logo
Their Kids Said They Were Trans. Then CPS Came Knocking.

Their Kids Said They Were Trans. Then CPS Came Knocking.

Yahoo22-03-2025

Morgan Davis started this job because he wanted to protect kids.
The 52-year-old had been an investigator with the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) for less than a year and had come out as a transgender man shortly before starting his new job. Then Texas Gov. Greg Abbott issued an order demanding the department investigate parents of medically transitioning transgender children for abuse.
A "number of so-called 'sex change' procedures constitute child abuse under existing Texas law," Abbott declared in the February 2022 letter, which he sent a week before the Republican gubernatorial primary. Because DFPS "is responsible for protecting children from abuse," he continued, " I hereby direct your agency to conduct a prompt and thorough investigation of any reported instances of these abusive procedures in the State of Texas."
At first, the directive seemed hard to believe, especially since medical transition for minors—interventions such as puberty-blocking medication, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries—were legal in Texas. Texas legislators would eventually ban medical transition for minors, but that was more than a year in the future.
"Everybody thought this was a political stunt," Davis says. Within a day, Davis' department already had a case. According to Davis, it originated with a DFPS employee with a transgender child who was forced to report on her own family.
"The first thing I knew about the case was that it was a co-worker," Davis says. "I just couldn't believe it. Most of us get into [this line of work] because you wanted to be the protection that you didn't have. And here we were." Davis ended up investigating the family himself. "If somebody had to do it, I wanted it to be me," he says, because "I really thought at the time I could protect the family—but also if there was any abuse that was happening, I would know."
On the day of his home visit, Davis says, he tried to be as nonthreatening as possible. "I had my nicest bowtie on," he says, "and I brought pastries, to try to make it look like I was just showing up for a visit." But he was still self-conscious: He was an agent of the state, after all, one with the power to separate a family or keep it together in the name of child protection. "At the end of the day," Davis says, "it doesn't matter how trans or how nice [I was]. At the end of the day, I was an investigator."
Accustomed to deeply dysfunctional families, often living in chaotic, poorly maintained homes, Davis was struck by how normal and harmonious this family seemed. To his relief, the family had consulted with lawyers. An attorney sat in on Davis' interview with the child, a transgender girl around 15 years old. The family also refused to sign a form releasing their child's medical records—a move that further protected them from state prying.
It was hard not to feel frustrated by the situation. Davis had found a functional, loving family whose only error—in the eyes of the state of Texas—was that the parents had sought and received controversial but legal treatments for their child.
Davis says the home visit concluded without incident and the case seemed like a "slam dunk." But his supervisors told him he could not close the case, that it needed to be sent "up the food chain."
"I called my buddy and I said, 'I can't make this stop. I'm not going to be able to make this stop,'" Davis says. "It sounds dramatic, but I really did: I walked in an investigator, and I walked out an activist."
Since the state was investigating parents for legal behavior, lawsuits swiftly followed. One was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of the LGBTQ+ group PFLAG and several families.
"Governor Abbott's directive unduly interferes with the state Legislature's sole authority to establish criminal offenses and penalties," said the June 2022 petition in PFLAG v. Abbott. "The Abbott Letter outright claims that 'a number of so-called "sex change" procedures constitute child abuse under existing Texas law,' despite the fact that the Legislature has failed to pass" legislation to that effect.
It's not clear exactly how many people DFPS investigated as a result of Abbott's order. But six families ultimately joined two ACLU-backed lawsuits challenging the new policy.
The plaintiffs described nerve-racking home visits and investigations that dragged on despite turning up no evidence of abuse or neglect. One parent, identified as "Samantha Poe," said Child Protective Services (CPS), a division of DFPS, continued investigating her family even after receiving a letter from her 13-year-old gender-questioning child's psychiatrist confirming that the teenager, Whitley, was not receiving any medical transition treatments.
