Gov. Jeff Landry tied pay raises for judges, prosecutors, firefighters, elected officials and possibly thousands of other state government workers to compensation for teachers Monday when he declared “nobody in state government” would get a pay raise if public school teachers don’t receive one.

It’s the first comment from the governor since voters soundly rejected five amendments to the Louisiana Constitution on Saturday, including four Landry personally campaigned to approve. Amendment 3, backed by the governor, would have given K-12 school teachers and support staff a permanent pay raise that’s mostly been covered through temporary stipends the past three years.

“In light of Amendment 3 falling short, I want to make it very clear — if our teachers don’t get a permanent raise this year, nobody in state government gets a pay raise. I mean nobody,” Landry wrote .

The governor posted his statement online while visiting Greenland as a special envoy for President Donald Trump.

Louisiana lawmakers, who are in session through June 1, have been considering salary increases for judges, prosecutors, Landry’s cabinet secretaries, firefighters in the state agriculture department, election workers and statewide elected officials, including the governor.

A bill to give the governor and other statewide elected officials a pay raise also includes new allowances, housing stipends and other forms of , though it wouldn’t raise their salaries.

Thousands of state workers across every state agency are also supposed to receive small pay increases this year through routine, annual “market rate adjustments” to their compensation. These hikes cost a total of $84.8 million for classified workers and $3.6 million for unclassified employees in the current budget proposal, according to the legislative fiscal office.

Landry’s office has not responded to requests for comment about whether his pay raise opposition applies to positions such as prosecutors, who are paid with a mix of local and state funding. It’s also unclear whether the governor’s declaration would affect routine “market rate adjustments” thousands of state government employees are expecting.

The governor’s staff also hasn’t provided clarification about whether Landry supports the legislature finding a new way to give teachers a permanent pay increase or another temporary stipend. His X post didn’t make it clear whether he wanted lawmakers to move forward with a teacher pay cut now that Amendment 3 failed or find a way to backfill the money.

Senate President Cameron Henry, R-Metairie, has said multiple times lawmakers in this year’s budget if Amendment 3 failed.

Without the stipends, public school teachers and school support staff would see pay cuts of $2,000 and $1,000, respectively, in the 2026-27 academic year.

As they ponder teacher pay, lawmakers already face a significant financial shortfall and have to make reductions to the budget plan the Louisiana House approved last month.

The state lowered its revenue projections a week and a half ago by $113 million for the current budget cycle and $104 million for the fiscal year that begins July 1. The drop in revenue is largely the result of personal income and corporate tax revenue coming in lower than expected after Landry and the legislators reduced the taxes in 2025, state economists said last week.

On top of making those cuts, state lawmakers would have to find $200 million in order to maintain the stipend for teachers and support staff. It would be even more expensive to give out the permanent $2,250 and $1,125 raises attached to Amendment 3.

“We would be hard pressed to find $200 million,” Senate Finance Committee chairman Glen Womack, R-Harrisonburg, said Monday.

Democratic leaders in the legislature have already said they will fight against a pay cut for teachers.

“The stipend should be permanent at a minimum and increased at best,” House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rep. Kyle Green of Marrero said. “We are absolutely going to be pushing for the stipend to be made permanent.”

“My personal preference is we find a way to fund that,” Senate Democratic Caucus Chairman Gerald Boudreaux of Lafayette said. “There’s going to have to be a whole lot of conversations.”

“It’s not going to be Republicans or Democrats. It’s going to have to be the will of the legislature,” Boudreaux said about avoiding a teacher pay cut.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman Jack McFarland, R-Jonesboro, who helped build the state budget plan, said he would also push back on any proposal to make the state firefighters’ raise contingent on a teacher raise.

Even if teachers receive a pay cut, McFarland said the firefighters’ raise, which would cost $5 million, should remain in the budget. Currently, state firefighters make $28,000 per year as an entry-level salary. The pay bump would increase that amount to $38,000 and is needed to attract candidates, he said.

“I can’t agree with [the governor] on that,” McFarland said of tying all state raises to those of teachers.

Amendment 3, which 58% of voters statewide rejected, would have freed up money to give teachers and support staff permanent raises by dissolving three public education trust funds that help pay for early childhood education, universities and other K-12 school programs.

The fund balances would have been used to pay off employee retirement debt at K-12 school districts and universities early to make money available to cover the educators’ salary increases.

Henry has previously said the public’s decision to vote down the amendment indicates they aren’t interested in a pay increase for teachers.

But Amendment 3 who has angered Democratic and Black voters in recent weeks over his handling of the congressional elections.

An opposition campaign urging people to “Vote No on All” five constitutional amendments as a means of protesting the governor . It likely contributed to the voters rejecting all the constitutional amendments, regardless of their content.

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Louisiana Illuminator maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Greg LaRose for questions: info@lailluminator.com.

was originally reported by Barbara Rodriguez of .��

A new health report by the Trump administration claims it wants more people in the United States to breastfeed their babies. Experts on the topic and caregiving advocates have a few suggestions — including a federal paid parental leave policy that the nation currently lacks.

The recommendation on breastfeeding is one of dozens in the released this week that aims to address childhood chronic disease. The details are scarce for now, but it commits that two federal agencies — the Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services — will work to increase breastfeeding rates through and “other policies” that support breastfeeding parents. The agencies will also work with federal partners to develop policies to promote and ensure a safe supply of donor human milk.

The MAHA report does not reference support for a federal paid parental leave program.

Experts agree that more breastfeeding is possible in the United States, but it will require the government to enact structural reform and to make financial investments — at a time when the president and his cabinet have proposed that could help.

“If we really want to tackle this issue, we know the solutions. We know the structural policies and investments it requires,” said Dawn Huckelbridge, founding director of the organization Paid Leave for All. “But instead of investing in working families they are slashing these investments and coming up with everything but the real fixes.”

About 84 percent of the 3.5 million parents who give birth each year in the United States initiate breastfeeding. But there is a major drop-off during the first months after birth, and fewer than 40 percent of U.S. infants are still receiving human milk when they turn a year old. Sixty percent of parents who begin breastfeeding report that they stopped sooner than they planned.

Rafael Pérez-Escamilla, a professor at the Yale School of Public Health who has extensively researched breastfeeding, said the high initiation rate shows that new parents are highly motivated. breastfeeding or pumping has health benefits to the nursing parent — it can reduce cardiovascular disease and rates of cancer — and the baby, whose immune system can be strengthened.

“So it’s not an issue that women don’t want to breastfeed. The issue is that the great majority, or half of the women who choose to breastfeed, cannot breastfeed for as long as they want. It’s not even as long as recommended, as long as they want. And it is because of these major structural barriers,” he said.

Pérez-Escamilla is one of several authors of a . That report, commissioned by Congress in 2023, offers evidence-based recommendations to improve and expand breastfeeding services and rates. Among its suggestions:

• A federal paid parental leave program
• More maternity services at designated that encourage breastfeeding
• More coordinated postpartum breastfeeding services between the federal government and states, since WIC is a federal program but is often administered by state and local health agencies
• Breastfeeding training in medical schools, nursing schools and other allied health professions
• Medicaid and private insurances need to cover more breastfeeding services and educate parents about the benefits available to them

The report was supported by a contract between the National Academy of Sciences and the health department that’s now led by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. A spokesperson for Kennedy did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the new MAHA report.

The United States is the only high-income country in the world that doesn’t have a federal mandate for paid maternity leave — to breastfeed exclusively for the first six months and then to continue for at least two years. That’s , and it has been .

Among parents of color, breastfeeding rates are lower for Black women, Native American and Alaska Native women. It also impacts women with lower socioeconomic status, unmarried women, women living in rural areas and younger mothers. Many are more likely to work in jobs that do not provide paid parental leave. The United States currently only allows some workers to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid time off after the birth or adoption of a child — but the protections of are not available to all employees, and even with that in place many are unable to afford it.

“We know that a very high proportion, especially of very low-income women, many of whom are women of color, end up having to go back to work very, very soon after birth,” added Pérez-Escamilla. “So they just don’t even have a chance to get their milk properly established. They don’t have that social support that they need.”

A federal paid parental leave policy in particular could be a game changer. that parents who received 12 or more weeks of paid leave were more likely to initiate breastfeeding when compared to parents with no paid leave. Those with paid leave are also more likely to be breastfeeding when their child is six months old.

In California, a paid family leave law enacted in 2004 that ensured mothers up to six weeks of some paid leave to have increased the overall duration of breastfeeding by nearly 18 days, and the likelihood of breastfeeding for at least six months by 5 percentage points.

