Wisconsin
After ‘dumpster fire’ ‘Deal or No Deal Island’ debut, the one thing Wisconsin chef Luke would do differently. And, who he’s rooting for.
Luke Olejniczak left the Banker’s private island with something worth far more than the measly dollar that ended up being in his “Deal or No Deal” case.
While brief, the private chef’s stint as a contestant on “Deal or No Deal Island” Season 2 served up “rich experiences,” including getting to do what he loves — fishing, cooking and running — in a tropical paradise.
And, it reaffirmed that Wisconsin is where he belongs, leaving him with a deeper love for his home state and its people.
“It was a blessing to be on the show. I was lucky to be a part of a star-studded cast,” he told the Journal Sentinel over the phone Thursday. “I will be remembered for the worst deal in ‘Deal or No Deal (Island)’ history. That’s worth something, right? You just roll up the carpet and move on with life.”
From his childhood home, Olejniczak tuned into the premiere Tuesday night with his parents (ICYMI: A recap of the episode can be found here).
What was it like seeing himself on TV? “It definitely built some perspective, right? It always seems like it could be someone else. It’ll never be you. But, it was kind of neat to see.”
We chatted with Olejniczak about his best — and worst — moments on the show, if there’s anything he would’ve done differently, and which contestants he’s rooting for now that he’s been eliminated.
Plus, the million-dollar question: Would Olejniczak ever do TV again?
What was Luke Olejniczak most proud of from his time on ‘Deal or No Deal Island’?
“I was most proud of how I conducted myself,” Olejniczak said. “I wasn’t any different on the show than I would be in real life. I just kept my Wisconsin values.”
While his debut was a “dumpster fire” — his words, not ours — at least no one could call him a “snake” or “manipulative,” he said.
“That’s not who I am and I wasn’t going to be that on the show,” he said.
What was most unexpected or surprising to Luke Olejniczak when he watched the premiere episode?
It was when David Genat said that he told teammates Olejniczak and New Yorker Seychelle Cordero to wait before going down the zipline during the season’s first excursion, Olejniczak said.
For context …
In a game, called the Banker’s Pyramid Scheme, there was a pyramid comprised of nearly $5 million worth of briefcases.
The three sides of the pyramid each represented a different strategy. While side one had the highest-value cases, to get to it, contestants would have to navigate a slippery and rocky path over water. To reach side two, with the medium-value cases, players would have to go through a longer-but-safer jungle path. Side three contained three red, unmarked cases: A steal, a swap and the lowest value in the game. Contestants would have to take a zipline to get to those.
The path each contestant selected not only determined the cases they could choose from, but also their team. Olejniczak teamed up with Genat and Cordero to take on side 3.
With a bird’s-eye view of the pyramid from the zipline’s tower, Genat seemed to think it best for him and his team to hold off on going down the zipline until they saw who snagged the $1 million case.
But, it looked like Olejniczak couldn’t wait, shouting, “Here we go, babyyy!,” on his descent. And, soon after, Cordero followed suit.
Olejniczak told the Journal Sentinel that, when he and Cordero got up on the tower to take the zipline, he didn’t hear Genat tell them to wait, noting that Genat “sure speaks quietly.”
“I didn’t hear that ever,” Olejniczak said.
On the show, Genat sarcastically remarked: “Strategic geniuses over here.”
“This is crazy,” Genat said in a cutaway. “Neither of them has seen anything. They’re just straight up the ladder, on the zipline and gone.”
Olejniczak was first to lock in his case.
Genat — who said he felt like he was partnered with “The Three Stooges” — mocked Olejniczak from the zipline tower, saying: “I’m the fastest out here. I don’t know what’s in my case, but I won.”
When watching the premiere, Olejniczak said that “Stooges” remark from Genat caught him off-guard.
After the game, it was time to unveil what each contestant had in their case. Olejniczak’s? He had the “steal.”
Genat revealed that his team’s “predetermined plan” — which didn’t air — was to take the highest-value case from the lowest-value grouping.
So, instead of stealing one of the not-yet-opened cases — which contained the highest values in the game — Olejniczak opted for the largest visible case value at that particular point. That decision, in part, landed his team in last place.