"Without my prior knowledge, a CPS investigator contacted a teacher at Whitley's middle school to ask about Whitley," Poe said in a written declaration submitted with the PFLAG v. Abbott lawsuit. "The teacher told me they were contacted and that they told the investigator Whitley is well cared for and Whitley's every need is being met. They also shared that they told the investigator that they had called CPS about other students they suspected were suffering from abuse at home, but received no response."
These probes were part of something much larger. During the last decade, a full-blown gender war has erupted in America. While much of the controversy relates to transgender adults, a particularly fraught element of the debate focuses on gender-dysphoric kids. The question of what exactly to do when children say they're transgender should be dominated by rigorous science and parental judgment. Instead, it has been clouded by politics.
In recent years, state-run medical agencies in such countries as Sweden, Norway, and Great Britain have recommended restricting medical transitions for minors, arguing that the risks outweigh the potential benefits. Twenty-four U.S. states have passed laws banning gender transition treatments for minors, and two others—New Hampshire and Arizona—have banned surgical procedures while keeping other treatments legal. While doctors suspicious of these treatments stress the lack of strong evidence supporting their efficacy, other physicians argue there is plenty of evidence that they work, often claiming that the controversy is driven by transphobia rather than legitimate medical concerns.
In Texas, the state responded to the dispute by siccing CPS on parents. Meanwhile, parents in several Democratic-controlled states say they have faced CPS investigations for resisting their children's medical or social transition.
When the state intervenes because officials dislike how parents are choosing to handle a child's gender dysphoria, that does not protect vulnerable kids. It shifts decisions on a difficult issue from parents—the people who know the children best and love them most—to impersonal, often politically motivated bureaucrats. What to do about childhood gender dysphoria is a live question, and a difficult one. But it's a question the state is ill-equipped to answer for individual families.
"I think there should be a very thorough evaluation of every child, young person," says Erica Anderson, a clinical psychologist and former president of the United States Professional Association for Transgender Health (USPATH). "I've been for a long time now urging caution that we need to be very cautious about which kids go on to puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones."
Anderson, herself a transgender woman, has spent much of her career helping evaluate gender-dysphoric kids and their families seeking possible medical transition. "I've been critical of others who feel differently than I do, and in a sense, in my opinion, treat gender dysphoria or gender questioning as a medical condition," she adds. "I don't think there's evidence to support that view."
The modern debate over transgender-identified youth can be traced back to the 1990s, when the first cohorts of gender-distressed children were treated with what became known as the "Dutch protocol": medications to prevent the onset of puberty, followed by cross-sex hormones, then surgeries in adulthood.
As the Dutch protocol began spreading throughout Europe and the United States, the number of minors referred to gender clinics was fairly low. From 2011 to 2014, for example, fewer than 500 kids per year were referred to the U.K.'s main youth gender clinic, and not all of those kids received medical intervention. Children in this earlier cohort had typically experienced severe gender-related distress from a very young age, and most were natal males, according to Anderson.
But things began to change in the late 2010s. "Not only are there an increase in numbers of kids coming to gender clinics—and there are more gender clinics, particularly in North America—but the composition of the population coming to the gender clinics has changed from a fairly homogeneous group of kids to a very heterogeneous group of kids dominated by natal females," says Anderson.
These changes prompted some professional misgivings. "There are some of us who feel that we don't have a sufficient evidence base to decide which of these heterogeneous kids are best suited for medicalization," Anderson says.
"There's pretty widespread acknowledgment that some of the gender clinics, at least in the United States, do a very poor job of assessment," Anderson says. "The assessment in some cases consists of a brief interview with a mental health person, often a social worker, and then the patient is assigned to see the physician who can prescribe puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones. In my opinion, having a short half-hour—even an hour—interview one time is insufficient in evaluating these kids who are coming to gender clinics."
According to a 2022 Reuters investigation, more than 120,000 American kids were diagnosed with gender dysphoria from 2017 through 2021. Still, only a small minority received medical intervention. Around 15,000 adolescents received hormone therapy during this time, and around 5,000 of these kids were placed on puberty blockers. Surgical interventions were even rarer. Reuters found that at least 776 minors with a gender dysphoria diagnosis received mastectomies—also known as "top surgery"—in this period. Just 56 received genital surgeries.
Anderson says that thorough assessments are so important because puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones can bring worrisome side effects, such as severe sexual dysfunction and infertility, not to mention the unknown developmental risks of delaying natural puberty.
In light of these risks, several countries have pulled back their youth gender medicine programs. Many leading U.S. medical organizations, on the other hand, have rejected the criticism. (Anderson herself resigned from USPATH after the organization considered barring its members from speaking to the press.)
As more than two dozen red states have banned at least some medical transition treatments for minors, many blue states responded with policies of their own. In 2023, Washington state lifted the requirement that youth shelters notify a minor's parents if the child left home to seek medical transition. School districts around the country, as well as the state governments of New Jersey and California, have discouraged teachers from informing parents if their child socially transitions at school.
Anderson is concerned about the possibility that CPS will intervene when parents won't consent to a child's medical transition, especially if the child's other parent disagrees. "There are some child protection workers who are given to believe…that the failure to consent to medicalization, to gender intervention, is abuse," she says. "So then the nonconsenting parent then gets accused of child abuse or neglect."
Sure enough, even as Texas officially demanded that CPS investigate the parents of transgender kids, families that express skepticism about social or medical transition for their children sometimes face a less formalized, but no less invasive, state scrutiny. Parents who resisted pursuing transition for their children have found themselves under CPS investigation after an overzealous teacher or school administrator reported them to the authorities.
Sarah (not her real name) and her husband were initially very supportive when their 12-year-old daughter came out as trans. The couple, who lived in California, used her new name and pronouns, let her dress in male clothes, and consented to giving her puberty blockers.
"We were told the famous line: 'Would you rather have a live son or a dead daughter?'" Sarah says. "And when your kid is suicidal, nothing [else] matters at that point. At that point I was naive and trusted the medical advice. I thought the people in the field knew better than me and was desperate and terrified to lose my daughter."
Although Sarah says she and her husband fully affirmed their daughter's new identity and even agreed to an increased dosage of puberty blockers at their doctor's suggestion, the child's mental health continued to deteriorate. "We found that every step that we took…made her mental health worse," Sarah says. "She might have temporarily been happy, but then it faded and then her mental health [problem] manifested back up. It was never really resolved….We were living in crisis management, not knowing if I was going to wake up and find her dead in her room the following morning."
Sarah knew something had to change. "I came out of the work force at the height of my career," she says, "and then started really pounding the pavement and saying to myself, 'OK, the definition of insanity is to do the same thing but expect a different outcome.' I knew I had to do something different."
Sarah eventually found a psychiatrist for her daughter who neither uncritically accepted nor uncritically dismissed the idea that she was transgender. Sarah says her daughter's mental health improved significantly after she worked with this new therapist, who took an "exploratory" approach to gender distress. She came off the puberty blockers and began going by a more gender-neutral name.
"I was able to sleep at night," Sarah says. "I wasn't up at night constantly patrolling and checking in on her…and opening the doors to make sure she was OK. I didn't have to do that. I actually got sleep."
Sarah's daughter still had ups and downs, though. According to Sarah, her daughter, then a high school freshman, went to the school counselor at one point and expressed some confusion and distress over her shifting gender identity. Sarah says the school counselor told her daughter that the counselor would have to call CPS.
"So then my daughter gets scared and she texts the psychiatrist, and the psychiatrist warns me that this is coming," Sarah says. "Probably hours later, I get a call on my voicemail from Child Protective Services. And we were panicked when we received that phone call."
Sarah hired an attorney to sit in on the eventual CPS home visit, and she ultimately was able to have her case fully closed. But the experience was still terrifying for the family. Sarah says that her daughter, now a student at a women's college, no longer identifies as trans—a claim that is corroborated by her daughter's social media presence. Sarah declined to make her daughter available for an interview, telling Reason in an email that "this topic is still rather triggering/upsetting for her," adding, "We don't want to put her through this again, but are sharing our story to hopefully help other families."
"We hear from many, many, many more families than we have the ability to bring lawsuits," says Vernadette Broyles, president and general counsel of the Child and Parental Rights Campaign. Broyles specializes in cases like Sarah's, as well as cases where trans-identified kids are actually removed by CPS. She says that she's worked on at least 15 cases that involved trans-identified children—cases that ranged from CPS investigations, child custody disputes, and parents who objected to a social transition at school—though her organization has provided "support or advocacy" to substantially more parents.
"It's so important for judges to recognize that these children are better in the hands of their parents," Broyles says. "And parents need to have the freedom to do what they know to be in the best interest" of their children.
In March 2022, a Travis County, Texas, judge granted a temporary injunction in Doe v. Abbott, halting the enforcement of Abbott's order. But just over two months later, the Texas Supreme Court narrowed the scope of the injunction significantly, limiting it to the plaintiffs in the case.
In September, a different temporary injunction was issued in PFLAG v. Abbott, this time barring DFPS from "investigating members of PFLAG, including but not limited to Plaintiff Families, for possible child abuse or neglect solely based on allegations that they have a minor child who is gender transitioning or alleged to be receiving or being prescribed medical treatment for gender dysphoria."
While both injunctions are still embroiled in legal battles, with the state appealing the decisions, they were still regarded as a major victory for trans youth and their families.
"Today, families of transgender kids in Texas who are members of PFLAG National find shelter from Gov. Abbott's unjust order," Brian K. Bond, executive director of PFLAG National, said in a September 2022 press release. "Every LGBTQ+ person deserves respect, dignity and the right to access the care they need when they need it."
Less than a year later, Abbott signed Senate Bill 14, which prohibited Texas doctors from providing medical transition treatments to minors. The Texas Supreme Court upheld that law in June 2024, rejecting the argument that it violated parental rights guaranteed by the state constitution. That month, Texas filed petitions with the state Supreme Court, seeking to overturn the previous injunctions.
Despite a few victories for families investigated by CPS, the broader public fight over how to address gender dysphoria in minors—especially when it comes to medical interventions—is not going away anytime soon.
"One of the reasons why this is so hard, why we have a very divided set of circumstances here, is that traditionally, courts have relied on medical experts to determine [what's] necessary in terms of the treatment of children," says Naomi Schaefer Riley, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute who focuses on child welfare and foster care. "You can now get a medical expert to testify that if this child does not receive gender transition treatment they're going to commit suicide. But you can also get a medical expert to say cutting off a child's genitals is child abuse."
The vast majority of the parents who find themselves in these difficult situations sincerely want what's best for their children. They know their kids better than anyone else and love them more fiercely than any social worker or teacher ever will. Parents in this situation would do nearly anything to take away their children's pain and help them grow into happy, healthy adults. The last thing they need is misguided state intrusion into their lives.
Davis ultimately resigned from DFPS. He says after a brief period working under the new regime, he realized he was unable to continue working for an agency that was wasting time and resources on politically motivated investigations of loving families with transgender children. "I'm working nights, weekends, holidays, and I'm trying to keep these kids safe," he says. "And you want me to do what? You want me to go into homes that you know are safe?…This is wrong."
The post Their Kids Said They Were Trans. Then CPS Came Knocking. appeared first on Reason.com.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump and Musk aides have spoken amid pause in hostilities
Trump and Musk aides have spoken amid pause in hostilities