“Establishing the breastfeeding relationship and establishing the breastfeeding supply is the most important thing when it comes to be able to being able to breastfeed, and that needs to happen right after birth,” said Inimai Chettiar, president of A Better Balance, a nonprofit organization that has advocated for worker protections for pregnant and postpartum people.

Chettiar said that beyond support for paid family leave, enforcement of existing laws is also key. Her organization runs a free legal helpline where parents report workplace complaints that may be in violation of and , two federal laws that have protections for postpartum parents.

“There is a need for policies — and enforcement. Enforcement of those policies around giving women space and time, not just to pump but to establish breastfeeding,” she said.

Chettiar also pointed to a need for ongoing research into maternal health disparities. Complications from delivery — which can impact milk supply — happen more frequently to .

“Not addressing the racial disparities around this seems like a huge gap, and I don’t see how any kind of program that tries to increase breastfeeding can be in any way successful without addressing the underlying health disparities,” she said.

Huckelbridge said her organization is advocating for a federal paid leave law, because the state-level system that has emerged in recent years to provide paid leave to new parents — 13 states and the District of Columbia have laws that guarantee paid family leave programs, while other states have partnered with insurance companies to offer optional policies — are not enough for the people who don’t live in those states.

“That is increasing the divide between the haves and have nots,” she said. “Until we have a federal program that is truly universal, it’s going to be really hard to reach people who need it most.”

The fact that breastfeeding even got a mention in the MAHA report was welcome news to Cecilia Tomori, an associate professor at Johns Hopkins University who has studied what it takes to increase breastfeeding. She was among the co-authors of the , and worked with Pérez-Escamilla on a series in that examines the impact of how infant formula is marketed to parents and its impact on breastfeeding. Kennedy has vowed and the MAHA report includes a blurb on developing new infant formulas.

“We welcome any opportunity to enhance support for breastfeeding, because it is indeed obviously crucial to maternal and child health, and really longer term outcomes,” she said. “In terms of how to implement changes that we need, there are many different ways to do that.”

Pérez-Escamilla said the administration’s focus on WIC can be a positive avenue, since the USDA, through the program, serves nearly half of all infants born in the United States. It offers low-income families a range of services, including a tailored food package and a peer lactation support program.

“The WIC program is clearly one of the key settings through which strengthening policies or new policies could be implemented,” he said.

But Tomori worries about cuts to other programs that provide food and nutritional support to low-income parents. President Donald Trump’s tax and spending law that he signed over the summer would , a separate program that helps poor families pay for groceries. , the federal-state health insurance program, also raised questions about the future of some related coverage for pregnant and postpartum parents.

“Food assistance makes a difference prenatally and postnatally,” she said. “If you want to influence health in a nation and to actually improve health over time, investing in supporting mothers and infants is one of the most effective strategies and provides the greatest return on investment. So anything that threatens that is going to have impacts on health.”

The MAHA report also called for promoting and ensuring a safe supply of donor human milk, a detail that Lindsay Groff finds promising. She is executive director of the Human Milk Banking Association of North America, a nonprofit organization that helps screen the donation of breast milk that can then be pasteurized and used in hospitals and outpatient settings to feed medically fragile children who are often in neonatal care. While the federal government inspects milk banks as food manufacturing facilities, the system is run by outside groups.

The issue intersects with breastfeeding. When a baby is born premature, a parent who intends to breastfeed may not be producing milk yet. Donor milk, which Groff called a “bridge,” helps fill that gap and increases the likelihood that a parent will be able to breastfeed later because the child may not be introduced to formula. The access can be lifesaving: Scientific evidence shows that using donor human milk can reduce cases of necrotizing enterocolitis, an intestinal disease that primarily impacts premature or very low birth weight infants.

Groff’s organization has advocated for that would increase federal funding for nonprofit donor milk. The bill includes setting up a mechanism for letting more people know about the role of human milk in saving lives and increasing breastfeeding.

“Having funding from the federal government could make a huge difference in our reach, in our ability to raise awareness — so that more people can donate milk, and more milk means helping more babies,” she said.

Pérez-Escamilla said it’s important to note that the solutions to increasing breastfeeding rates are multifaceted, and they require the federal government to work with states to ensure implementation of existing maternal health programs and new ones.

“It’s very complex. It involves, can you imagine: health care systems, social protection systems. It involves the education sector. It involves the employment and labor sector as well,” he said. “And it requires systems thinking and really understanding how to coordinate better.”

