logo
California isn't backing down on healthcare for immigrants, despite Trump threats

California isn't backing down on healthcare for immigrants, despite Trump threats

SACRAMENTO — One of the many traits that set California apart from other states is the way undocumented immigrants are woven into our communities.
Their economic impact is obvious, and the Golden State would be hard-pressed to keep our status as a world-competing financial power without their labor.
But most Californians know, and are OK with the reality, that at least some of our neighbors, our kids' classmates, our co-workers, are without legal documents, or in blended-status families.
Gov. Gavin Newsom took a stand Wednesday for those undocumented Californians that seems to have gone largely unnoticed, but which probably will be a big fight in Congress and courts. In his bad news-filled budget presentation, Newsom committed to keeping state-funded health insurance for undocumented residents (with cuts, deep ones, which I'll get to). Although some are disappointed by his rollbacks, many of which will hit citizens and noncitizens alike, standing by California's expansion to cover all low income people is a statement of values.
'We've provided more support than any state in American history, and we'll continue to provide more support than any state in American history,' he said.
Sticking with that promise is going to be tough, and likely costly.
This decision comes as Congress considers a Trump-led budget bill that would severely penalize states (there are 14 of them) that continue to provide health insurance to undocumented immigrants. California, of course, has the largest number of such folks on its Medi-Cal plan and would be the hardest hit if that penalty does indeed become the new law — to the tune of $27 billion over six years, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
To put that in perspective, the governor is now estimating a nearly $12-billion budget shortfall this year. That federal cut would add at least $3 billion a year to our costs once it hits.
That federal cut, Newsom said, was 'not anticipated in this budget,' which means we are ignoring it for the time being.
Federal programs aren't open to noncitizens, and no federal dollars are used to support California's expansion of healthcare to undocumented people.
But Congress is threatening an approximately 10% cut in reimbursements to states that insure undocumented people via the Medicaid expansion that was part of the Affordable Care Act. That expansion allows millions of Americans to have access to healthcare.
Those expansion funds are working in ways that many don't know about. For example, as Newsom pointed out, behavioral health teams doing outreach to homeless people are funded by Medicaid dollars.
In all, about one-third of Californians rely on Medi-Cal, including millions of children, so this threat to cut federal funds is not an empty one, especially in a lean year.
Katherine Hempstead, a senior policy advisor for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which advocates for universal healthcare, said that the bill being debated by Congress is so full of cuts to healthcare that arguing against the provision penalizing coverage for undocumented people may not be a priority for most Democrats — making it more likely that the cut will get through.
'I don't know if this is going to be a do-or-die issue,' she said.
And indeed, the pressure by Republicans to kill off coverage entirely for undocumented folks was quick.
'Gov. Newsom has only partially repealed his disastrous policy,' Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin) said in a statement. ' It needs to be reversed entirely, or Californians will continue to spend billions on coverage for illegal immigrants and our state will lose an even larger amount in federal Medicaid funding.'
Newsom has given economic reasons for sticking with the state's coverage for all low-income residents, regardless of status. When people don't have access to routine care, they end up in emergency rooms and that is extremely expensive. And also, Medicaid has to cover that emergency care, so taxpayers often end up spending more in the long run by skimping on upfront care.
'It's definitely important to the people that get the coverage because they don't really have an alternative,' Hempstead said.
But that care has been vastly more expensive than California expected, also to the tune of billions of dollars in unexpected costs, in part because so many people have signed up.
To the dismay of many, Newsom's budget reflects both recent economic woes — a $16-billion revenue hit caused by what he's dubbing the 'Trump slump' — as well as the state vastly understimating the cost of covering those undocumented folks.
That shortfall may force cuts in the coverage that undocumented people qualify for if the Legislature goes along with Newsom's plan, or even parts of it.
Most notably, it would cap enrollment for undocumented adults age 19 and over in 2026, effectively closing the program to new participants. That's a huge hurt. His plan also calls for adding a $100 per month premium, and other cuts such as ending coverage for the extremely popular and expensive GLP-1 weight loss drugs for all participants.
'I don't want to be in this position, but we are in this position,' Newsom said.
Amanda McAllister-Wallner, executive director of Health Access California, called those cuts 'reckless and unconscionable' in a statement.
'This is a betrayal of the governor's commitment to California immigrants, and an abandonment of his legacy, which brought California so close to universal healthcare,' she said.
I strongly believe in universal single-payer healthcare (basically opening up Medicare to everyone), so I don't disagree with McAllister-Wallner's point. In better days, I would hope to see enrollment reopen and benefits restored.
But also, we're broke. This is going to be a year of painful choices for all involved.
Which makes Newsom's, and California's, commitment to keep insurance for undocumented people notable. The state could back down under this real federal pressure, could try to find a way to claw back the benefits we have already given.
But there's a moral component to providing healthcare to our undocumented residents, who are such a valuable and vital part of our state.
Although the fiscal realities are ugly, it's worth remembering that in providing the coverage, California is sticking with some of its most vulnerable residents, at a time when it would be easier to cut and run.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Feds seek to ditch settlement over alleged redlining with North Jersey bank
Feds seek to ditch settlement over alleged redlining with North Jersey bank

