Scalise: GOP eyeing Medicaid work requirements for ‘early 2027'
House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) said Monday that Republicans are eyeing early 2027 as the target date for the new Medicaid work requirements in the large budget package intended to advance and solidify President Trump's agenda.
The timeline for the bill's new work requirements remains up in the air, as Republican leadership continues to negotiate with warring factions of the conference over details of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — which would extend Trump's tax cuts and boost his border funding priorities while reforming Medicaid and food assistance programs.
The initial version of the legislation included work requirements that would take effect in 2029, but many conservatives argued that was not soon enough.
Scalise confirmed in an interview Monday that the revised version of the bill will likely see an earlier effective date.
'We're coming to a much earlier date, early 2027, that we're going to put in the bill in the Rules Committee this week,' Scalise said in an interview Monday on CNBC's 'Squawk Box,' referring to the timing of Medicaid work requirements.
Scalise said the reason for the initial delay is the time it takes to implement changes, which would be the responsibility of Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz. Scalise said he worked with Oz to discuss the timing.
'So you're going to see a much earlier date, giving Dr. Oz the time he needs to implement the changes, but moving that date up dramatically,' he said.
On whether he has concerns that moving up the timeline could risk losing moderate Republicans' support of the bill, Scalise noted that all members have had the chance to review the bill extensively and ask questions at a briefing last week. He said they will go over all the details again.
'We are talking to all of those members. We've talked to some of them during the weekend,' Scalise said about moderate Republicans.
'Everybody knew this was something that we were working on,' he added, about the timeline of work requirements. 'We're going to go through those details again this week before we bring it to the floor.'
After Scalise's comments on Monday, House Republican leadership staff said in a briefing on ongoing negotiations that a new start date for the work requirements had not yet been decided.
The bill advanced out of the House Budget Committee in a rare late-night vote on Sunday, with four Republican deficit hawks voting 'present' to let the bill advance. The GOP holdouts voted to tank the bill with Democrats on Friday night.
Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), one of those holdouts, suggested progress had been made to move up the start date for new Medicaid work requirements and to speed up the phaseout of green energy incentives.
The bill now heads to the House Rules Committee, which is set to take up the legislation later this week and make last-minute changes to the bill to reflect any compromises and demands between deficit hawks and moderates in high-tax states.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump admin cracks down on antisemitism as DOJ official exposes 'violent rhetoric' of radical protesters
The Trump administration has taken a more aggressive approach than its predecessor toward addressing the nationwide surge in antisemitic incidents, launching investigations, punishing elite universities, and intensifying its immigration enforcement practices. President Donald Trump, through his Department of Justice (Doj) and other agencies, is using law-and-order tactics that his deputies say are necessary, but that critics say could constitute overreach. Harmeet Dhillon, the DOJ's assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division, told Fox News Digital she has not seen any "close cases" when it comes to weighing antisemitic behavior against First Amendment rights of those who oppose Israel or Judaism. Biden Education Dept Put Priority On Pronouns, Left Backlog Of Nearly 200 Antisemitism Complaints: Official "Criticizing the government of Israel is not what I'm typically seeing here," Dhillon said. "I'm seeing an intifada revolution. I'm seeing blocking Jewish students from crossing campuses and destroying property on campus, which is a crime. … Quiet, polite conversation and disagreement with Israeli policy is not really what's happening here. It's literally people saying Israel shouldn't exist — and bringing the revolution to the United States." Dhillon added that "that type of violent rhetoric has led to violent acts in our country." Read On The Fox News App After Hamas's deadly terrorist attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, the FBI's hate crime statistics showed a sharp spike in anti-Jewish incidents in the U.S. The data runs through December 2023. Anti-Defamation League (ADL) data from 2024 and high-profile incidents this year suggest the trend is continuing. An Egyptian national in the U.S. illegally in Boulder, Colorado, is facing state and federal charges for allegedly injuring 15 people, including elderly victims and a dog last weekend with Molotov cocktails during a peaceful pro-Israel demonstration in support of hostages being held by Hamas terrorists in Gaza. Suspect Mohamed Sabry Soliman, 45, stated to authorities "he wanted to kill all Zionist people and wished they were all dead," according to an FBI affidavit. During the attack he allegedly yelled "free Palestine," the agent said. In May, Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim, who worked at the Israeli Embassy in Washington, D.C., were gunned down outside the Capitol Jewish Museum in D.C. Suspect Elias Rodriguez of Illinois shouted "free Palestine" as he was detained, and Interim U.S. Attorney for D.C. Jeanine Pirro said her office is investigating the case as a hate crime and act of terrorism. Suspect Charged With Murdering Israeli Embassy Staff Could Face Death Penalty In another incident, a man allegedly set fire to Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro's residence on the first night of Passover. Emergency call logs released by local authorities revealed that the suspect, Cody Balmer, invoked Palestine after the arson and blamed Shapiro, who is Jewish, for "having my friends killed." Tarek Bazrouk, who identified himself as a "Jew hater" and said Jewish people were "worthless," allegedly carried out a series of assaults on Jewish New Yorkers in 2024 and 2025, according to an indictment brought against him in May. Bazrouk wore a green headband that mimicked Hamas garb and a keffiyeh during the attacks, and he celebrated Hamas and Hizballah on his social media, according to federal authorities. Trump warned in an executive order at the start of his presidency that foreign nationals participating in "pro-jihadist protests" would be deported, and he specifically highlighted college campuses as being "infested with radicalism." Unlike the Biden administration, the Trump administration has since gone to war with elite universities, some of which have been roiled by disruptive pro-Palestinian protests that involve occupying academic buildings and installing encampments. Leo Terrell Says Trump Admin Willing To Take Harvard Antisemitism Fight All The Way To Supreme Court Harvard and Columbia, in particular, are now engaged in litigation after Trump moved to freeze billions of dollars in federal funding for the universities and ban Harvard's foreign students. The embattled schools have been successful in winning temporary pauses to Trump's sanctions through the courts, but litigation is pending and legal experts have said they face an uphill battle. The Trump administration has zeroed in on non-citizen students and activists who it has accused of supporting Palestinian causes in ways it deems hostile to U.S. interests. Amid Trump's pursuit of visa and green card holders, