
How Trump broke the politics of Medicaid
Republicans used to cheer the possibility of Medicaid cuts. Now, as the GOP advances President Donald Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' that would reduce Medicaid spending, they're rebranding it as making the program stronger.
The shift reflects the striking new politics of Medicaid — and how dramatically the GOP's coalition has changed under Trump. Now Democrats are hoping Medicaid could be the issue that exposes the cracks in the Trump coalition.
They have seized on a nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimate that the bill would cause 7.8 million people to lose access to the low-income health insurance program. At stake is whether Democrats can start to win back working-class voters who have shifted toward the GOP over the past decade.
Medicaid provides health insurance for nearly 80 million people but was long the electoral forgotten sibling of Social Security and Medicare. It's clear in the ads: TV ads for House and Senate races last election cycle were 26 times as likely to mention Medicare, the health care program for seniors, as Medicaid, according to a POLITICO analysis of transcripts from AdImpact, which tracks political advertising. But that's already changing.
'I saw elections 16 years ago where people ran on cutting Medicaid, and there were folks who were on Medicaid who were in the crowd cheering them on,' said Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, a potential Democratic candidate for president in 2028. 'That's not the case of where we are today.'
The Medicaid provisions in the GOP's budget bill have prompted new debate even among Republicans. To Beshear and others, that provides an opening. Democrats, he said, should stand in front of hospitals and 'talk about how important Medicaid is,' he said, while emphasizing 'the impact on specific communities.'
Congressional Democrats have seized on the issue, with moderates and progressives alike speaking in defense of the program. The party's House campaign arm is prioritizing Medicaid in swing-district messaging. And TV ads mentioning Medicaid have already run in more Republican-held districts this year than they did all of last cycle.
Republicans are cautious, with an ideologically diverse group of senators wary of cuts and poised to exert significant influence over the bill. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who warned that cutting the program would be 'both morally wrong and politically suicidal,' said last week that Trump had promised him no cuts to benefits.
GOP lawmakers have largely rallied around Trump's bill by arguing the House legislation protects Medicaid by only removing people who do not deserve it in the first place. That careful messaging is a stark difference from a decade ago, when congressional Republicans explicitly prioritized cutting Medicaid and governors blocked its expansion.
One reason for the turnaround: A series of red states expanded Medicaid by ballot initiative between 2017 and 2020 — largely with backing of Democratic-aligned groups — and GOP voters defied their state and local political leaders in large numbers to support the program. Nationwide, enrollment for Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program rose from just shy of 70 million in 2014 to nearly 79 million at the end of 2024.
And at the same time more people were entering the program, including Republican voters in red states, an electoral realignment was shifting working-class voters toward Trump.
'Medicaid has a broader and broader appeal the more people that are on it, and the more people who know someone who's on it. That's incredibly powerful politically,' said Kelly Hall, executive director of the Fairness Project, which backed state Medicaid referendums.
The makeup of Medicaid users was changing — and so were its politics.
For a long time, the program has been relatively absent from federal races. Even in the 2018 midterms, when defending the Affordable Care Act was central to Democrats' midterm messaging, only 30 TV ads across all congressional elections mentioned Medicaid, while nearly 500 mentioned Medicare, POLITICO's analysis found.
But Medicaid expansion was a major issue in many gubernatorial and state legislative races in the 2010s. The success of ballot measures proved the program had a strong constituency, even in red states.
And Trump's popularity with working-class voters also reshaped the GOP's coalition. Compared to Republican candidates before him, Trump's 2024 gains were strongest in counties with high Medicaid enrollment, a POLITICO analysis found. In the 2024 election, 49 percent of Medicaid recipients voted for Trump compared to 47 percent for Kamala Harris, according to Morning Consult polling.
That means cuts to Medicaid or reductions in eligibility could now pose a political risk for Republicans. People who could lose benefits would not just be Democratic voters in blue states, but Republicans in red states and swing districts who supported Trump last year.
Drew Kent, a GOP strategist whose firm recently polled Pennsylvania's voters, found a slight majority, including 30 percent of Republicans, disapproved of work requirements for Medicaid.