Politico

time39 minutes ago

  • Politico

Trump and Musk aides have spoken amid pause in hostilities

The shaky detente in the social media strife between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk is holding following a call between representatives for both sides Friday, according to two White House officials. 'He's stopped posting, but that doesn't mean he's happy,' one of the officials said about Trump's Truth Social hiatus with Musk. 'The future of their relationship is totally uncertain,' added the official, who was granted anonymity to speak freely. Both men have paused their war of words that included Musk suggesting the president be impeached and Trump threatening to cut off federal contracts for the billionaire's companies. But neither wanted to, according to the two officials familiar with the reaction of both men. A spokesperson for Musk did not return a message seeking comment. Trump was particularly peeved by Musk insinuating the president was tied to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, claiming Trump was 'in the Epstein files.' It's long been public that Trump and other prominent figures are referenced in documents released in court cases surrounding Epstein, though Trump has not been accused of any wrongdoing linked to Epstein. But Musk's boast that Trump couldn't have won without his support, including over a quarter-billion dollars in political contributions – is what really set the president spinning, the two officials continued. 'Such ingratitude,' Musk wrote on X after taking credit from Trump's victory in November. The feud came as the president and Republican leaders tried to shoulder through a major package of domestic policy legislation, which could be the biggest legislative achievement of Trump's second term. Musk criticized the so-called megabill for having a 'MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK.' When reached for comment, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told POLITICO, 'As President Trump has said himself, he is moving forward focused on passing the One Big Beautiful Bill.' The relationship began to sour before the dueling social media posts erupted last week. Trump was upset about what he saw as Musk overselling DOGE's inability to make massive cuts in the federal bureaucracy. Then the White House pulled the nomination for Jared Isaacman, the billionaire's pick to lead NASA, which was one of the final tethers in a tenuous alliance. White House personnel director Sergio Gor, who was behind that move, has had a long-simmering tension with the billionaire, according to both White House officials. Musk refused to work with Gor after a March Cabinet meeting where the president told his agency heads they were in charge of their departments — not Musk, who was in the room. That meeting happened after the Tesla founder set off a series of mass firings and warnings to government workers that in turn triggered lawsuits and criticism from both Democratic and Republican lawmakers. While most lawmakers and Republican operatives agree that Trump ultimately has the upper hand should their feud reignite, there's never been an adversary quite like Musk: the world's richest man with an online megaphone to rival the presidential bully pulpit.

Foul-mouthed, frustrated Democrats seek a spine
Foul-mouthed, frustrated Democrats seek a spine

