Wisconsin regulators moved to pull the taps on a brewery that mocked President Trump—and the paper trail shows it was about permits and taxes, not politics.
Story Snapshot
- State notices targeted two brewer’s permits and a warehouse permit tied to Minocqua Brewing.
- Officials said beer came in from Illinois without proper Wisconsin permits or taxes.
- Agents seized canned beer weeks before revocation, signaling active enforcement.
- The owner can appeal; a hearing date was set and operations could continue during appeal.
What The State Did And Why It Matters
Wisconsin’s Department of Revenue told outlets it issued revocation notices for two brewer’s permits and an alcohol warehouse permit used by Minocqua Brewing. Reports from July said the action followed a June seizure of canned beer tied to alleged shipments from Illinois without required Wisconsin permits or tax payments. The agency framed the case as routine enforcement of alcohol and tax laws, not a political dispute, a stance that tracks with its published guidance.
The stakes reach beyond one taproom sign. Brewing permits are the backbone of legal production, storage, and distribution. When regulators allege product crossed state lines outside the allowed chain, revocation is a standard hammer. Wisconsin’s own tax guide warns that poor filing and payment histories can cost you your permit. The message is simple: move beer by the book, pay excise tax, and keep records tight, or risk losing the keys to the brewery.
The Allegations On The Table
Coverage cites three pillars: unauthorized retail activity, beer shipped in from Illinois without the right Wisconsin permits, and tax owed to Wisconsin on that product. The June seizure of canned beer shows this was not only a letter-writing fight. It was a field action backed by investigators. The department’s approach fits long-standing patterns in alcohol control, where interstate movement and tax collection trigger fast responses to protect the regulatory chain.
One report added that the department said the company could appeal, keep operating during that appeal, and had a set deadline to contest. By September, the matter had matured into a live threat for the Madison taproom, with a hearing scheduled and closure concerns rising. Process details like deadlines and hearing dates confirm this was formal enforcement, not a social media spat.
What The Owner Says—and How It Squares With The File
Owner Kirk Bangstad told supporters the letter arrived in late July and said he would fight it. He cast the dispute as paperwork tied to an Illinois contract-brewing setup and called the alleged violations laughable. He also claimed the state pegged the tax amount at under five hundred dollars. Those are strong rhetorical shots, but the dollar figure and full audit detail have not been publicly documented in depth in the reporting gathered so far.
🚨UPDATE: A brewery in Wisconsin that repeatedly promoted “free beer” for the day President Trump dies says its Madison taproom is now on the verge of SHUTTING DOWN!!
Minocqua Brewing Company’s owner says the location “will likely close by the end of the year” as they continue… pic.twitter.com/krQr8ooMIT
— Bethany O’Leary 🇺🇸 🦅 (@BethanyForTruth) September 26, 2026
Americans who value free speech can dislike the brewery’s “free beer when Trump dies” boasts and still insist the law decides the case. Regulators say the issue is permits and taxes; that claim aligns with how Wisconsin treats alcohol control for everyone. If the owner proves compliance, he wins on the record. If not, permits go away. That is equal treatment under the rules, which is what conservatives mean by one standard for all.
How To Read The Next Moves
The cleanest path forward runs through documents, not posts. The revocation notice, seizure inventory, and the audit that calculated any tax would answer core questions. If the appeal hearing proceeds, sworn testimony from investigators and company staff should clarify what moved where, when, and under which permits. Until then, two facts stand: the state seized beer and issued formal revocations; the owner says the state overreached and will appeal. Both can be true at once while the process plays out.
Sources:
washingtontimes.com, foxnews.com, nypost.com, jsonline.com
© totalconservative.com 2026. All rights reserved.