'These results are definitely a bit surprising to me,' Kent said. 'It clearly shows the challenges and importance, particularly in a political swing state like Pennsylvania, of getting the policy, messaging, and communications right on an issue of this magnitude.'
Republicans are aware of the potential political liability: The GOP's argument about the bill, which could still face changes in the Senate, is that the changes to the program do not amount to cuts for voters.
'The President wants to preserve and protect Medicaid for the Americans who this program was intended for,' White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said at a press briefing last month. 'We want to see able-bodied Americans at least working 20 hours per week, whether that's part-time or full-time, whether that's even looking for work or volunteering for 20 hours a week, if they are receiving Medicaid.'
A memo from the National Republican Campaign Committee last month advised the party to go on offense, saying the bill protects Medicaid by 'removing illegal immigrants and eliminating fraud.' Among its provisions, the bill would penalize states such as California that use state dollars to extend Medicaid benefits to undocumented immigrants. According to CBO estimates, of the nearly 11 million people who would lose Medicaid or other health insurance due to the bill, about 1.4 million are immigrants.
GOP strategist Josh Novotney argued that approach is in line with what Trump's working-class base wants.
'Most blue-collar Trump supporters I have met or spoken with in large groups do not want their hard-earned taxes going to other people, whether that is student debt forgiveness or Medicaid abuse,' he said. 'That is not at odds with his supporters.'
A Kaiser Family Foundation poll released Friday found a plurality of Republicans, 42 percent, believed the Trump administration's policies would strengthen Medicaid, with only 22 percent believing the program would be weakened. But Republican Medicaid enrollees were more split, with 35 believing Trump would strengthen the program and 34 percent saying he would weaken it.
That is where Democrats see an opening. A nonprofit affiliated with Democrats' House campaign arm is already targeting swing-district Republicans with digital ads accusing members of cutting Medicaid to pay for tax breaks for the rich. And a flurry of other liberal groups have purchased TV or digital ads and planned billboards and other activist campaigns.
'To the extent that this is becoming a bigger political issue, it's simply because their efforts to destroy Medicaid are fundamentally more dangerous and more real than ever before,' said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), whose PAC is helping fund a group that opposes Medicaid cuts.
As the bill currently stands, the Medicaid work requirements would not go into effect until the end of 2026. That means Democrats largely won't be able to point during their midterm campaigns to people who have already lost access to Medicaid.
Instead, they may rely on voter trust on an issue that has historically worked for them. While polls have found voters consistently prefer the GOP more on issues such as the economy and immigration — which helped propel Trump's win last year — health care has remained a rare bright spot for Democrats.
'If there is a debate or chaos or uncertainty about Medicaid cuts, then I think Democrats stand to benefit from that because of the brand advantage on health care,' said Democratic pollster Zac McCrary. 'One of the few places where we have maintained an edge.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Boston Globe
9 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Trump charts new territory in bypassing Newsom to deploy National Guard
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Trump invoked a section of the US code that allows the president to bypass a governor's authority over the National Guard and call those troops into federal service when he considers it necessary to repel an invasion or suppress a rebellion, the law states. California's Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, has sharply criticized the move, saying state and local authorities have the situation under control and accusing Trump of attempting to create a 'spectacle.' Advertisement The directive, announced by the White House late Saturday, came after some protests against immigration raids turned violent, with protesters setting cars aflame and lighting fireworks, and law enforcement in tactical gear using tear gas and stun grenades. Trump claimed in his executive order that the unrest in Southern California was prohibiting the execution of immigration enforcement and therefore met the definition of a rebellion. Advertisement Legal experts said they expect Trump's executive order to draw legal challenges. On Sunday, Newsom asked the Trump administration to rescind his deployment of the National Guard, saying the administration had not followed proper legal procedure in sending them to the state. Trump said the National Guard troops would be used to 'temporarily' protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and 'other United States Government personnel who are performing Federal functions, including the enforcement of Federal law, and to protect Federal property, at locations where protests against these functions are occurring or are likely to occur based on current threat assessments and planned operations.' Goitein called Trump's exercise of the statute an 'untested' departure from its use by previous presidents. She said presidents