The City of Cle Elum may return to considering bankruptcy, claiming mediation talks with a Seattle-based developer have broken down. 

The city, population of about 2,200, has been on the hook for $22.3 million — five times its annual general-fund budget — after an arbitrator ruled in November that the city violated a 2011 contract by causing delays in the development of Ederra. a new community of 1,000 houses.

The city entered mediation with developer Sean Northrop and his LLC City Heights Holdings in March in hopes of a deal in lieu of paying  the judgment, which would have forced municipal bankruptcy, something done by only one Washington city in the past 35 years.

However, city officials now say in a written statement that if no resolution is made at their next mediation session on Monday, they will have “no alternative” but to proceed with Chapter 9 bankruptcy.

They also claim that City Heights issued three separate filings with King County Superior Court, which have tied up a combined $696,000 in Cle Elum’s bank accounts, impacting payment to creditors.

Northrop has not yet responded to email requests for comment.

Gov. Bob Ferguson and Seattle leaders are urging peaceful gatherings ahead of Saturday’s nationwide protests against President Donald Trump and his administration’s policies.

Thousands are expected to gather for “No Kings” protests in Seattle, Olympia, Spokane and many more cities across the state following a week of escalating demonstrations across the country.

“We’re really encouraging all Washingtonians who plan to demonstrate to follow the law and keep your protests peaceful,” Ferguson said Friday.

The Democratic governor’s plea came after a week of protests against the president’s escalation of immigration enforcement in downtown Seattle outside the Henry M. Jackson Federal Building, which houses the city’s immigration court. Though demonstrations have remained mostly peaceful, some have led to clashes with law enforcement, a dumpster fire, vandalism and 10 arrests of protesters throughout the week.

In response to anti-immigration enforcement protests in California, Trump earlier this week sent the National Guard and the Marines to Los Angeles despite pushback from state and local leaders there. The National Guard is primarily under the control of state governors, but in certain situations also answers to the president.

Ferguson said he has not heard anything from the Trump administration about doing something similar in Washington, though “communication with the federal government is very difficult.”

Ferguson added that he believes the federal government is only escalating the situation by sending in the National Guard.

“We can handle our situation with the partners that we have,” he said. “We can do this without interference from the federal government.”

On Saturday, he said protesters can expect to see the Washington State Patrol and local law enforcement agencies at events throughout the state.

Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell said the city, its police and its emergency operations center are working closely with the state to ensure people can protest on Saturday safely.

U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal, a Democrat, said she “deeply understands” the fear and anger of many Americans right now, but she urged protesters to avoid violence.

“Let’s not let them win. Let’s meet their hate and their violence with our peace,” she said.

On June 12, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to rescind previously approved federal funding for public media. That means Cascade PBS is one step closer to losing our federal support. This is a critical moment and your help is needed now. 

Right now, we are asking all our supporters to call and email their U.S. Senators and urge them to preserve federal funding for public media by voting NO when the rescissions bill reaches the Senate. The Recission Act needs only 50 votes in the Senate to become law. Every call and email now makes a difference. 

Your voice matters – especially now. Please call and email both your U.S. Senators today!  

Federal support for public media costs just $1.60 per person each year. Eliminating this funding would have a devastating impact on local journalism, original video series, community events and more, right here at home. 

I hope we can count on you to join us in taking action today. 

For more information, including tools for contacting Congress, visit ProtectMyPublicMedia.org. 

P.S. If you are part of the Cascade PBS community in Canada, you can still make an impact by helping us spread the word. Talk to your family, friends and neighbors about the importance of public media and what public media means to you. Learn more and stay updated by visiting ProtectMyPublicMedia.org. 

PBS CEO Paula Kerger talks potential federal cuts, what’s at stake

Congress this week is considering the Trump administration’s request to claw back funding for public media, including Cascade PBS and its programming.

Cascade PBSVenice Buhain

This article was originally published by the Washington State Standard.

Washington leaders have been preparing for months for the possibility of President Donald Trump mobilizing the military against the governor’s wishes, as he did over the weekend in response to protests in California. 

Gov. Bob Ferguson called a meeting Tuesday afternoon with Washington’s top military official about what’s going on in Los Angeles, where Trump summoned thousands of National Guard troops in response to protests over immigration enforcement. Trump’s move was the first time in 60 years that a president had deployed the National Guard to a state without the governor’s consent.

