Here's how the House GOP's proposed Medicaid cuts could impact Minnesota
Minnesota could lose up the half a billion dollars annually if a GOP-backed tax bill becomes federal law, Minnesota's Medicaid director warned Thursday.
That could mean fewer services or tighter restrictions on eligibility, affecting health care for hundreds of thousands of Minnesotans and the hospitals and other providers that treat them.
The bill, which has already passed the U.S. House on a 215-214 vote, is still far off from becoming law; Senate Republicans are drafting their own version, and the GOP remains deeply split over how to pay for tax cuts, which is their ultimate goal. For now, the House legislation is the most detailed public plan for how Republicans will fund an extension of President Donald Trump's 2017 tax cuts, plus a bunch more.
The tax cuts passed by the House would decrease federal revenue by about $3.7 trillion over the next ten years, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. To offset the loss of income, Republicans want to cut spending by $1.3 trillion, mostly by targeting Medicaid and SNAP, which helps low-income people buy food. (The $2.4 trillion gap between the revenue and spending cuts would be added to the federal debt, which will in turn increase what taxpayers must shell out in interest payments, which have surpassed $1 trillion annually.)
Medicaid pays for health care for the elderly, low-income and disabled. The cost is shared between states and the federal government; last year, Minnesota spent $18 billion on Medical Assistance, which is Minnesota's version of Medicaid. The federal government covered $11 billion of that.
More than 1.2 million Minnesotans rely on Medical Assistance, and deep cuts would cause 'serious harm' to Minnesotans, said John Connolly, Minnesota's Medicaid director.
'Our position at the Minnesota Department of Human Services is that the bill currently on the table is inefficient, ineffective and fundamentally unfair,' Connolly said during a press briefing.
Minnesota is already grappling with how to pay for care for an aging population as health care costs continue to rise.
The state Legislature made $270 million in cuts to Medical Assistance this year, as spending on the program has risen faster than tax revenues.
DHS estimates that if the U.S. House tax bill were to become law, the state would lose out on $500 million per year. The bill would cause between 152,000 and 253,000 Minnesotans to lose health insurance, according to Kaiser Family Foundation.
It would also push costs onto state and local governments, Connolly said, by requiring county and tribal governments to verify participants' eligibility twice as often as they do now, and increasing the administrative burden for the state.
The largest chunk of the possible cuts to Minnesota comes from a provision that would reduce Medicaid reimbursements for states that subsidize health insurance for undocumented people. The Legislature voted this week to remove eligibility of undocumented adults for MinnesotaCare, a state- and federally-funded health insurance program for the working poor that is separate from Medical Assistance.
As long as undocumented children remain eligible for MinnesotaCare — and if the House language becomes law — Minnesota would still have its federal funding cut by about $330 million, according to DHS.
Senate Republicans are wary of deep Medicaid cuts, and are instead expected to target SNAP, the New York Times reported Thursday. The Senate has not yet introduced its version of the tax bill.
A proposal to shift 25% of federal SNAP benefit costs onto states would shift up to $220 million annual cost to Minnesota, according to the state Department of Youth and Family Services.
More than 440,000 Minnesotans rely on SNAP benefits, according to DCYF. More than one-third are children, 18% are seniors and 14% are adults with a disability.