have in the past invoked this section of federal law in conjunction with the Insurrection Act, which Trump did not. The Insurrection Act authorizes the president to deploy armed forces or the National Guard domestically to suppress armed rebellion, riots or other extreme circumstances. It allows US military personnel to perform law enforcement activities - such as making arrests and performing searches - generally prohibited by another law, the Posse Comitatus Act. The last time a president invoked this section of US code in tandem with the Insurrection Act was in 1992, during the riots that engulfed Los Angeles after the acquittal of police officers in the beating of Rodney King. The Insurrection Act has been invoked throughout US history to deal with riots and labor unrest, and to protect Black Americans from the Ku Klux Klan. Advertisement During his 2024 campaign, Trump and aides discussed invoking the Insurrection Act on his first day in office to quell anticipated protests, and he said at an Iowa rally that he would unilaterally send troops to Democratic-run cities to enforce order. 'You look at any Democrat-run state, and it's just not the same - it doesn't work,' Trump told the crowd, suggesting cities like New York and Los Angeles had severe crime problems. 'We cannot let it happen any longer. And one of the other things I'll do - because you're supposed to not be involved in that, you just have to be asked by the governor or the mayor to come in - the next time, I'm not waiting.' Trump's willingness to use the armed forces to put down protests has drawn fierce blowback from civil liberties groups and Democrats, who have said suppressing dissent with military force is a violation of the country's norms. 'President Trump's deployment of federalized National Guard troops in response to protests is unnecessary, inflammatory, and an abuse of power,' Hina Shamsi, director of the National Security Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement. 'By taking this action, the Trump administration is putting Angelenos in danger, creating legal and ethical jeopardy for troops, and recklessly undermining our foundational democratic principle that the military should not police civilians.' Goitein said Trump's move to invoke only the federal service law might be calculated to try to avoid any political fallout from invoking the Insurrection Act, or it's merely a prelude to doing so. 'This is charting new ground here, to have a president try to uncouple these authorities,' Goitein said. 'There's a question here whether he is essentially trying to deploy the powers of the Insurrection Act without invoking it.' Advertisement Trump's move also was unusual in other ways, Goitein said. Domestic military deployments typically come at the request of a governor and in response to the collapse of law enforcement control or other serious threats. Local authorities in Los Angeles have not asked for such help. Goitein said the last time a president ordered the military to a state without a request was in 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson sent troops to Alabama to protect civil rights demonstrators. Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck wrote on his website that invoking the Armed Services Act - and not the Insurrection Act - means the troops will be limited in what role they will be able to perform. 'Nothing that the President did Saturday night would, for instance, authorize these federalized National Guard troops to conduct their own immigration raids; make their own immigration arrests; or otherwise do anything other than, to quote the President's own memorandum, 'those military protective activities that the Secretary of Defense determines are reasonably necessary to ensure the protection and safety of Federal personnel and property,'' Vladeck wrote. Rachel E. VanLandingham, a former Air Force attorney and professor at the Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles, echoed the point. Unless acting under federal orders from the president, National Guard units are state organizations overseen by governors. While under state control, Guard troops have broader law enforcement authorities, VanLandingham said. In this situation, the service members under federal control will have more restraints. 'But it can easily and quickly escalate to mortal and constitutional danger,' she said, if Trump decides to also invoke the Insurrection Act, which would give these Guard members and any active-duty troops who may be summoned to Los Angeles the authority to perform law enforcement duties. Advertisement During his first term as president, Trump suggested invoking the Insurrection Act to deal with protests over the 2020 police killing of George Floyd, but his defense secretary at the time, Mark T. Esper, objected and it never came to fruition. Trump asked the governors of a handful of states to send troops to D.C. in response to the Floyd protests there. Some governors agreed, but others turned aside the request. National Guard members were present outside the White House in June of that year during a violent crackdown on protesters demonstrating against police brutality. That same day, D.C. National Guard helicopters overseen by Trump's Army secretary then, Ryan McCarthy, roared over protesters in downtown Washington, flying as low as 55 feet. An Army review later determined it was a misuse of helicopters specifically designated for medical evacuations. Trump also generated controversy when he sent tactical teams of border officers to Portland, Oregon, and to Seattle to confront protesters there.


Fox News
10 minutes ago
- Fox News
JONATHAN TURLEY: Democrats' rabid anti-ICE resistance in LA against Trump could backfire
California Gov. Gavin Newsom was in his element over the weekend. After scenes of burning cars and attacks on ICE personnel, Newsom declared that this was all "an illegal act, an immoral act, an unconstitutional act." No, he was not speaking of the attacks on law enforcement or property. He was referring to President Donald Trump's call to deploy the National Guard to protect federal officers. Newsom is planning to challenge the deployment as cities like Glendale are cancelling contracts to house detainees and reaffirming that local police will not assist the federal government. Trump has the authority under Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code to deploy the National Guard if the governor is "unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States." The administration is saying that that is precisely what is unfolding in California, where mobs have attacked vehicles and trapped federal personnel. Most critics are challenging the deployment on policy grounds, arguing that it is an unnecessary escalation. However, even critics like Berkeley Law Dean Erwin have admitted that "Unfortunately, President Trump likely has the legal authority to do this." There is a fair debate over whether this is needed at this time, but the president is allowed to reach a different conclusion. Trump wants the violence to end now as opposed to escalating as it did in the Rodney King riots or the later riots after George Floyd's death, causing billions in property damage and many deaths. Courts will be asked to halt the order because it did not technically go through Newsom to formally call out the National Guard. Section 12406 grants Trump the authority to call out the Guard and employs a mandatory term for governors, who "shall" issue the president's order. In the memo, Trump also instructed federal officials "to coordinate with the Governors of the States and the National Guard Bureau." Newsom is clearly refusing to issue the orders or coordinate the deployment. Even if such challenges are successful, Trump can clearly flood the zone with federal authority. Indeed, the obstruction could escalate the matter further, prompting Trump to consider using the Insurrection Act, which would allow troops to participate directly in civilian law enforcement. In 1958, President Eisenhower used the Insurrection Act to deploy troops to Arkansas to enforce the Supreme Court's orders ending racial segregation in schools. The Trump administration has already claimed that these riots "constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States." In support of such a claim, the administration could cite many of the Democratic leaders now denouncing the claim. After January 6th, liberal politicians and professors insisted that the riot was an "insurrection" and claimed that Trump and dozens of Republicans could be removed from ballots under the 14th Amendment. Liberal professors insisted that Trump's use of the word "fight" on January 6th and his questioning of the results of an election did qualify as an insurrection. They argued that you merely need to show "an assemblage of people" who are "resisting the law" and "using force or intimidation" for "a public purpose." The involvement of inciteful language from politicians only reinforced these claims. Sound familiar? Democrats are using this order to deflect from their own escalation of the tensions over the past several months. From Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz calling ICE officers "Gestapo" to others calling them "fascists" and "Nazis," Democratic leaders have been ignoring objections that they are fueling the violent and criminal responses. It did not matter. It was viewed as good politics. While Newsom and figures like New Jersey Democrat Sen. Cory Booker have called these "peaceful" protests, we have also seen rocks, and Molotov cocktails thrown at police as vehicles were torched. Police have had to use tear gas, "flash bang" grenades, and rubber bullets to quell these "peaceful" protesters. There appears little interest in deescalation on either side. For the Trump administration, images of rioters riding in celebration around burning cars with Mexican flags are only likely to reinforce the support of the majority of Americans for the enforcement of immigration laws. For Democrats, they have gone "all in" on opposing ICE and these enforcement operations despite support from roughly 30 percent of the public. Some Democrats are now playing directly to the mob. A Los Angeles City Council member, Eunisses Hernandez, reportedly urged anti-law enforcement protesters to "escalate" their tactics against ICE officers: "They know how quickly we mobilize, that's why they're changing tactics. Because community defense works and our resistance has slowed them down before… and if they're escalating their tactics, then so are we. When they show up, we gotta show up even stronger." So, L.A. officials are maintaining the sanctuary status of the city, barring the cooperation of local police, and calling on citizens to escalate their resistance after a weekend of violent attacks. Others have posted the locations of ICE facilities to allow better tracking of operations, while cities like Glendale are closing facilities. In Washington, House Speaker Hakim Jeffries has pledged to unmask the identities of individual ICE officers who have been covering their faces to protect themselves and their families from growing threats. While Democrats have not succeeded in making a convincing political case for opposing immigration enforcement, they may be making a stronger case for federal deployment in increasingly hostile blue cities.