San Francisco Chronicle​

timean hour ago

  • San Francisco Chronicle​

Foul-mouthed, frustrated Democrats seek a spine

ANAHEIM — California Democrats have learned one lesson from last November's national loss to Republicans: Voters want to see them fight. Especially for the working class. Their next challenge is actually doing it. And California Democrats have a prime opportunity to do so in an upcoming budget fight in Sacramento. Part of Donald Trump's appeal is that voters at least feel that he's 'fighting' for them even if it is largely performative. (Exhibit A: Trump's tax plan gives a $300 tax break to families earning $50,000 and $90,000 to a filer making $1 million, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. So the word 'fight' was omnipresent in every speech, often in profane ways, at the California Democratic Party's three-day convention that ended Sunday. Speaking of his Republican opponents, California Sen. Adam Schiff told attendees: 'We do not capitulate. We do not concede. California does not cower, not now, not ever. We say to bullies, 'You can go f— yourself.'' Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, the 2024 Democratic vice presidential nominee and a keynote convention speaker, told delegates Saturday, 'We gotta be honest. We're in this mess because some of it is our own doing.' Walz acknowledged that as half of the losing presidential ticket, he may be 'the last person to lecture on this topic, but I'm going to tell you, none of us can afford to shy away from having hard conversations about what it's going to take to win elections.' 'We didn't just lose the working class to just anybody. We lost to a grifter billionaire giving tax cuts to his grifter billionaire buddies. That last election was a primal scream on so many fronts: 'Do something! Do something! Stand up and make a difference.'' America is dubious that Democrats can do something. A CNN poll released Sunday found that 16% of respondents felt Democrats are the party that could 'get things done.' More than twice as many respondents (36%) felt that way about Republicans. 'If you ask people today what a Democrat is, they say it is 'a deer in the headlights,'' Walz said. 'We've got to find some goddamn guts to fight for working people. … Nobody votes for roadkill.' 'That means having the guts to break down the power structures that are there. We know who's strangling our politics.' Lorena Gonzalez, president of the 2.3 million-member California Labor Federation, warned that Democrats shouldn't become 'Republican lite' by adopting their positions. She invoked the Depression-era song written by Florence Patton Reece, 'Which Side Are You On?' 'Are you on the side of the billionaires and the tech bros and Elon Musk and the Republican Lites?' Gonzalez said. 'Or are you on the side of working people, men and women who make this state work, who continue to go to work every day, hardworking people. Are you on the side of unions?' Case in point: It sounds hollow to hear California Democrats rail on Trump and congressional Republicans for their budget that would cut health coverage for 8.6 million Americans (according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office) when California is considering cuts to its most vulnerable citizens to close a $12 billion budget deficit. Gov. Gavin Newsom's May revised budget proposal i ncluded cuts to the In-Home Supportive Services program, which provides care to low-income elderly and disabled people. Those providers, who are predominantly women of color, earn about $17 an hour. The typical provider would lose about $20,000 in pay annually under the proposal, according to union leaders. These are the 500,000 workers who bathe, dress and take care of 850,000 frail Californians — our parents, children and siblings. Many providers are one paycheck away from homelessness, union organizers say. Such a pay cut 'would be devastating,' Cynthia Williams, an Orange County in-home provider since 2008, told me. If the cuts were passed, her family would likely have to move and use the local food bank even more. She cares for her disabled-veteran sister and her daughter, who is blind and disabled and has a gastric condition that requires her to have four or five small meals a day. 'So that (salary reduction) would cut down on what I would be able to do. Providing four or five meals a day would not be an option,' Williams told me. 'We don't need to keep milking the poor to give to the rich,' she said. 'We need to make sure that Democrats care for the people that are the most vulnerable.' Union leaders, whose members are the lifeblood of Democratic campaigns, say they are watching how Democrats handle this proposed cut. At a rally Saturday outside the Anaheim Convention Center where Democrats were meeting, United Domestic Workers Executive Director Doug Moore directed a message 'to our Democratic lawmakers. This rally is not just a protest. It's a warning. 'Balancing the budget on the backs of low-income children, seniors, people with disabilities and the caregivers who support them is not leadership, it's shortsighted cowardice,' Moore told rallygoers. 'Every Democrat inside this convention hall, this is your moment. Your integrity matters now more than ever. You can't claim to stand for justice, equity, working families in your speeches, then turn around and vote for budget cuts that hurt the very people who make this state function. 'It is time for you to have the courage to stand with us — or else. We are watching. We are the people who got you in the office.' California Democrats are looking for ways to stave off those cuts. Behind closed doors, Senate Democrats are considering several plans that would raise revenue from wealthy corporations to plug the budget deficit. One idea is to tax large corporations that do business in California but do not provide adequate or affordable health coverage to their employees and pay their workers so little that they must rely on Medi-Cal. It would require employers to pay a tax for each worker; details on the proposal are still being crafted. Other Democrats in the Legislature are privately discussing a proposal that would close the 'water's edge loophole' that would require corporations to report all their worldwide profits, not just the profits they claim were earned in the U.S. This proposal could enable California to collect taxes on its rightful share (an estimated $3 billion) of those total profits. Now, the percentage of national sales that occur in the state is the percentage of profit subject to corporate tax in California. Twenty-eight states plus Washington, D.C., require a version of water's edge reporting, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Polic y, The short-term question: Will Gov. Newsom veto this because he is concerned about being tagged as someone who 'raised taxes' — even if it is on wealthy corporations — if he runs for president in 2028 when his term ends? The long-term question: Whose side are Democrats on?