If these federal cost shifts and cuts become law, the Minnesota Legislature would likely be forced to return to St. Paul for a special session to either raise taxes, cut services or move money around to fulfill lawmakers' constitutional obligation to balance the budget.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Bitcoin slips as U.S. rules out buying for strategic reserve
Bitcoin slips as U.S. rules out buying for strategic reserve originally appeared on TheStreet. Bitcoin prices fell sharply on Aug. 14 after U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the government has no plans to purchase additional Bitcoin for its planned strategic reserve, opting instead to rely on confiscated holdings. Speaking on Mornings with Maria, Bessent's comments came in response to questions about U.S. gold reserves and whether the government would consider similar moves with Bitcoin. 'I doubt we're going to revalue it, but we are going to keep it there as a store of value for the American people,' Bessent said when asked if the Treasury planned to revalue gold. He added that the U.S. has begun incorporating Bitcoin into its strategic reserves, but with a clear caveat. 'We've also started to get into the 21st century, a Bitcoin strategic reserve. We're not going to be buying that, but we're going to use confiscated assets and continue to build that up. We're going to stop selling that,' he said. The remarks dampened recent optimism among crypto investors who had speculated that the U.S. might enter the market as a buyer, potentially creating significant demand. Instead, Bessent's clarification signals that any growth in the reserve will come from seized digital assets — often the result of law enforcement actions against illicit activity — rather than open market purchases. The decision contrasts with the approach taken by some other nations, such as El Salvador, which has regularly bought Bitcoin as part of its national strategy. Analysts say the U.S. move may limit near-term institutional buying pressure but could still tighten supply if the government permanently holds confiscated coins. Following Bessent's interview, Bitcoin slipped from above $118,000 to near $117,000, with broader crypto markets also turning lower. The crypto market tumbled as over $1.05 billion in leveraged positions were wiped out in 24 hours, with longs losing $778M, per Coinglass. Bybit saw the biggest hit at $447M in liquidations, including a $10M BTC-USD position. Bitcoin slips as U.S. rules out buying for strategic reserve first appeared on TheStreet on Aug 14, 2025 This story was originally reported by TheStreet on Aug 14, 2025, where it first appeared. 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
Los Angeles Times
12 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Putin praises Trump's efforts to end Ukraine war ahead of Friday summit in Alaska
LONDON — Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday praised President Trump's efforts to end the war in Ukraine, more than three years after Moscow launched its invasion, as the two leaders prepared for a pivotal U.S.–Russia summit Friday in Alaska. Following a meeting Thursday with top government officials on the summit, Putin said in a short video released by the Kremlin that the Trump administration was making 'quite energetic and sincere efforts to stop the hostilities' and to 'reach agreements that are of interest to all parties involved.' Putin also suggested that 'long-term conditions of peace between our countries, and in Europe, and in the world as a whole,' could be reached under an agreement with the U.S. on nuclear arms control. In Washington, Trump said there was a 25% chance that the summit would fail, but he also floated the idea that, if the meeting succeeds, he could bring Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to Alaska for a subsequent, three-way meeting. In a radio interview with Fox News, Trump also said he might be willing to stay in Alaska longer, depending on what happens with Putin. Meanwhile, Zelensky and other European leaders worked to ensure their interests are taken into account when Trump and Putin meet in Anchorage. U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer welcomed Zelensky to London on Thursday in a show of British support for Ukraine a day before the critical Trump-Putin meeting. The two embraced warmly outside Starmer's offices at 10 Downing Street without making any comments, and Zelensky departed about an hour later. Zelensky's trip to the British capital came a day after he took part in virtual meetings from Berlin with Trump and the leaders of several European countries. Those leaders said that Trump had assured them that he would make a priority of trying to achieve a ceasefire in Ukraine when he meets with Putin. Speaking after the meetings to reporters, Trump warned of 'very severe consequences' for Russia if Putin doesn't agree to stop the war against Ukraine after Friday's meeting. While some European leaders, including German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and French President Emmanuel Macron, praised Wednesday's video conference with Trump as constructive, uncertainty remained over how the U.S. leader — whose rhetoric toward both Zelensky and Putin has evolved dramatically since retaking office this year — would conduct negotiations in the absence of any other interested parties. Both Zelensky and the Europeans have worried that the bilateral U.S.