Fox News
10 minutes ago
- Fox News
Liberals, anti-Trump figures bash ABC for suspending Terry Moran over anti-Trump social media rant
Liberal pundits and anti-Trump figures slammed ABC News for suspending longtime correspondent Terry Moran after he ranted on social media about President Donald Trump and Stephen Miller. "They can clutch their pearls and act mad but this is spot on from Moran," Tommy Vietor, a co-host of "Pod Save America," wrote, reacting to Moran's deleted social media post that referred to both men as "world-class hater[s]." Moran called out Trump and Miller on social media early Sunday morning and proceeded to delete the post. An ABC News spokesperson told Fox News Digital in a statement that Moran was suspended, saying, "The post does not reflect the views of ABC News and violated our standards." "MAGA, I thought you all defended free speech and the First Amendment, right? Why are you so upset about Terry Moran's comments? Stop being such snowflakes, right? Stop looking for safe spaces. Man up," posted left-wing writer Wajahat Ali, who edits "The Left Hook" Substack. Joe Walsh, a former GOP congressman who joined the Democratic Party this year, said, "shame on you, @abcnews." "Way to NOT stand up for a free press," he added. In another post on X, Walsh called the suspension of Moran "utter b-------," and said, "You're the free press. You don't do what the authoritarian in the White House tells you to do. Thank you @TerryMoran for having the courage to speak the truth." "What Moran reported was demonstrable fact. Indisputable fact. Yet they suspend him. This is the advantage that Trump and his ilk have. They are so beyond the moral pale, so beyond normality, that it is considered impolite, impolitic, or intemperate to describe them as they are," Lincoln Project co-founder George Conway wrote. Medhi Hasan, a former MSNBC host who started his own publication, Zeteo, directed his criticism at the Trump officials who defended the president and Miller. "Snowflakes. Pretend free speech warriors. Getting journalists suspended and calling for their firing. Hypocrites," Hasan wrote. Hasan also posted on Bluesky that Moran's suspension was "'ironic given Moran went out of his way to not embarrass Trump over the president's delusion about the doctored MS13 photo, repeatedly saying 'let's agree to disagree' and 'let's move on' but they still got him suspended. You can't appease these people ever." Moran interviewed Trump about his first 100 days in office, during which Trump repeatedly called out Moran and ABC News. Trump accused Moran of "not being very nice" during an exchange about the deportation of illegal immigrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia. "They're giving you the big break of a lifetime," Trump told Moran. "You're doing the interview, I picked you because, frankly, I never heard of you, but that's OK. I picked you, Terry, but you're not being very nice." Far-left former MSNBC host Keith Olbermann re-posted Moran's attacks on Miller and Trump, and called out Bob Iger, the CEO of Disney, which owns ABC News. "Another coward named @RobertIger responded by letting ABC News suspend Terry indefinitely for telling the truth," Olbermann wrote. "I have copied Terry's words here and I encourage everybody, journalists especially, to do the same, or cut and paste what I've written, and put it out under your name." Others also called on their followers to share Moran's deleted post. Ron Filipkowski, editor-in-chief of MeidasTouch, a liberal website, said Moran's suspension was a product of corporate journalism. "Independent journalism is when you can write what Terry Moran wrote without getting in trouble. Corporate journalism is when you can't," he wrote. ABC News did not immediately return a request for comment. Moran's suspension for airing his thoughts comes as public trust in the media continues to steadily erode. A Gallup survey last year showed a record-low 31 percent of Americans expressed at least a "fair amount" of trust in the media to accurately report the news. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt responded to Moran's post on X, Sunday, calling it "unhinged and unacceptable."