Mason Goodwin, a recent graduate of Atlanta Public Schools, told a Senate committee Friday that securing his diploma seemed to be more of a challenge for him than some of his classmates who live in different ZIP codes.

Goodwin said he comes from a lower-income, single-parent family, and he was one of several Georgia Youth Justice Coalition activists who came to the Capitol to urge lawmakers to provide extra funding for students living in poverty.

“Students that came from wealthier families were the ones that had resources to go into college ready classes, and to achieve academically,” Goodwin said. “Many low-income students like myself had to work instead of focusing on school, we didn’t have the same amount of time that we could put into classes as higher-income students. And most of us came from broken household situations like myself, we didn’t have access to counselors, we didn’t have support to handle those mental situations while also having to focus academically.”

Georgia is one of only six states that does not allocate specific state funds to help educate students living in poverty.

Lawmakers discussed removing the state from that list during the first meeting of a Senate study aimed at reviewing the way the state pays to teach its 1.6 million public school students.

The Quality Basic Education Act which created the formula used to dole out the money was signed in 1985, and it could be due for an update, said Senate Majority Leader Mike Dugan, chair of the Senate Study Committee to Review Educational Funding Mechanisms.

“The way we educate our children has changed in that time period,” the Carrollton Republican said. “And what this committee is to look at is, are we allocating the resources to the areas of education that are most appropriate today, and I’m just using some of these as an example. Like school counselors, that was a little different 40 years ago, than it is today, addressing mental health needs within the schools.”

School counselors are funded at a rate of one for every 450 students in Georgia, while the recommended ratio is one for every 250 students.

Supporters of changing the formula also hope to boost funding for programs like student transportation. Filling up and maintaining a fleet of school buses costs much more than it did in the 1980s, but local school leaders say they are stuck with limited money because of the outdated formula.

This is not the first time lawmakers have taken a crack at altering QBE, but previous attempts met strong resistance.

The QBE formula provides a set amount of money per student depending on their grade level and participation in programs like gifted and special education. Poverty advocates say also considering the family’s income could help direct resources to kids who need them the most.

Dugan asked Georgia Department of Education budget director Jon Cooper about how other states weigh poverty in their school funding formulas.

“Those that are in the poverty level are going to have a lower probability of their community being able to supplement their educational programs significantly, because if most of the students in that area are in a state of poverty, it’s probably further reaching than that particular school, right?” Dugan said. “So I’m interested in seeing the weighting that you’re talking about.”

Sen. Nan Orrock of Atlanta, the committee’s sole Democrat, expressed support for increasing funds for children living in poverty.

“It’s my firm conviction that kids from that background, with that poverty status, really have a better shot at succeeding, if there are more services funded and provided for them,” she said.

Sen. Lindsey Tippins, a Cobb County Republican who has focused on education issues during his legislative career, seemed more circumspect.

Before the state can consider adding a poverty weight, it will need to examine which schools receive money through Title I and decide how to get an accurate count of how many students in a district are living in poverty, he said.

“There’s an awful lot of areas to look at. QBE is difficult to understand,” he said. “But you have so many different varying conditions in the state of Georgia, I don’t think a simple formula is going to fairly address the vast differences in needs throughout the state. I’m not saying that QBE does not need to be looked at, the weights don’t need to be, I’m not saying they don’t need to be looked at, maybe they need to be adjusted. But I don’t think a cutting of the pie where everybody gets the same size piece, that’s not going to work in the state of Georgia. There’s a reason QBE’s complicated, because education in Georgia is complicated.”

Most states that give extra weight to children living in poverty use participation in free or reduced lunch to determine a student’s eligibility, but some are switching to other measures, including participation in other federal benefit programs or distributing supplemental income forms to families, said Chris Duncombe, senior policy analyst at Education Commission of the States.

Of those that participate, 22 states fund students dealing with poverty with a flat rate, which ranges from $190 per student to $7,272 per student.

The committee is scheduled to have two more . The first is set for Sept. 16 at Savannah State University, and the second is scheduled for Oct. 21 at Columbus State University.

“We’re going to have several of these, and we’re going to have conversations outside of these meetings where we start putting something together,” Dugan said. “The goal is to properly align the assets with the resources to best educate our youth in the state of Georgia and set them up for success.”

is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Georgia Recorder maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor John McCosh for questions: info@georgiarecorder.com. Follow Georgia Recorder on and .