Chuck Isenhart is an investigative reporter, photographer and recovering Iowa state legislator offering research, analysis, education and public affairs advocacy at his Substack newsletter Iowa Public Policy Geek, where a version of this essay first appeared.

Iowa has a new director of the Office for State-Federal Relations. But it’s not clear whether anyone is looking out for Iowa as the federal government slashes programs.

Madeline Willis, a former staffer for U.S. Senators Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst and U.S. Representative Zach Nunn (IA-03), posted on LinkedIn that she accepted “a position with Governor Kim Reynolds as her DC-based Director of State and Federal Relations” in April. Only a few weeks earlier, the Iowa Senate had confirmed Eric Baker as director of that office, an “independent agency” position he had held for the past two years.

I put “independent” in quotes because, although Iowa Code says the Office for State-Federal Relations is a nonpartisan program “accessible to all three branches of state government,” Baker led that office from Des Moines while also serving as Governor Kim Reynolds’ director of strategic operations.

While the office is “attached to the office of the governor for administrative purposes,” the agency is not intended to be the governor’s personal lobbyist. (Before 2024, the law required the office to be located in Washington, D.C.)

For two years until January 20, 2025, Iowa’s federal relations consisted mostly of Attorney General Brenna Bird suing President Joe Biden with nods of approval from the governor. Also, a lot of energy has been expended resisting federal programs like summer food assistance for school kids or applying for waivers to run the programs, what, the Iowa way?

Since January 25, President Trump has issued executive orders and directed his “Department of Government Efficiency” to slash federal funding and programs that support initiatives, projects and services in Iowa and other states. (The legal authority for many of the actions is suspect, but that’s a story for others to cover.)

Who is keeping track of how these moves are impacting Iowa? Who is advocating with federal officials to protect Iowa’s interests? For sure the Office for State-Federal Relations, right?

I wrote about this in a previous Policy Geek post titled Doing Something. At the end of that post, I wrote that I would need to file a formal public records request to get a response, since Baker had not responded to my e-mails.

WHAT THE OFFICE FOR STATE-FEDERAL RELATIONS IS SUPPOSED TO DO

For the record, this is what Iowa Code sets as the required (“shall”) duties of the Office for State-Federal Relations:

a. Coordinate the development of Iowa’s state-federal relations efforts which shall include an annual state-federal program to be presented to Iowa’s congressional delegation, the sponsorship of training sessions for state government officials, and the maintenance of a management information system.

b. Provide state government officials with greater access to current information on federal legislative and executive actions affecting state government.

c. Advocate federal policies and positions which benefit the state or are important to state government.

d. Monitor federal budget policies and assistance programs and assess their impact on the state.

e. Strengthen the working relationships between state government officials and Iowa’s congressional delegation.

f. Improve the state’s ability to establish key contacts with federal officials, officials from other states, organizations, business groups, and professional associations in order to share information and form cooperative agreements.”

MY REQUEST AND THEIR RESPONSE

On March 25, I solicited this information from the governor’s office:

1. Is the Office of Governor Kim Reynolds or the Iowa Office for State-Federal Relations keeping track of federal funding being withdrawn or withheld from state agencies, universities, NGOs and private entities in the state as a result of presidential executive orders or activities of DOGE since January 20, 2025? Please provide related documents.

2. Is or has the Office or the governor advocated that some or all of such funding be maintained/restored? Please provide such communications.

3. Please send me the current and immediately previous annual state-federal program presented to Iowa’s congressional delegation, per code section 7E.1.

4. Please provide any documents or communications dated January 1, 2024, or later related to the Office’s duty to “monitor federal budget policies and assistance programs and assess their impact on the state.”

On April 22 I received a response. (Full disclosure: I spent a couple more weeks badgering the public records official for a response she had already provided. I missed it because my e-mail software was malfunctioning and failing to forward communications to my inbox. Public apology for that.)

In any case, verbatim, here are the responses I received:

1. No documents that keep track of withdrawn or withheld federal funding under the circumstances you describe are maintained by the Office of the Governor (“IGOV”) or the Iowa Office of State-Federal Relations (“IOSFR”). As to documents reflecting federal funding under the circumstances you describe, see documents produced and privilege log.

2. No documents are believed to exist in IGOV that advocate for maintaining or restoring such funding under the circumstances you describe.