“It’s deeply disturbing. He’s escalating the situation, it’s resulting in more violence because of the president’s calling in the National Guard over the governor’s objection, and that’s exactly what Donald Trump wants,” Ferguson said Tuesday. “My job as governor is to make sure we’re as prepared as we possibly can be here.”

Trump says this action was necessary to protect U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement agents and the broader public amid demonstrations that have damaged property. California officials countered that local law enforcement could handle it. 

California is suing the administration, which has since also sent Marines to Los Angeles, over the National Guard deployment. State officials there say the president is violating the 10th Amendment that protects state sovereignty.

Trump has cited federal law allowing the president to call out National Guard troops if “there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.” The statute also allows for deployments in the case of foreign invasion or if “the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”

Democratic officials across the country worry the situation in Los Angeles could be a test run for similar moves in their states and cities.

Ferguson and Attorney General Nick Brown, both Democrats, told the Standard on Tuesday that the president’s actions haven’t come as a surprise. In fact, they’ve been playing out this scenario since shortly after they both won election in November. 

Trump has previously floated the idea of using the military to curb civil unrest. And, during his first term, National Guard troops from multiple states deployed as part of the federal response to 2020 protests in Washington, D.C.

Brown noted the law the president cites for the California deployment says such orders “shall be issued” by the governor. And the situation in California doesn’t meet any of the three circumstances where a National Guard deployment would be lawful, he said.

“If the facts arose here that were the same as California, it would be illegal,” Brown said.

He didn’t rule out a circumstance where the president could have the state’s consent to deploy the Guard. 

“I don’t want to presuppose that we would challenge everything, because it really depends on what the facts are,” he said.

A state Military Department spokesperson agreed it’s hard for the state to plan for the unknown. 

“I wish we could see the future and develop concrete plans and tell you what we’re planning for,” Karina Shagren said Tuesday.

Across the country, organizers are planning “No Kings” protests against Trump this Saturday, including in Seattle, Olympia and elsewhere in the state. The protests will coincide with the president’s scheduled military parade in Washington, D.C. 

Seattle has a long history of massive street protests that have crossed over from civil disobedience to property destruction and resulted in force from police, including in response to a World Trade Organization conference in 1999 and the murder of George Floyd in 2020.

Brown emphasized he doesn’t want protesters acting out violently and “playing into the hands of the Trump administration.”

“We love to protest here, obviously, which is great, but we have to do it in accordance with our laws,” the attorney general said.

In February, Ferguson’s top aides had debated sending 200 troops from the state’s National Guard to the Canadian border to combat drug trafficking — and get ahead of the president potentially federalizing the Guard. 

State Adjutant General Gent Welsh, with whom Ferguson was meeting Tuesday, floated the idea. The Military Department went so far as to draft a letter pitching it from the governor to the Trump administration. But Ferguson ultimately decided not to move forward.

Welsh commands the state’s National Guard, directs the Washington Military Department and serves as the governor’s homeland security advisor.

The governor championed a bill this legislative session to give him authority to limit National Guard troops from other states from entering Washington, after Republican governors offered their troops to support Trump’s immigration crackdown. He signed the bill in April, and it went into effect immediately.

Meanwhile, Ferguson on Friday ordered a handful of state National Guard personnel to assist in the search for Travis Decker, a man accused of killing his three young daughters near Leavenworth.

The Washington State Standard originally published this story on June 10, 2025.

Cascade PBS came away with some hardware Saturday at the 2025 Northwest Regional Emmy® Awards. Cascade PBS won in the Northwest Chapter of the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences’ Documentary – Cultural/Historical category for ASAHEL: The Curtis Collection.  

ASAHEL: The Curtis Collection chronicles the Washington State Historical Society’s project of digitizing 60,000 photos by renowned Pacific Northwest photographer Asahel Curtis taken between the 1890s and the 1940s. It was the first Emmy® nomination and win for director and producer Shannen Ortale. 

“We’re really honored to have been able to tell some of the stories behind Asahel Curtis’ photos, and to have worked with the Washington State Historical Society to tell them,” said Ortale. “This project was a testament to the collaborative nature of our team.” 

