The Kansas Legislature is in the midst of making a historic mistake, one whose potential danger is only surpassed by its stupidity.

Elected lawmakers have handed out repeated, enormous tax cuts to giant corporations and the richest among us. Now the state faces an impending — and entirely predictable — budget catastrophe. In the final days of the 2026 session, cries of angst echoed along the marble hallways.

“We’re deficit spending in this budget, in the red by $700 million last I looked,” said Sen. Joe Claeys, R-Wichita, in the midst of a diatribe against public media.

“Look at the numbers and realize the spending in the state of Kansas over the last six years, and even before that, is ridiculous,” said Sen. Virgil Peck, R-Havana, a prominent fiscal hawk. “We cannot continue spending like this.”

Excuse me while I roll my eyes and stifle a snort. What could have possibly caused this situation?

Many subjects in government can be difficult to explain or understand. As someone who has written and edited pieces about state legislatures for the past quarter century, I’ve wrangled my share of perplexing policy. But comprehending why Kansas experienced budgetary catastrophe under former Gov. Sam Brownback shouldn’t stump anyone.

The 2012 tax “experiment” cut too much, too fast. Lawmakers didn’t adjust spending levels to match the decreased revenue. The entire state suffered, and a new crop of legislators were elected in 2016 with the express goal of reversing the damage.

Lawmakers repealed much of the experiment in 2017, and Gov. Laura Kelly’s election in 2018 enhanced fiscal stability. An experienced technocrat, Kelly painstakingly rebuilt state government.

But within a few years, legislators wanted to cut taxes again. The COVID-19 pandemic swelled state coffers across the nation, as the U.S. Congress rushed out federal funds. Sure, Kansas could have used those funds responsibly and budgeted for a rainy day. But where’s the fun in that?

In 2021, lawmakers overrode Kelly’s veto of Senate Bill 50, which cost $300 million over three years and slashed taxes for multinational corporations.

In 2022, the Legislature passed and Kelly signed House Bill 2239, which bundled provisions from 29 different tax proposals. It cost $91 million for the first year alone, and even more for subsequent years.

In 2024, lawmakers and the governor compromised on a tax-cut package squashing the state’s three tax brackets into a mere two. Senate Bill 1 was projected to cost $5 billion over five years.

Finally, the 2025 session saw the emergence of a flat tax bill that passed over Kelly’s objections and promised to eventually level a flat 4% individual and corporate income tax. According to Kelly, Senate Bill 269 would cost up to $1.3 billion annually.

After multiple rounds of slashing revenue, no wonder Kansas officials now wonder about their next steps.

By next summer, the state will have blown through $1.1 billion in reserves over three years. We have about $2 billion in a rainy day fund at present.

Analysis from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy showed that Kansas was among the top five state cutting millionaires’ taxes last year. Once the law was fully implemented, the average tax savings for the Kochs among us would be $51,260 per person. Kansas joined such illustrious peers as Ohio (only a $19,010 cut) and Mississippi (a whopping $140,580). The two other state included were Missouri and Oklahoma.

This situation is a choice. It is not an accident. It is not a trick. It is not an unforeseen sequence of legislative tomfoolery leading to a shocking result. Lawmakers knew the risks and the history.

Republicans suggest things will be different this time around. Leaders called for spending restraint this session, but they steered clear of declaring an emergency. They have elections to run this fall.

This year’s budget “helps chart a better future for Kansas,” said Rep. Troy Waymaster, a Bunker Hill Republican.

“We can go home and tell our constituents that we are providing stability for Kansas,” said Sen. Chase Blasi, R-Wichita.

The infamous tax “experiment” received national publicity. Brownback was more than happy to take credit for those 2012 and 2013 bills. That meant that when things went wrong, voters knew who to blame.

What’s happening now is gradual, an accumulation of sins against the people of Kansas, committed by lawmakers greedy for public approval. So far, they have escaped judgment for their actions. We’ll see how long that lasts, especially when the time comes for draconian cuts to public schools.

Waymaster has already said his party plans to target K-12 education. You cannot hope to close budget holes without reducing spending on teachers, students and programs to educate the next generation.

Simultaneously, shadowy conservative interests advocate a constitutional amendment that would shred the Kansas Supreme Court. Right now, justices are appointed and then face public retention votes. Hardcore right-wingers want direct election of justices so they can buy the court. Then, they believe, the new justices will allow bans on abortion and school funding cuts.