“At the end of the day, there’s no excuses,” Olejniczak said. “I should have been quicker on my thinking and I should have been smarter to go ahead and steal a case from the other group. And, I paid for it, as I should have.”
But, that’s the one thing he would’ve done differently on the show.
“I would’ve stole a case from the other group,” he said. “To be completely honest, I didn’t understand the case values. I didn’t realize what I was really doing at the time. I thought our plan was foolproof. That’s why I went with it. But, like I said, I should’ve put a little more thought into it and picked from the other group of cases.”
Did Luke Olejniczak know that David Genat and Parvati Shallow were ‘Survivor’ legends?
“Not a clue,” Olejniczak laughed. “I don’t watch a lot of TV. I don’t make time for that.”
When he did find out their credentials, he said he “really wasn’t that surprised.”
“I kind of just shrugged my shoulders and moved on,” he said.
Why Seychelle Cordero seemed so ‘venomous’ towards Luke Olejniczak
“Some of the things that happened on the island — which were huge to the story — never made it on film,” Olejniczak said. “For instance, Seychelle looked absolutely venomous towards me. There’s a reason for that.”
Ending up with the highest-value case in the excursion, Californian Sydnee Peck got to pick which contestant from the bottom team — Olejniczak, Ganet or Cordero — would face the Banker in the season’s first game of “Deal or No Deal”.
If that contestant would make a good deal with the Banker, they’d get to send one of their other two teammates home. If they made a bad deal, they would be eliminated.
Olejniczak made it abundantly clear on the show that he wanted to be the one to play.
Olejniczak told the Journal Sentinel that ahead of time, Peck informed him that she would be putting him up on the chopping block, as he wished.
After that, Olejniczak said he gave Genat a “gentleman’s handshake” and told him: “If I win in temple, I will not send you home.”
Olejniczak said he then had a face-to-face conversation with Cordero, giving her the heads-up that “if I win, you are going home.”
“She’s a New Yorker. She’s got spunk,” Olejniczak said. “But, she’s not a horrible person. She had reason to be upset. But, I was a little disappointed that the handshake between David and I never hit the footage because that was a big part of it. And, I would’ve stood by that handshake.”
Why did Olejniczak want to keep Genat around over Cordero? During their “very limited” interactions, Olejniczak thought Genat seemed more trustworthy.
“If I was going to create an alliance, I’d rather tie my kite string to David’s than Seychelle,” he said. “I think Seychelle would be loyal. But, I mean, I think David is going to pull you further if you had to rely on somebody.”
What was Luke Olejniczak’s favorite moment that aired?
Olejniczak’s case dedication to his father.
When it came time for Olejniczak to select his own case for his game of “Deal or No Deal,” he went with No. 7.
He said it represented the seven national titles won by former football coach Nick Saban. Six of those were won during his tenure with Alabama Crimson Tide, a team Olejniczak’s dad is a huge fan of.
“Roll Tide, baby!” Olejniczak said on the show. “Woo!”
Is there anything Luke Olejniczak would have done differently in his game of ‘Deal or No Deal’?
Nope!
While it was “apparent” that the Banker’s $218,000 offer was a good one — and if it was, Olejniczak would’ve gotten to stay and send Cordero home — part of Olejniczak would’ve felt guilty, he said.
“She really didn’t do anything wrong,” he said. “And, I kind of felt that it’s probably more right that I go home.”
If it was “destiny” for him to continue in the competition, he said, the No. 7 case he had chosen would have pulled him through.
“It didn’t. I went home. That’s the way it should’ve been. And, Seychelle got to play on,” he concluded.
Now that Luke Olejniczak has been eliminated, who is he rooting for?
While Olejniczak doesn’t have “ill will” toward any of his fellow contestants, he said, there are a couple he holds in “high regard.”
His No. 1 would be Rock, who he talks to weekly. That’s who he wants to see win the whole darn thing.
“He could have came from Wisconsin,” Olejniczak said. “He calls it like it is. He’s trustworthy. He has dignity. I would trust that guy with the keys to my house and the credit cards in my wallet.”
But, he wouldn’t mind seeing Genat “do some damage” as well. Olejniczak has kept in touch with him, too, to an extent, as well as La Shell Wooten.