3. No documents are believed to exist in IGOV or IOSFR which contain the presentation identified in Iowa Code §7F.1(4)(a).

4. No documents are believed to exist in IGOV or IOSFR which contain the information identified in Iowa Code §7F.1(4)(c).

Well….

Honestly, I was not expecting there to be much, but nothing? I sent a follow-up inquiry: “The lack of any e-mails or letters to or from Mr. Baker among the records provided suggests that Mr. Baker has had no written communications with federal officials or others regarding changes in federal programs and funding since January 20. Is this a fair conclusion?”

A 13-page briefing document on the March 31 Iowa visit by U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins was withheld under “executive privilege.” A case pending in Iowa courts will decide how much if any power the governor has to withhold records created by her staff. Only one part of the brief was visible: the following tables listing “frozen” and “unfrozen” U.S. Department of Agriculture funds. (Apparently someone somewhere has been keeping track of those.)

I assume that most of the 13-page briefing (which the governor’s office withheld, citing “executive privilege”) discussed how tariffs could hurt Iowa agriculture. Reynolds subsequently praised President Trump for using tariffs as “leverage to force our trading partners to the table.” She said she was working “directly with the administration to ease the short-term impact” on Iowa. No evidence of that was provided in other documents I received in response to my records request.

OTHER DOCUMENTS SHOW CONCERN OVER DEI…

The documents produced were heavily redacted (blacked out) because, as the “mental impressions of information” by a lawyer, the governor claimed them to be exempt from disclosure under Chapter 22 (Iowa’s public records law) as the “work product of an attorney, which are related to litigation or claim made by or against a public body.” (I have asked for information on the litigation or claims involved.)

Three letters came from Stan Thompson, senior legal counsel for the governor. They were sent to officials at the three public universities, reminding them that “the Governor’s executive branch responsibilities include the Board of Regents and taking care that laws are faithfully executed.”

The “laws” in question: President Trump’s executive orders titled “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing” and “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit Based Opportunity.”

Thompson’s communication also referred to a February “dear colleague letter” sent by the U.S. Department of Education to educational institutions that receive federal funds. The dear colleagues were addressed about “DEI as a form of covert racial discrimination.”

The only other documents were from the Iowa Board of Regents and the Iowa Department of Transportation. The DOT provided a snapshot of existing federal formula funds. Through the Board of Regents, the universities were asked by the governor in February to provide lists of federal contracts that had DEI provisions.

…BUT NO WORRIES ABOUT LOSS OF FEDERAL FUNDING

On the other hand, no records were provided that suggest the governor or Office for State-Federal Relations is concerned about the loss of millions of university research dollars that keep hundreds of scientists employed and hundreds of graduate students in school, including funding for cancer research. For other examples, look here. And here.

The University of Iowa, Iowa State University, and the University of Northern Iowa each has its own state-federal relations officer. Perhaps they have been contacting the federal government and advocating for themselves independent of the governor and her Board of Regents, but that would surprise me.

montage of headlines created by Chuck Isenhart

If letters, e-mails, or other documents to or from the governor or Office for State-Federal Relations don’t exist, that suggests any such business is conducted in face-to-face meetings and/or via phone, with no recordings or minutes, leaving no footprints. No pics, didn’t happen. Covert government operation.

Or maybe our elected leaders and their appointed officials don’t care much about, or actually support, the federal disembowelment of state and local government capacity to serve the public. Channeling Grover Norquist has been a Republican hobby lately.

Direct services to Iowa business and industry are also impacted. Earlier this year, I wrote about the Trump administration’s efforts to destroy the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. I wonder if a new request for more recent state records would reveal any official concern for a pending loss of health care coverage for Iowa Medicaid recipients. Or what repeal of Endangered Species Act protections would mean for a state that is virtually denuded of wetlands, grasslands and woodlands while so much crop ground is planted bare, making it vulnerable to wind erosion and thirsty for poisonous chemicals to remain productive. (I wonder how many toxins were deposited on my car when soil rained down Friday night.)

Not surprisingly, the Iowa legislature made no emergency provisions for lost funding in its “federal monies and regulations” bill. During Iowa House debate on the health and human services budget bill, Democratic State Representative Adam Zabner asked how the state would deal with a potential loss in federal Medicaid funding. GOP State Representative Ann Meyer (the bill’s floor manager) said “Republicans are dedicated to fully funding Medicaid” but gave no assurances that the state would pay to protect Iowans if Congress cuts coverage and services.

