion, in part because Reynolds used about $700 million in federal pandemic relief funds to bolster the fund, and in part because Republicans reduced unemployment benefits several years ago. You can be sure Democrats will raise this issue during next year’s campaigns; many assailed the billion-dollar tax cut for companies that lay off workers. The spin from the governor and GOP lawmakers is that the bill will provide “nearly $1 billion in savings over five years for Iowa businesses of all sizes.”

Some other Reynolds proposals had strong bipartisan support. On the last day of the session, the Senate unexpectedly took up House File 889, her plan to provide up to four weeks of paid leave for state employees. Only one senator (Republican Adrian Dickey) voted against the bill.

Last Tuesday, the Senate finally took up House File 972, which combines several policies to promote rural health care access. The House had passed that bill way back in March. Only four Democratic senators opposed that legislation.

We didn’t have time to talk about the governor’s disaster aid proposal when both chambers approved Senate File 619 in April, so I wanted to mention that on this week’s show. The legislation, which Reynolds has already signed, will make it easier for the state to respond to natural disasters like last year’s tornadoes and floods.

Earlier this year, lawmakers approved several of the governor’s other priorities, including a hands-free driving law, restrictions on cell phone use in schools, and new requirements for math education in public schools.

Reynolds didn’t get everything she wanted, however. The Iowa House did not take up her proposal to integrate child care and preschool, amid concerns that funding from existing programs (Early Childhood Iowa, Head Start) would be used to support new initiatives.

Neither chamber debated the governor’s energy bill, containing several provisions sought by investor-owned utilities MidAmerican and Alliant. The part that caused the biggest hangup was giving those companies the “right of first refusal” to build new electric transmission lines. The Trump administration’s Justice Department weighed in against the “right of first refusal” policy earlier this year, and the Koch-funded group Americans for Prosperity has also lobbied heavily against the idea.

I expect the governor to ask the legislature to pass some version of her early childhood and energy initiatives in 2026.

Lawmakers finally approve plan to spend opioid settlement funds

On the last day of the session, both chambers approved House File 1038, a plan for spending roughly $56 million funds received through multi-state litigation against opioid manufacturers. I have a post in progress about this saga, which began in 2022 when Republican lawmakers blocked the Attorney General’s office (then led by Democrat Tom Miller) from allocating opioid settlement funds. That left the money unusable until the legislature approved a plan.

But Republicans couldn’t agree on an opioid settlement bill in 2023 or 2024. The main sticking point was that House Republicans wanted some kind of advisory committee to review applications, as most states have done. Senate Republicans and the governor wanted to give state entities a freer hand. This year, House Republicans drafted a bill that would provide a “bottom up” approach to vetting projects.

The final deal is very close to what the Senate wanted: $29 million will be allocated to ten projects chosen by the Department of Health and Human Services. (The bill describes them without naming them; one recipient will be the Youth Shelter Services Ember Recovery Campus in Story County.) Going forward, HHS will be able to allocate 75 percent of opioid settlement funds, and the Attorney General’s office will control how 25 percent of the funds are spent. Add this to your “it’s OK if you’re a Republican” file.

In theory, Iowa’s seven behavioral health districts will have some input on how the opioid settlement funds are spent. But in reality, there will be no independent review or oversight.

During the House and Senate floor debates, several Democrats assailed the process and the lack of transparency around how recipients will be chosen. However, all Democrats in both chambers voted for a bill, citing the need to start spending these funds to save lives.

Republican State Representative Brian Lohse, who has worked on this issue for years, cast the only vote against House File 1038. He told me later that he had supported a “responsible approach” to spending the money, “guided by professionals, experts and stakeholders.” He said the final compromise “is exactly what I have worked diligently to avoid,” and he wanted to register his dissent.

Lawmakers go home with no action on property taxes

When the legislature convened in January, House Speaker Pat Grassley said, “Iowans have been begging us to shift our focus to property taxes.” He promised Republicans would work on reform “to prioritize certainty for the taxpayers over certainty for the taxing entities.” But lawmakers went home on May 15 without a property tax reform bill getting a floor vote in either chamber.

The leaders of the House and Senate Ways and Means Committees worked together on this issue for months and rolled out a couple of joint versions of the legislation. In recent weeks, their work appeared to diverge.

In part, property tax reform stalled because it’s such a complicated system, and any change can bring unintended consequences. I also suspect leaders decided to hold this issue until 2026 so they can claim a big win for property taxpayers in an election year.

Several Democratic lawmakers slammed Republicans last week for doing nothing this year to lower Iowans’ property taxes. When the legislature considers this issue next year, I expect House and Senate Democrats to offer their own alternatives.

Court partly blocks enforcement of “don’t say gay/trans”

We had less than two minutes to discuss U.S. District Court Judge Stephen Locher’s May 15 decision on one of the lawsuits challenging Iowa’s 2023 education law known as Senate File 496. In March, Locher again blocked the state from enforcing the school book ban, which a group of plaintiffs led by Penguin Random House had challenged.

A second group of plaintiffs, including the advocacy group Iowa Safe Schools and LGBTQ teachers and students, had challenged not only the book ban, but also the law’s prohibition on “any program, curriculum, test, survey, questionnaire, promotion, or instruction relating to gender identity or sexual orientation” in grades K-6. Locher previously found that “staggeringly broad” provision to be unconstitutional, but the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals lifted that injunction last year and sent the case back to him with instructions to use a different method of interpreting the law.

I will be writing about this ruling in greater detail, because we didn’t have time on the show to do justice to it. The upshot is that the state can ban schools from providing mandatory instruction on gender identity (cisgender or transgender) or sexual orientation (gay or straight) through any “curriculum,” “test,” “survey,” “questionnaire,” or “instruction.” But the law’s prohibitions on “programs” and “promotions” are too broad and therefore unconstitutional. Schools cannot ban extracurricular activities such as GSAs (gender-sexuality alliances), even in elementary schools.

The Iowa Safe Schools plaintiffs had also challenged a provision of Senate File 496 that requires staff to inform parents or guardians if a student seeks an “accommodation” related to their gender identity. Judge Locher found the parental notice requirement constitutional if students ask to use different pronouns at school, but not for other requested accommodations.

Thanks for reading or listening! Spencer and I will be back next week with more takeaways from the legislature’s work in 2025 and all the details about how the Iowans in Congress voted on Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” combining tax cuts with massive reductions in social safety net programs.