Yahoo

time14 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Feds seek to ditch settlement over alleged redlining with North Jersey bank

The Trump administration is asking a judge to drop a 2022 settlement the Justice Department had reached with North Jersey-based Lakeland Bank — which was later absorbed by Provident Bank — over allegations of redlining against Black and Hispanic customers. While Provident Bank said it will continue to provide low-cost mortgages to underserved communities, the motion by the U.S. Justice Department to abandon the settlement has drawn the ire of community advocates and legal experts, who say it would make it easier for banks to engage in redlining. 'It goes without saying it's a good thing when financial institutions are complying with those consent orders, but when you take away the teeth — the actual enforcement — who's to say that they will continue to comply,' said Leila Amirhamzeh, director of community reinvestment for New Jersey Citizen Action, a consumer advocacy four-page motion by the Justice Department, filed May 28 in U.S. District Court, seeks to terminate the consent order the Biden administration negotiated with what was then Lakeland Bank. In the initial complaint, the Justice Department said Lakeland violated the federal Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act by deliberately avoiding banking with Black and Hispanic customers, particularly in and around Newark. The discrimination in question allegedly took place between 2015 and 2021, according to the Biden administration. To settle the complaint, Lakeland agreed to pay $12 million to subsidize mortgages, home improvement loans and home refinancing loans for Black and Hispanic residents and open two branches in underserved neighborhoods. Lakeland also had to provide $150,000 a year for advertising, outreach and consumer finance education in the Newark area. Newark Mayor and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Ras Baraka wanted one of those new branches to be in his city, and the Greater Toms River Chamber of Commerce also wanted a branch in its area. According to the Provident Bank website, there are currently four locations in Newark and three in Toms River. After acquiring Lakeland, Provident took ownership of the settlement and the mandate to open two branches in underserved areas of New Jersey. The Justice Department in its motion to terminate the order said Lakeland reached substantial commitment to comply with the consent agreement and it is committed to continuing its disbursement of the loan subsidy. Provident spokesperson Keith Buscio told and the USA TODAY Network New Jersey that the bank remains committed to the loan subsidy initiative. He said Provident is not a party to the litigation and referred other questions to the Justice Department. The Justice Department could not immediately be reached for comment. Baraka's office in Newark said it is planning to hold a press conference about the motion by the Justice Department on June 5. Court filings show two attorneys who helped file the initial complaint against Lakeland, Michael Campion and Susan Millenky, withdrew as counsel from the case. Campion was appointed in 2022 to lead the U.S. Attorney's Office's Civil Rights Division that was created to enforce federal civil rights laws in New Jersey. The Fair Housing Act was passed as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 to prohibit landlords and mortgage lenders from discriminating based on race, religion, national origin or sex. Nearly 60 years later, racial wealth disparity remains vast. In New Jersey, the median household wealth of white families is $322,500, compared with $17,700 for Black families and $26,100 for Hispanic families, the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice said. In New Jersey, 77.3% of white residents owned a home in 2020. By comparison, 42.8% of Black residents and 32.7% of Hispanic residents were homeowners, according to the Urban Institute, a research group. Critics said the Justice Department's motion to drop the Lakeland settlement is a step by the Trump administration's bid to reverse diversity, equity and inclusion programs. David Troutt, a professor at Rutgers Law School in Newark, said the motion by the Justice Department to terminate the consent decree is part of a larger campaign by the department to rescind investigations and agreements involving anti-Black racism, while beginning investigations into what it deems 'illegal DEI.' 'The Trump administration's withdrawal from a federal consent decree without justification is an extraordinary act of endorsing racist practices and housing market manipulation,' Troutt said. 'For the very government that successfully enforced those borrowers' civil rights to now repudiate them sends a message unlike any we've seen since the federal government first endorsed redlining in the 1930s,' Troutt said. Lakeland isn't the only New Jersey bank that faced scrutiny under the Biden administration. Toms River-based OceanFirst Financial Corp. agreed to pay $14 million to subsidize mortgages, helping settle a lawsuit that alleged the bank violated federal discrimination laws. Since then, it has improved the rating given by federal bank regulators who oversee investments in underserved communities to 'outstanding.' The Justice Department hasn't filed a motion seeking to terminate the consent order with OceanFirst. But two attorneys who represented the U.S. in the initial complaint, Millenky and Nathan Shulock, have filed motions to withdraw from the case, according to the court docket. A combined 22 Provident and Lakeland branches closed in 2024 following the $1.3 billion merger creating a 'super community bank.' Each branch that closed was within roughly three miles of a nearby branch. Activists and opponents warned that the merger would mean fewer banking services would be available for underserved communities, such as people of color, the elderly and disabled. New Jersey Citizen Action applauded Provident for its continued commitment to the terms of the consent order. But the group said the Justice Department should continue to enforce it. 'When you actually terminate these consent orders, there's no deterrence, and it's basically telling financial institutions that the Department of Justice is going to be taking a hands-off approach to fair lending issues, to redlining,' New Jersey Citizen Action's Amirhamzeh said. Daniel Munoz covers business, consumer affairs, labor and the economy for and The Record. Email: munozd@ Twitter:@danielmunoz100 and Facebook Michael L. Diamond is a business reporter for the Asbury Park Press. He has been writing about the New Jersey economy and health care industry since 1999. He can be reached at mdiamond@ This article originally appeared on Feds seek to drop Lakeland Bank settlement over alleged redlining

Trump formally asks Congress to claw back approved spending targeted by DOGE
Trump formally asks Congress to claw back approved spending targeted by DOGE