Neither the House nor Senate State Government Oversight Committees scheduled hearings about how the first 100 days of President Trump’s administration affected Iowa. The House committee chair, Charley Thompson, was too busy harassing migrant groups.

When it comes to agriculture funding, the governor may be leaving it all up to the Iowa Farm Bureau, the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association, and Iowa Agriculture Secretary Mike Naig. But endangered species, clean water, and clean air still fall under the purview of the Department of Natural Resources, which is accountable to the governor and presumably lobbying the Environmental Protection Agency, with at least some cc’s (or maybe bcc’s) to the Office for State-Federal Relations.

Keeping track of the whirlwind of changes coming down on Iowa from on high in Washington could be a full-time job. Maybe freezing with that “deer-in-the-headlights” look is understandable. Apparently the DOGE armada barreling down the road didn’t see the “deer crossing next 100 miles” sign. On the other hand, having the state’s Office for State-Federal Relations go AWOL does not seem to be an appropriate response.

Rick Morain, retired editor and publisher of the Jefferson Bee and Herald, recently wrote about how changes are affecting Greene County. Black Hawk County Supervisor Chris Schwartz and retired educator Kamyar Enshayan hosted a public meeting in Waterloo in March to gather testimony on how changes the Trump Administration is making while Congress looks on are affecting their communities. Even if state leaders aren’t responding, local leaders can respond if prepped with current and accurate information.

That seems like a worthy “do something” endeavor that could help people realize we’re all in this together and that serfdom may be in store if we don’t get up, gang up, show up and speak up when and where decisions are being made. I hope more such forums are assembled. If you are being personally impacted by federal executive orders and DOGE commands, please comment on this post or message me. I may write again.

If no one keeps track of the score, the scoreboard can’t show that Iowa is losing. Don’t forget there is no mercy rule in politics.

Postscripts added after original publication:

1. The Iowa Department of Management maintains a grants “enterprise management system…which simplifies the grant identification and application process for state customers, and provides a unified grant management approach within state government.” I e-mailed department director Kraig Paulsen asking if the Department of Management has anything that might look like a scorecard. In response to public records requests, custodians are not required to create new documents to summarize or compile information or other records. The department may not be “keeping track,” so finding out what’s happening behind the curtains would take a request seeking individual communications about specific programs. In any case: No response yet.

2. The Iowa Department of Revenue administers the state Revenue Estimating Conference. That body’s work is used to predict financial resources Iowa will receive, which is used by the governor and legislature for budgeting purposes. With certain exceptions (such as dipping into reserves to the tune of $900 million for fiscal year 2026), the state cannot appropriate more than 99 percent of estimated General Fund revenue. Presumably, receipts will be affected by program and employment impacts prompted by Trump Administration actions. Is the Department of Revenue keeping track and factoring that in? I e-mailed director Mary Mosiman to get an interaction started. No response yet.

3. Because the Office for State-Federal Relations is to be “accessible to all three branches of state government,” I wondered if the legislature has been contacted recently. I suppose being “accessible” does not require the agency to reach out, only to respond. In any case, I emailed Iowa House Chief Clerk Meghan Nelson and Secretary of the Iowa Senate Charlie Smithson to ask if any recent communications have been received. No response yet.

4. I reported in a previous post (Doing Something) that the Iowa Judicial Branch has not been contacted.

5. State law does not require that communication with federal government officials be conducted through the Office for State-Federal Relations or that such communications even be shared with the Office. Could be that any angst is being expressed directly by the departments, following oral communication with the governor’s office. On the other hand, Bleeding Heartland reporter Laura Belin reported that as recently as fiscal year 2023 the governor’s office assessed various state departments $188,721 to pay for the Office for State-Federal Relations as an “enterprise-wide effort.” If that’s still happening, then there must be evidence that the departments and taxpayers are getting something for their money, no?

6. If the Office for State-Federal Relations is as idle as it appears to be, one wonders why it wasn’t eliminated in the governor’s grand 2023 state government re-organization bill, like numerous other bodies on which average citizens were actively working, for free. In any case, maybe a time-motion study or quality improvement project would be in order for the Office for State-Federal Relations.