What else Luke Olejniczak got to do while on the Banker’s island
The contestants were instructed to bring things to keep themselves entertained during down time, Olejniczak said. While most brought books, word puzzles and Sudoku, he said, he brought fishing poles and his walleye tackle.
While he didn’t catch any fish on the Banker’s island, he “pounded the heck” out of ’em later when he went out with a guide. He even got to cook his catches with a local chef.
“It was a beautiful time,” he said.
He also smoked fine cigars and ran his “ass off,” doing five to 10 miles a day.
“Come on, did I really lose?” he said.
What was it like going back to everyday life after ‘Deal or No Deal Island’?
“I was ready for it. I really was,” Olejniczak said. “Beyond the rich experiences I got from just the overall time there, I got perspective in the fact that I really am where I belong.”
While people fantasize about living in a tropical destination, he said, “I love it here in Wisconsin.”
“I absolutely love Eagle River. I love the people of Wisconsin. I love everything about this area.”
His first stop when he got back? Kwik Trip, naturally.
It was “phenomenal” to see his folks and friends again, he said, and his dogs, who ran to him when they saw him.
“I’m very much excited to get back to something that I’m good at that’s called cooking,” Olejniczak said.
In addition to putting on his private dinners, he’s looking forward to getting back onto the icy lake for walleye fishing, as well as tracking with his two scent hounds.
Would Luke Olejniczak ever do TV again?
“I think we should stick to what we’re good at,” Olejniczak said. “I’m gonna stick to the cooking and working with my dogs. I’m not saying no, but it’s very unlikely I will ever be on reality television again.”
And, why’s that?
“Let’s face it, I’m not very good,” he said. “And, furthermore, it takes me away from the place that I love and the people that I love.”
Wisconsin
These Wisconsin swing voters say Trump’s war in Iran wasn’t worth it
Vessels are anchored along the Strait of Hormuz.
Amirhossein Khorgooei/ISNA/AFP via Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Amirhossein Khorgooei/ISNA/AFP via Getty Images
The war in Iran was a costly blunder, according to swing voters in the battleground state of Wisconsin.
NPR observed two online focus groups on Tuesday featuring voters who supported Joe Biden in 2020 and then Donald Trump in 2024.
President Trump had just announced a framework agreement to end the war, which he signed on Wednesday.
Yet among the focus groups’ 13 participants, no one said they thought the conflict with Iran was “worth it,” and nine said they felt that the U.S. is coming out of this conflict weaker than before.
Corey M., a 33-year-old independent voter, said he is concerned that the U.S. expended “so much financially and so much of our arsenal,” with little to show for it. (All participants agreed to be part of the focus groups on the condition that they be identified by their first name and last initial only.)
“We essentially got nothing out of it,” he said. “It’s hurt our economy and increased expenses for the everyday American, and it accomplished the square root of nothing.”
Focus groups are not scientifically significant like polling. But they provide insight into how Americans are thinking about what they see in the news.

These focus groups — made up of 10 self-described independents, two Democrats and one Republican — were conducted by messaging and market research firms Engagious and Sago as part of the Swing Voter Project. NPR is a partner on the project.
Rich Thau, president of Engagious, moderated the focus groups. He has been asking voters in key states about this conflict since March. And he said voters have been consistent.
“They were never on board,” Thau said. “Not the beginning. Not in the middle. And as we just learned, not at the end either, judging from what we heard from Wisconsin swing voters.”
Sam M., a 30-year-old independent, said from what he read about the deal, it wasn’t leaving the U.S. in a better position than before the war. In fact, he said he thought the Iran nuclear deal brokered by the Obama administration — which Trump backed out of — was a better deal for the United States.
Anger over high gas prices
For most voters, though, their biggest concern has remained the high gas prices that are a consequence of the war.
Tammy S., a 53-year-old independent voter, said Americans have been unfairly caught in the middle.
“I just don’t think the way that everybody else had to suffer through the tantrums of these two playing tug-of-war — I just don’t think that it was fair to the American people,” she said. “I don’t think that anybody was a real winner here.”

Several voters said they’ve felt squeezed by costs and as a result have given up something that had been a regular part of their life. They’ve cut vacations and eating out or are getting their hair done less often.
“I’ve given up all my extracurricular hobbies … paddleboarding, yoga,” said Jaylyn M., a 27-year-old who identifies as a Republican. “And then a lot of my subscriptions I’ve cut out, along with my daily coffee, which is minor, but all things that I’ve had to give up to make ends meet.”
“I had to raise all my deductibles on everything — my car insurance, my health insurance — to lower my premiums, so that I can continue to make it,” added Robyn T., a 63-year-old independent.
Trump owns the economic problems
The latest NPR/PBS News/Marist poll, out Thursday, finds that only a third of Americans approve of how Trump is handling the economy.
In the focus groups, nine of the 13 voters said they are more anxious about the economy than they were before Trump took office last year. And all but one voter said that “President Trump himself is responsible for those higher prices” because of the war.
“And 10 said he’s out of touch with their economic concerns,” Thau told NPR. “So for them, there’s a clear disconnect between how the president’s operating on the economy and what their needs are.”
And heading into what could be some tough midterm elections for Republicans, voters are really frustrated that Trump isn’t delivering a better economy by now.
“It seems to me, like, pick your issue, and things are not going well for him,” said Josh K., a 29-year-old independent voter. “I mean, we got this stupid war in Iran, and it turns out that we actually aren’t getting anything out of it. I mean, all we got was $4 gas. I mean, pick your issue — the economy, things are more expensive.”
Wisconsin
President of Wisconsin’s largest mosque released from ICE custody
A federal judge has ordered the release of the president of Wisconsin’s largest mosque, after finding that immigration officials probably detained him in retaliation against his public advocacy for Palestinian rights, suppressing his first amendment rights in the process.
The US district judge James Patrick Hanlon’s order on Thursday marked a sharp rebuke against Trump officials, including the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, who had tried to paint Salah Sarsour as a national security threat.
“Salah Sarsour, who has lived in this country for more than three decades and served as a core pillar in his community without any issues, should never have been detained in the first place,” his legal team wrote in a statement. “While we continue to fight these baseless claims in court, today is about celebrating a family being reunited. It is also a sober reminder that, if the government can target Mr Sarsour, everyone’s free speech rights are at risk.”
Sarsour describes himself as a stateless Palestinian, according to the order. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) says that he is a Jordanian citizen. He has lived in the United States for more than three decades, becoming a legal permanent resident in 1998. Immigration officials approved Sarsour’s citizenship application decades ago, though he did not naturalize.
Sarsour has garnered public attention as a champion for Palestinian rights, and serves as a board member of an advocacy group called American Muslims for Palestine.
But Rubio personally signed off on a memo to the DHS last year describing Sarsour as deportable despite his green card, because “his actions undermine US foreign policy to combat antisemitism around the world”. The memo, cited in Hanlon’s order, accuses Sarsour’s group of being “found to have been involved in activities providing funds to Hamas”.
A group of plainclothes ICE officers from at least 10 unmarked vehicles swarmed Sarsour on 30 March of this year, arresting him and putting him in deportation proceedings. ICE ultimately detained him in Clay county jail in Indiana.
Sarsour lost 30lb while detained, the order says. His lawyers told the court that he was “at constant risk of developing serious complications from diabetes given that the medical staff only checks his blood-sugar levels once a month”. Tightly controlling diabetes typically requires multiple glucose checks daily.
Hanlon’s order says that homeland security officials and Rubio probably trampled on Sarsour’s first amendment right to free speech and appeared to have arrested him in retaliation for his Palestinian rights advocacy.
The order cited a New York Times story and the website for the Heritage Foundation, the conservative thinktank that dreamed up Project 2025,
The Heritage Foundation presented the White House with the idea to present prominent foreign-born Muslims and Palestinian rights leaders as terrorists in order to sue them, deport them or pressure employers to fire them, the order says, citing reporting from the Times and Heritage’s own website. Sarsour was probably among the targets of that campaign, the order says.
The federal government, through its lawyers, contended that Sarsour should be deported based on two convictions from more than three decades ago in Israel – one for throwing a molotov cocktail and the other for attempting to store weapons and ammunition.
Sarsour denies having committed those crimes.
But Hanlon viewed those crimes as a non-issue for justifying his incarceration, noting that the federal government knew about them since the 1990s and approved his legal permanent residency and his citizenship application anyway.