-Russia summit would leave them and their interests sidelined, and that any conclusions could favor Moscow and leave Ukraine and Europe's future security in jeopardy. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov tamped down expectations for any breakthroughs from the Friday summit, saying there were no plans to sign documents and that it would be a 'big mistake' to predict the results of the negotiations, according to Russian news outlet Interfax. The Kremlin on Thursday said the meeting between Trump and Putin would begin at 11:30 a.m. local time. Putin's foreign policy adviser, Yuri Ushakov, told reporters that Trump and Putin will first sit down for a one-on-one meeting followed by a meeting between the two delegations. Then talks will continue over 'a working breakfast.' A joint news conference will follow. Trump contradicted the Kremlin, saying that no decisions have been made about holding a news conference with Putin. The uncertainty reflects just how much about the summit, including its schedule, remains unsettled. Starmer said Wednesday that the Alaska summit could be a path to a ceasefire in Ukraine, but he also alluded to European concerns that Trump may strike a deal that forces Ukraine to cede territory to Russia. He warned that Western allies must be prepared to step up pressure on Russia if necessary. During a call Wednesday among leaders of countries involved in the 'coalition of the willing' — those who are prepared to help police any future peace agreement between Moscow and Kyiv — Starmer stressed that any ceasefire deal must protect the 'territorial integrity' of Ukraine. 'International borders cannot be, and must not be changed by force,'' he said. Kyiv has long insisted that safeguards against future Russian attacks provided by its Western allies would be a precondition for achieving a durable end to the fighting. Yet many Western governments have been hesitant to commit military personnel. Countries in the coalition, which includes France and the U.K., have been trying for months to secure U.S. security backing, should it be required. Following Wednesday's virtual meetings, Macron said Trump told the assembled leaders that while NATO must not be part of future security guarantees, 'the United States and all the parties involved should take part.' 'It's a very important clarification that we have received,' Macron said. Trump did not reference any U.S. security commitments during his comments to reporters on Wednesday. With another high-level meeting on their country's future on the horizon, some Ukrainians expressed skepticism about the summit's prospects. Oleksandra Kozlova, 39, who works at a digital agency in Kyiv, told The Associated Press on Wednesday that she believes Ukrainians 'have already lost hope' that meaningful progress can be made toward ending the war. 'I don't think this round will be decisive,' she said. 'There have already been enough meetings and negotiations promising us, ordinary people, that something will be resolved, that things will get better, that the war will end. Unfortunately, this has not happened, so personally I don't see any changes coming.' Anton Vyshniak, a car salesman in Kyiv, said Ukraine's priority now should be saving the lives of its military service members, even at the expense of territorial concessions. 'At the moment, the most important thing is to preserve the lives of male and female military personnel. After all, there are not many human resources left,' he said. 'Borders are borders, but human lives are priceless.' Zelensky said Thursday that Ukraine had secured the release of 84 people from Russian captivity, including both soldiers and civilians. Those freed included people held by Russia since 2014, 2016 and 2017, as well as soldiers who had defended the now Russian-occupied Ukrainian city of Mariupol, Zelensky wrote on Telegram. The Russian Defense Ministry said Thursday that it too had received 84 soldiers as part of a prisoner exchange. In other developments, Russian strikes in Ukraine's Sumy region overnight Wednesday resulted in numerous injuries, Ukrainian regional officials said. A missile strike on a village in the Seredyna-Budska community wounded a 7-year-old girl and a 27-year-old man, according to regional governor Oleh Hryhorov. The girl was hospitalized in stable condition. In Russia, a Ukrainian drone attack damaged several apartment buildings in the southern city of Rostov-on-Don, near the border with Ukraine, where 13 civilians were wounded, according to acting governor of the region, Yuri Slyusar. Two of the wounded were hospitalized in serious condition, Slyusar said. Pylas and Spike write for the Associated Press. Spike reported from Budapest, Hungary. AP writers Lorne Cook in Brussels; Hanna Arhirova in Kyiv, Ukraine; Katie Marie Davies in Manchester, England; Dasha Litvinova in Tallinn, Estonia, and Will Weissert in Washington contributed to this report.