Credits include Shannen Ortale for director; Dave Quantic, Stephen Hegg and Knute Berger for producer; Bryce Yukio Adolphson and Amanda Snyder for photographer; Kalina Torino and Christopher Shreve for animator; David Wulzen as editor; Madeleine Pisaneschi for graphic designer; and Greg Cohen for art director.  

Cascade PBS was nominated for 13 awards, including episodes of Out & Back with Alison Mariella Désir, Black Arts Legacies, The Nosh with Rachel Belle and Mossback’s Northwest. Cascade PBS was also nominated for the Overall Excellence award, as well as craft nominations for photographer Bryce Yukio Adolphson and editors David Quantic, Andy Motz and Danielle Driehaus. 

In 2024, Cascade PBS took home two Northwest Regional Emmy® Awards: one for the episode “The Range Rider” from season 3 of Human Elements; and Mossback’s Northwest won in the category of Historical/Cultural – Short Form Content for the episode “The day Germany bombed Seattle.” 

Catch up on all of the Cascade PBS original video series here. 

The Washington State Supreme Court issued an interim rule on Monday to lower by more than two-thirds the number of felony cases that public defenders can have assigned to them each year, while also granting flexibilities for cities and counties to implement the new standards. 

Under the new standards, public defenders’ caseloads will be limited to 47 felony cases or 120 misdemeanor cases a year — down from a previous limit of 150 felony cases and a few hundred misdemeanor cases. Jurisdictions need to implement the new standards as soon as “reasonably possible,” according to the order, with a review after three years. 

The court announced it had decided to issue an interim rule to give local jurisdictions clarity while they set their budgets. During a public comment period, local officials throughout the state expressed concerns about paying for public defense if the court mandated reduced caseloads. Officials and advocates said they expected costs for felony representation could triple for cities and counties. 

Jurisdictions have 10 years – from Jan. 1, 2026 – to fully implement the standards, as long as they reduce caseloads by a minimum of 10% per year, the order states.

Similarly, the court ruled that local jurisdictions may utilize “case weighting” to comply with the new limits. In a case-weighting system, cases are given higher or lower weight depending on how much time the case takes. The court encouraged the use of case weighting, per the order, but refrained from mandating it.

“The reality is that many aspects of indigent criminal defense services vary by structure and location, so the Court is adopting an approach which accommodates that diversity while fostering real and meaningful reductions in caseloads as soon as possible, where necessary,” the order reads. 

New standards come during a time of crisis for public defense, according to many public officials and advocates, and aim to create more manageable workloads for attorneys and better representation for their clients.  Washington is among the bottom states in terms of the state’s share of public defense funding. 

The court largely adopted the standards proposed by the Council of Public Defense – part of the Washington State Bar Association – based on a national study released last year that called for similar levels of caseloads. A final rule will be adopted once the court finishes its review in the “near future.” 

Correction: A previous version of this story incorrectly calculated the reduction needed in the first year and that reference has been removed.

This article originally appeared in The Columbian.

A leaked Trump administration budget proposal completely scraps a key Columbia River salmon recovery program as the administration seeks to slash the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration budget.

The agency’s Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund has invested $115 million across 342 projects currently underway within the Columbia basin.

Loss of continued funding would compound already finalized cuts of tens of millions of dollars to salmon recovery efforts throughout the Columbia River basin.

Northwest leaders oppose the cuts. Washington and Oregon’s governors, along with the leaders of four Native nations from the lower- and mid-Columbia regions, sent a letter to Congress last month seeking “the highest possible level of funding” for a handful of federal Columbia salmon restoration programs, including NOAA Fisheries’ Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund.

“Any cuts that are made to NOAA’s programs will have devastating consequences for salmon recovery in Oregon and across the region,” Anca Matica, a policy adviser to Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek, said in an email.

Representatives for Gov. Bob Ferguson and the four Native nations did not return The Columbian’s requests for comment on the cuts. But a Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife official called the proposed cuts “devastating” for salmon recovery projects.

“It’s going to be a lot harder to get things done on time and at the scale that we have planned,” said Michael Garrity, special assistant for Columbia River policy for the Department.

Congress’ final budget — which will determine the funding for Columbia River salmon restoration — has not yet been released, meaning the potential cuts are not final.