GOP looks to win over Collins, Murkowski on Trump bill
GOP looks to win over Collins, Murkowski on Trump bill

The Hill

time2 hours ago

  • The Hill

GOP looks to win over Collins, Murkowski on Trump bill

Senate Republicans are trying to win over Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) to back the party's ambitious tax cut plan amid fears they could lose a couple of conservative senators. President Trump has made it a priority to engage with Sens. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who all have concerns about the emerging package. But some Republicans worry Johnson and Paul could be particularly tough sells on the legislation, which makes winning over Murkowski and Collins all the more important in a vote where the GOP cannot afford more than three defections. 'It's shortening,' one Senate Republican told The Hill about the party's margins. Paul has long been viewed as highly likely to vote against the eventual bill as it includes a $4 trillion debt ceiling hike. He's made it known that is a red line for him. But it's Johnson who is a more acute problem for leadership. According to two sources familiar with the meeting, Johnson on Wednesday got into an extended back-and-forth with Trump during the Senate Finance Committee's meeting at the White House, with one of the sources going a step further and describing it as 'contentious.' While Republicans think Johnson may still come to back the bill, the exchange only made GOP leaders more unsettled about him. That means they have to make sure Murkowski and Collins, who memorably voted against Trump on various issues in his first term, are in play on the bill. 'It's a very delicate balance,' Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) told The Hill. 'Obviously, we have people that have different priorities, different equities that run the gamut in terms of the political spectrum.' 'We're hearing everybody out, finding out what's important to them, and figuring out if there's a way to address that in the context of the bill,' Thune continued. 'But it's a process.' Thune is bearing the brunt of the Collins-Murkowski work, multiple Senate GOP sources said. He's held a number of one-and-one and small group meetings. Both senators have big-ticket items they want to see revised in the bill. Murkowski has made clear her worries about potential Medicaid work requirements, as she believes her state will have trouble implementing them due to its outdated payment systems for the program, and the bill's potential nixing of renewable energy tax credits. The pair have both expressed concerns over what overall reductions could mean for key segments of their states, including tribes for Murkowski and rural individuals and hospitals for Collins. The Maine Republican also cited possible Medicaid beneficiary cuts when she voted against the budget blueprint in early April. The push is only expected to intensify in the coming days as relevant committees unveil their portions of the bill text. 'We're still building things on our side. … Everyone is pulling this gumby in lots of different directions,' Murkowski told reporters on Thursday, explaining that while there are provisions for energy and the Coast Guard that are very positive for her state, more is needed on the Medicaid side. Murkowski also indicated that while she has not gotten the call from Trump just as conservatives did, she also is in touch with other administration figures. Among those is Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz, whom she talked to briefly after he addressed a Senate GOP luncheon last week. The two are expected to speak early this week to discuss her concerns more in depth. Collins separately is expected to lean on a number of agency heads as she carries out what members have described as a methodical process. 'Susan works extremely hard, [is] very detailed, knows everything, has a lot of history. [There's] different issues in Maine than in a lot of other places and everybody respects that.' said Sen. Shelley Moore Capito ( a member of GOP leadership. There are also political considerations at play, leading some to believe Murkowski will be easier to win. Collins is up for reelection next year in a state that voted for former Vice President Harris. Whether either backs the bill may depend on the impacts of the package on their respective states. Murkowski backed the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in large part because the bill opened up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling, which had been among her top priorities in the upper chamber throughout her tenure. 'If it works for Alaska, he's not going to need to pressure me,' Murkowski said when asked if it would be a mistake for Trump to pressure her during this process. 'If it works for Alaska, it works for me and gets my vote.'

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