Los Angeles Times

time15 minutes ago

  • Los Angeles Times

Trump formally asks Congress to claw back approved spending targeted by DOGE

WASHINGTON — The White House on Tuesday officially asked Congress to claw back $9.4 billion in already approved spending, taking funding away from programs targeted by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency. It's a process known as 'rescission,' which requires President Donald Trump to get approval from Congress to return money that had previously been appropriated. Trump's aides say the funding cuts target programs that promote liberal ideologies. The request, if it passes the House and Senate, would formally enshrine many of the spending cuts and freezes sought by DOGE. It comes at a time when Musk is extremely unhappy with the tax cut and spending plan making its way through Congress, calling it on Tuesday a 'disgusting abomination' for increasing the federal deficit. White House budget director Russ Vought said more rescission packages and other efforts to cut spending could follow if the current effort succeeds. ' Here's what to know about the rescissions request: The request to Congress is unlikely to meaningfully change the troublesome increase in the U.S. national debt. Tax revenues have been insufficient to cover the growing costs of Social Security, Medicare and other programs. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the government is on track to spend roughly $7 trillion this year, with the rescission request equaling just 0.1% of that total. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters at Tuesday's briefing that Vought would continue to cut spending, hinting that there could be additional efforts to return funds. 'He has tools at his disposal to produce even more savings,' Leavitt said. Vought said he can send up additional rescissions at the end of the fiscal year in September 'and if Congress does not act on it, that funding expires.' 'It's one of the reasons why we are not putting all of our expectations in a typical rescissions process,' he added. A spokesperson for the White House Office of Management and Budget, speaking on condition of anonymity to preview some of the items that would lose funding, said that $8.3 billion was being cut from the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development. NPR and PBS would also lose federal funding, as would the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, also known as PEPFAR. The spokesperson listed specific programs that the Trump administration considered wasteful, including $750,000 to reduce xenophobia in Venezuela, $67,000 for feeding insect powder to children in Madagascar and $3 million for circumcision, vasectomies and condoms in Zambia. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., complimented the planned cuts and pledged to pass them. 'This rescissions package reflects many of DOGE's findings and is one of the many legislative tools Republicans are using to restore fiscal sanity,' Johnson said. 'Congress will continue working closely with the White House to codify these recommendations, and the House will bring the package to the floor as quickly as possible.' Members of the House Freedom Caucus, among the chamber's most conservative lawmakers, said they would like to see additional rescission packages from the administration. 'We will support as many more rescissions packages the White House can send us in the coming weeks and months,' the group said in a press release. Sen. Susan Collins, chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, gave the package a less optimistic greeting. 'Despite this fast track, the Senate Appropriations Committee will carefully review the rescissions package and examine the potential consequences of these rescissions on global health, national security, emergency communications in rural communities, and public radio and television stations,' the Maine lawmaker said in a statement. Boak writes for the Associated Press.

Citigroup reverses firearms policy after pressure from Trump administration on big banks
Citigroup reverses firearms policy after pressure from Trump administration on big banks

Yahoo

time16 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Citigroup reverses firearms policy after pressure from Trump administration on big banks

A month after the 2018 mass school shooting in Parkland, Florida, Citigroup enacted restrictions for its clients that sold firearms — the first major bank on Wall Street to do so. On Tuesday, the bank rolled back that policy. 'We also will no longer have a specific policy as it relates to firearms,' the company said in a statement Tuesday. 'The policy was intended to promote the adoption of best sales practices as prudent risk management and didn't address the manufacturing of firearms.' The decision comes as the Trump administration alleges that Wall Street is biased against conservatives — a right-wing talking point since more than a dozen state auditors accused Bank of America of 'politicized de-banking' in an open letter last year (de-banking is when a bank closes an account for a customer it deems high risk). At the time, Bank of America said it has 'no political litmus test.' On Tuesday, Citi said it was 'following regulatory developments, recent Executive Orders and federal legislation.' In 2018, Citi said it would ban banking services to businesses that sold firearms to those under 21, those who didn't pass a background check, or sold bump stocks (used by the gunman in the 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas) or high-capacity magazines. The policy applied to small businesses, commercial and institutional clients, and credit card partners, but did not restrict how individual customers used their cards. Big banks have recently caught the ire of the president as well as the crypto industry. In January at the annual World Economic Forum, President Donald Trump scolded Brian Moynihan, the CEO of Bank of America. 'You've done a fantastic job, but I hope you start opening your bank to conservatives, because many conservatives complain that the banks are not allowing them to do business within the bank,' Trump said. 'You and Jamie and everybody… What you're doing is wrong,' referring to JPMorgan Chase head Jamie Dimon. Citigroup also announced on Tuesday that it will update its employee Code of Conduct and its external Global Financial Access Policy 'to clearly state that we do not discriminate on the basis of political affiliation in the same way we are clear that we do not discriminate on the basis of other traits such as race and religion.' Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store