“We cannot speculate on future funding. That is up to Congress and the president,” Michael Milstein, regional spokesman for NOAA Fisheries, said in a statement.

Congress is expected to release the first draft of the budget this summer.

The Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund is run by NOAA Fisheries, which is tasked with restoration of protected fish runs.

Much of the Fund’s work boils down to financing projects that build habitat for endangered salmon and steelhead runs to counteract harm done by dams, habitat destruction, climate change, overfishing and predators.

In its 25-year history, the Fund has awarded more than $1.8 billion to state and tribal salmon recovery programs and projects, resulting in about 16,000 projects across the Columbia Basin and Pacific Coast.

Recent projects have created spawning habitat along Washington’s sections of the Columbia basin, including on the Kalama River and North Fork Touchet River north of Walla Walla.

The program has funded that work with a consistent $65 million yearly allocation from Congress, although the program received about $100 million more in recent years from former President Joe Biden’s legislative agenda — much of which was awarded to Washington projects and Nations.

The fund requires all projects to secure $1 for every $3 it awards. While the Trump administration’s cuts aim to save taxpayers from billions in “wasteful spending,” the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund generates a positive economic impact.

The fund’s website says that every $1 million invested in watershed restoration through the program “creates between 13 and 32 jobs and between $2.2 and $3.4 million in economic activity.”

Since President Donald Trump’s proposed 2026 NOAA budget leaked, he has released his overall fiscal-year 2026 document. It doesn’t include the same item-by-item breakdown, so it’s unclear if he still seeks to cut the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund. But the recently released budget proposes a similar level of cuts to NOAA overall.

Henry Brannan is a WSU News Fellow who writes for The Columbian and The Daily News. The Columbian originally published this story on June 2, 2025.

Hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts to Medicaid over the next decade would drastically reduce health care access in rural areas, several Eastern Washington medical providers and government officials warned at a press conference on Thursday.

Democratic U.S. Senator Patty Murray had invited medical providers, workers and government officials from Central and Eastern Washington, an area that is more dependent on Medicaid, the government health insurance program for low-income people and those with disabilities.

Upward of 70% of those under 19 in Central Washington’s 4th Congressional District in 2023 were enrolled in Apple Health, the state’s Medicaid program. More than half of those under 19 in the neighboring 5th Congressional District, which includes Spokane and nearby rural Eastern Washington counties, were also enrolled in Apple Health.

“[Medicaid] cuts would be devastating for a healthy next generation,” said state Sen. Marcus Riccelli, D-Spokane, during the press conference, held virtually.

Cuts to the program are in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which passed the House late last month and is expected to come up for a vote in the U.S. Senate in the coming weeks.

Alex Jackson, the CEO of MultiCare Inland Northwest, which operates several hospitals in Spokane and Yakima, noted that if hundreds of thousands of Washington residents lost health insurance through Medicaid, hospitals would have to absorb the increased cost.

Costs would likely go up as those without coverage due to Medicaid cuts may defer preventive care until they require more intensive — and expensive — health care, Jackson said.

“Less dollars coming in the door put clinics and hospitals in the position to make difficult decisions that will impact patients’ access to care,” he said.

Jackson did not state whether any of the clinics or hospitals MultiCare operates in Eastern Washington are in danger of closing, but said he believes there are hospitals and clinics in the region that are likely in that position.

Besides a reduction in health care access, there would be economic loss as well. Hospitals are often the largest employer in many of these small rural communities, Jackson said.

Sen. Murray said that massive pressure from the public and other stakeholders, such as medical providers, could keep such massive cuts from happening. Murray noted that in 2017, public pressure led to a failed attempt by Republicans to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

“Republicans in Congress are not immune to public pressure, and neither is this administration,” Murray said.

A longer version of this article first appeared in the Washington State Standard.

Federal appeals court judges in Seattle on Wednesday questioned a Trump administration lawyer and Washington’s solicitor general over the president’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship.

The three-judge panel in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals appeared more open to the Trump administration’s arguments than a federal judge in Seattle, who in January called the order “blatantly unconstitutional.” 

Perhaps the most pointed question came after a lengthy back-and-forth over what the writers of the 14th Amendment meant when they enshrined birthright citizenship into the U.S. Constitution. 