“The solution in Kansas is that Supreme Court election,” Senate president (and gubernatorial candidate) Ty Masterson told activists in Marion. “But you can’t go out there and say it because they’ll say that if you elect your Supreme Court, you won’t have any right to abortion anymore.”

He added: “If we elect our Supreme Court, they won’t force you to spend money on schools.”

Thanks for saying the quiet part out loud, Ty!

The Kansas Supreme Court was one of the few obstacles standing in the way of lawmakers who wanted to proverbially drown government in the bathtub. Change its composition, and lawmakers can dodge the consequences of their disastrous tax cuts.

The rest of us, on the other hand, will pay an all-too-real price: the future of Kansas.

Clay Wirestone is Kansas Reflector opinion editor. Through its opinion section, Kansas Reflector works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by public policies or excluded from public debate. Find information, including how to submit your own commentary, here.

We’re excited to announce that we’re exiting open beta! We’ve come a long way from when we announced and launched AO3 open beta in 2009.

At launch, there were just 347 AO3 accounts and 6,598 works. While we started growing very quickly, we were originally much more limited in what we could do.

Did you know that AO3 invitations were originally sent out manually by individual AO3 volunteers? During our initial rapid growth, we were still only sending out about 1200 invitations per day, and eventually tapered off to 50 per day. Today, we send around 6,000 invitations every 12 hours. Our old news posts also include fun stats about what AO3’s user base and works looked like in 2009, which you can compare to the stats post we recently shared in January to see how far we’ve come.

What’s Changed Since Then

Since 2009, AO3 has grown and changed a lot. We’ve introduced many features over the years through the efforts of our volunteers and coding contributors, as well as the contractors we’ve been able to hire thanks to generous donations from our users. While there are a lot of additions we’re proud of, some of our favorites include:

• Our tag system and tag wrangling
• Orphaning, which allows creators to disconnect works from their account or delete their account while leaving their works online
• Downloads that provide offline access to fanworks in AZW3, EPUB, MOBI, PDF, or HTML format
• Privacy settings for works that let creators restrict access to registered AO3 users and control who can leave comments
• Chapter-by-Chapter and Entire Work modes for multi-chapter works

Looking at where we are now in 2026, we recently celebrated 10 million registered users and 17 million fanworks! We’re grateful for all the fans that have accompanied us all this time—all of our accomplishments are thanks to you!

Some recent improvements we’ve made include adding new options to bookmark and collections filtering and updating all of the buttons at the bottom of the forms for posting, previewing, or editing a work to make them more user-friendly.

What’s Next for AO3 and How You Can Help

As the AO3 software has been stable for a long time, the change is mostly cosmetic and does not indicate that everything is finalized or perfectly working. Exiting beta doesn’t mean we’ll stop continuing to improve AO3—our volunteer coders and community contributors will still be working to add to and improve AO3 every day. For one, it’s likely you’ll continue to see references to us being in beta for a while as we update our documentation.

If you’d like to see what issues are being worked on, check out our project on Jira. This is a public list of all the bugs and features that are on the to-do list for our coders.

If you’re familiar with coding and would like to contribute your time, we welcome contributions from anyone! Take a look at our Contributing Guidelines and other documentation on GitHub. All contributors are credited in our release notes.

If you’re interested in helping AO3 but don’t have any coding ability, consider volunteering for one of the other teams that work on AO3 or contributing to AO3 in some other way.

If you have a feature request or bug to report, please contact AO3 Support. Support handles communication between users and the various teams involved with AO3. The Support team helps to resolve technical problems experienced by users and passes on users’ feedback to the relevant committees.

For all the fans who were part of our beta journey from 2009 until today, here’s a badge for you, as a small thank you for your support! You’re welcome to display this badge on social media, your AO3 profile, or any other website of your choosing. For example, if you want to display the badge in your AO3 profile, add this HTML tag &ltimg src="https://media.archiveofourown.org/news/ao3-updates/2026-04-leaving-beta/badge-english.png" alt="Circular badge with the words 'I was here for beta' with an AO3 logo"> into the “About Me” section in your profile. If you’d like more information on how to embed images, refer to our Posting and Editing FAQ or our guide on how to format HTML on AO3!

We are deeply appreciative and grateful for all the support we’ve gotten from fans since we were founded, so let us be the first to say: Welcome to Post-Beta AO3!

New research finds that planting even a few trees on farms can give a big boost to forest wildlife.