The Hill
12 minutes ago
- The Hill
The House is awash in subpoenas as Epstein inquiry expands
Congress has been rightly criticized for not pushing back sooner against executive branch encroachments on first branch constitutional prerogatives. Congress's relative somnolence is understandable though not wholly excusable. The silence on the Hill has been due in large part to the unilateral party control of both houses of Congress and the presidency. There is a certain grace period observed at the outset of a new administration while it gets its ducks in a row on policy and legislative priorities. Missteps and overreach inevitably occur and usually are met by majority party tolerance and inaction on the Hill. This Congress has followed the norm and oversight was overlooked except by the lone voices of protest on the minority party side of the aisle. Last month we witnessed the first cracks in the stone dam. It occurred on July 22 in the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. There, in the Subcommittee on Federal Law Enforcement chaired by Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.), ranking member Summer Lee (D-Pa.) offered a motion to subpoena the Justice Department for the complete files of Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sex offender who died by suicide in prison in 2019. The motion surprisingly carried on an 8-to-2 vote with three Republican members joining all Democrats to adopt the motion. Two of the subcommittee's Republicans, including Chairman Higgins, voted against the motion. The subcommittee subsequently adopted by voice vote a motion offered by Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) to subpoena the deposition testimony of a host of former government officials from both parties, including former President Bill Clinton, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, six former attorneys general and two former FBI directors. One of the subpoenaed former officials, Obama Attorney General Eric Holder, was asked on ' Meet the Press ' last Sunday whether he would comply with the subpoena. He wouldn't commit, explaining that conversations were ongoing to determine exactly what information the committee wanted. Program moderator Kristen Welker pressed him, noting that he was the first attorney general in history ever to be held in contempt of Congress in 2012 for his refusal to testify on 'Operation Fast and Furious,' tracking illegal gun sales. 'Do you have any regrets about that now,' and, 'will that be informing your decision now?' Holder explained that the information sought in that instance was 'confidential' internal executive branch communications and, presumably privileged (though only the president can invoke executive privilege). The White House and Justice Department did not attempt to prosecute Holder for criminal contempt of Congress in 2012. Whether the other subpoenaed former attorneys general and FBI directors will take their lead from Holder's decision this time will be interesting to watch. What makes the Epstein files disclosure demand especially unique today is President Trump's apparent flip-flop on the issue of disclosure from his previous use of it as one of the major issues on which he campaigned. It was a symbol of bringing down the ruling elites and draining the Washington swamp. That commitment has waned. As pressure grew, the president belatedly directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to seek release of sealed grand jury transcripts in the Epstein case. That request was denied by a Florida judge. Meanwhile, the president has put out the word that it's 'time to move on.' The Supreme Court's decision in McGrain v. Daugherty in 1927 held that Congress has an inherent right to compel testimony and conduct oversight as part of its constitutional lawmaking functions. The case was an offshoot of the Teapot Dome oil leasing scandal of the early 1920s. In that instance, a Senate select committee was inquiring into why former Attorney General Harry Daughety did not investigate the matter when it first broke. It had subpoenaed Mally Daugherty, the attorney general's brother and president of a bank at the heart of the scandal. When Mally refused to comply with the subpoena he was cited for contempt of Congress and found guilty. The Supreme Court reversed a lower court and upheld Mally's conviction. That 1927 decision did not turn off the spigot and witnesses today are still challenging subpoenas and inviting contempt citations. Whether a contempt citation is prosecuted is solely at the discretion of the Justice Department. The failure by the Justice Department to prosecute Holder's contempt of Congress citation in 2012 could well be a precursor to another prolonged battle of the branches. This time Congress could potentially wind-up with a sawed-off limb. Don Wolfensberger is a 28-year congressional staff veteran culminating as chief of staff of the House Rules Committee in 1995. He is author of, 'Congress and the People: Deliberative Democracy on Trial' (2000), and, 'Changing Cultures in Congress: From Fair Play to Power Plays' (2018).