Hawkins asked Department of Justice attorney Eric McArthur, who clerked for conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, what the late Justice Antonin Scalia would think of his arguments. Scalia, an ardent originalist, anchored the Supreme Court’s conservative wing alongside Thomas.

“He was widely critical of looking at congressional history and statements of senators opposing or supporting a particular thing, and famously said ‘just the words,’” said Hawkins, a Clinton appointee. 

McArthur said he thought Scalia would have been “very open to looking at all of the historic evidence.”

After McArthur’s arguments, Hawkins told the Justice Department attorney he did a “terrific job.”

Trump’s executive action, signed on the first day of his second term, aims to end birthright citizenship for babies born to a mother and father who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. Since the aftermath of the Civil War, the country has automatically given citizenship to babies born on U.S. soil, no matter their immigration status.

Wednesday was the first time the merits of Trump’s order have come before a federal appeals court.

The arguments from Washington’s solicitor general, the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project and McArthur come a few weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court took up Washington’s case on birthright citizenship and others. 

The justices focused on whether preliminary injunctions, like the one from Judge John Coughenor in Seattle at the center of Wednesday’s hearing, should affect only the parties involved in a particular case or can be applied nationwide. The Trump administration contends such orders are judicial overreach.

The Supreme Court’s ruling-to-come could have implications far beyond the birthright citizenship case, potentially staunching the flow of temporary nationwide blocks that state attorneys general are relying on to stop what they see as the president’s unlawful actions.

In their May 15 hearing, the justices appeared wary of allowing different rules by state.

On Wednesday, state Solicitor General Noah Purcell called Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship “unconstitutional and unAmerican.” 

“President Trump seeks to turn citizenship into a political football, denying that precious right to hundreds of thousands of babies born in this country simply because their parents are here to work, to study or to escape persecution or violence,” said Purcell, who argued successfully against the president’s travel ban in court in 2017.

The  9th Circuit judges didn’t rule from the bench Wednesday. They’ll issue a written ruling in the coming weeks or months. Both sides told the judges it may be prudent to first wait for the Supreme Court to weigh in on the nationwide injunction question.

Several other cases are currently awaiting similar appellate hearings after lower courts awarded preliminary injunctions. The Supreme Court will likely have the final say on the merits of Trump’s order.

Speaking to reporters after the Wednesday morning hearing, Washington Attorney General Nick Brown said “The judges had a lot of pointed and difficult questions for both sides to grapple with.” 

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution codified birthright citizenship in 1868.

Trump’s order, initially set to take effect Feb. 19, focused on the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” phrase.

“The Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States,” Trump’s executive order reads. “The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’”

Legal precedent, including an 1898 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, has long upheld birthright citizenship. That case dealt with Wong Kim Ark, a man born in San Francisco to Chinese parents. The justices ruled he was a U.S. citizen.

The two sides interpret this case differently. Many of Wednesday’s arguments centered the Wong Kim Ark decision.

Washington’s case against Trump’s birthright citizenship order, filed alongside Oregon, Arizona and Illinois, led to the second Trump administration’s first judicial rebuke. 

The Reagan-appointed judge, Coughenour, later agreed to indefinitely block Trump’s order while the case played out in court. Trump’s Department of Justice appealed, leading to Wednesday’s hearing.

The Washington State Standard originally published a longer version of this story on June 4, 2025.

On Tuesday, President Donald Trump sent a request to Congress to rescind federal funding for public media. This is a grave threat. 

Right now, we are asking all our supporters to contact their elected officials and encourage them to preserve this critical funding. 

Cascade PBS is at risk of losing approximately $3.6 million in federal support annually. While much of our funding comes from community contributions, including individual donations, foundation grants and local underwriting, a shortfall of this magnitude presents a serious challenge. 

Public media funding represents just .01% of the federal budget. Cutting public media funding would have little impact on the federal deficit but would devastate our ability to serve our communities. 

Your support in this pivotal time is incredibly important. Here are a few ways you can make a difference: 

• Connect with Protect My Public Media to learn more about funding for public media in the U.S. federal budget, and contact your U.S. Senators and Representative. 
• Help spread the word about the importance of public media by talking with your family, friends and neighbors. 
• Follow @CascadePBS and @CascadePBSNewsroom on social media for our latest reporting, programs, events and more. 

I hope we can count on your continued support and that you will make your voice heard.