Read more on E360 →

WASHINGTON — A federal judge ruled Tuesday that President Donald Trump overstepped his authority when he signed an executive order last year that blocked funding from going to the Public Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio. 

U.S. District Judge Randolph Daniel Moss wrote in a 62-page order that while many of the original issues in the case are no longer relevant after Congress rescinded funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the section of the executive order that called on agencies to end “any direct or indirect funding of NPR and PBS” remains applicable. 

“The message is clear: NPR and PBS need not apply for any federal benefit because the President disapproves of their ‘left-wing’ coverage of the news,” Moss wrote. 

“Because the First Amendment does not tolerate viewpoint discrimination and retaliation of this type, the Court will issue judgment against the federal agency defendants declaring Section 3(a) of the Executive Order is unconstitutional and will issue an injunction barring those defendants from implementing it.”

Moss was nominated to the district court for the District of Columbia by former President Barack Obama in 2014. 

White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson implied in a statement that the administration will appeal the court’s decision. 

“This is a ridiculous ruling by an activist judge attempting to undermine the law. NPR and PBS have no right to receive taxpayer funds, and Congress already voted to defund them,” Jackson wrote. “The Trump Administration looks forward to ultimate victory on the issue.”

A PBS spokesperson wrote in a statement the organization is “thrilled with today’s decision declaring the executive order unconstitutional.”  

“As we argued, and Judge Moss ruled, the executive order is textbook unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination and retaliation, in violation of longstanding First Amendment principles,” the spokesperson added. “At PBS, we will continue to do what we’ve always done: serve our mission to educate and inspire all Americans as the nation’s most trusted media institution.” 

A spokesperson for NPR did not return a request for comment.

No effect on congressional defunding

Trump issued the executive order titled “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media” in May of last year, leading to two separate lawsuits that were later joined together. 

One was filed by NPR along with three Colorado stations: Aspen Public Radio, Colorado Public Radio and KSUT Public Radio. The second lawsuit was filed by PBS and Lakeland PBS in Minnesota. 

The NPR lawsuit alleged Trump’s executive order had an “overt retaliatory purpose” and “is unlawful in multiple ways.”

“The Order is textbook retaliation and viewpoint-based discrimination in violation of the First Amendment, and it interferes with NPR’s and the Local Member Stations’ freedom of expressive association and editorial discretion,” the lawsuit stated. “Lastly, by seeking to deny NPR critical funding with no notice or meaningful process, the Order violates the Constitution’s Due Process Clause.”

The lawsuits were filed before the Trump administration in June asked Congress to eliminate $1.1 billion in previously approved funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which provided grants to NPR and PBS. 

The Senate voted 51-48 in July to approve the request and the House approved that version of the rescissions bill on a 216-213 vote shortly afterward.

Viewpoint discrimination

Moss wrote in his ruling that the original parts of the lawsuit addressing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting were no longer relevant since “CPB no longer exists, and no Court order declaring the Executive Order unlawful as applied to the CPB can afford NPR, PBS, or their member stations any meaningful relief.”

“But that does not end the matter because the Executive Order sweeps beyond the CPB,” he added. “It also directs that all federal agencies refrain from funding NPR and PBS—regardless of the nature of the program or the merits of their applications or requests for funding.”

Moss wrote that while Trump can denounce news organizations as much as he wants, he cannot order government officials to engage in viewpoint discrimination. 

“To be sure, the President is entitled to criticize this or any other reporting, and he can express his own views as he sees fit,” he wrote. “He may not, however, use his governmental power to direct federal agencies to exclude Plaintiffs from receiving federal grants or other funding in retaliation for saying things that he does not like.”

The Trump administration’s attempt to block grants from the Department of Education, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the National Endowment for the Arts and other agencies from going to PBS and NPR would have widespread impacts, Moss wrote. 

“It does so, moreover, without regard to whether the federal funds are used to pay for the nationwide interconnection systems, which serve as the technological backbones of public radio and television; to provide safety and security for journalists working in war zones; to support the emergency broadcast system; or to produce or distribute music, children’s or other educational programming, or documentaries,” he wrote. 

Trump administration lawyers, Moss wrote, were unable to “explain why NPR’s purportedly ‘biased’ political reporting means that its production and distribution of programming like ‘Tiny Desk Concerts,’ … runs afoul of the NEA’s authorizing statute.”

the get up and go, got up and went