Sarsour’s speech on Palestinian rights “is core political speech and squarely within the scope of the First Amendment”, the order says. “Mr Sarsour has submitted evidence allowing a reasonable inference that his protected speech was ‘at least a motivating factor’ in Respondents’ decision to detain him.”
A spokesperson for homeland security described Sarsour as a “terrorist”, citing the convictions from his youth in Israel.
Government lawyers had argued that Sarsour did not have the same first amendment rights as US citizens. If he were released, they said, he should have to pay a $25,000 bond, wear an ankle monitor, check in routinely with ICE and remain confined to his house.
Instead, Hanlon ordered his release on personal recognizance, meaning that Sarsour does not have to pay a cash bond to compel him to show up in court again. The order, however, requires him to remain in the state of Wisconsin.
Wisconsin
Couple asks Wisconsin Supreme Court to hear Brewers 50-50 raffle prize dispute
(WLUK) – A couple challenging the decision not to award them a 50-50 raffle prize at a Milwaukee Brewers game asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to take the case, calling it one of “statewide importance.”
Matthew and Annette Flynn purchased ten raffle tickets at the July 7, 2023, game, and held the winning number which was originally selected for $13,000. According to court records, the raffle rules in effect at the time required the winning ticket holder to claim the prize at a designated 50-50 table by the end of the top of the seventh inning. Flynn said she did not see the winning number displayed or hear it announced and was directed by stadium personnel to another location before making her way to the claim table. Officials determined she did not arrive before the deadline and selected a new winning ticket.
The Flynns sued, but the circuit and appeals courts ruled the raffle’s rules gave the foundation sole discretion to determine the official winner and that the rules clearly stated a participant who failed to claim the prize within the specified time would be disqualified.
In a petition to the Wisconsin Supreme Court filed Wednesday, the Flynn’s asked the high court to take the case, saying the decision “affects not only the parties to this action but potentially every Wisconsin resident who participates in charitable raffles and similar gaming activities.”
“This case presents significant questions concerning contractual discretion, discovery, judicial review of charitable gaming decisions, and the treatment of digital evidence within Wisconsin’s appellate system. For these reasons, Petitioners respectfully request that this Court grant review of the decision of the Court of Appeals,” the petition states.
The high court does not have to take the case. At some point, it will vote on if to take it. If it does, a months-long process to review the issues will begin. If it does not, the appeals court ruling would stand.
According to the rules posted on the Milwaukee Brewers’ website, the deadline to claim the prize is no longer during the game the tickets were purchased.
BE THE FIRST TO COMMENT
“The Participant in possession of the Raffle ticket with the potential winning number may claim the Prize at the 50/50 Table located on the Loge (2nd) level concourse behind Sections 216/217 until such time as the Ballpark officially closes to fans after the end of the game. If the Participant in possession of the Raffle ticket with the potential winning number does not claim the Prize by the time the Ballpark closes to fans after the end of the game, that Participant may still claim the Prize within thirty (30) days after the conclusion of the Raffle Period for the respective baseball game by contacting the Raffle hotline (414-902-4334). A Prize that is not claimed within thirty (30) days after the conclusion of the Raffle Period will be awarded in compliance with applicable regulations,” the site states.
-
Detroit, MI10 minutes agoTop 10 ‘Hour Detroit’ Covers, As Voted By Readers
-
San Francisco, CA22 minutes agoInjured SFPD officer released from hospital after line-of-duty shooting
-
Dallas, TX25 minutes ago25,000 free Dallas teen passes available June 29 for museums, zoo and more
-
Miami, FL30 minutes ago3 wildfires burn over 20,000 acres in Miami-Dade ahead of long-awaited rain
-
Boston, MA37 minutes agoBoston is opening outdoor drinking areas during the World Cup. Here’s how it works.
-
Denver, CO40 minutes agoClaimed by Christ, Free in Him: Archbishop Golka Celebrates First Juneteenth Mass in Denver
-
Seattle, WA45 minutes ago‘Seattle News Weekly’: FIFA World Cup 2026 at Seattle Stadium
-
San Diego, CA52 minutes agoIt’s NASCAR weekend in Coronado. Here’s what San Diegans need to know.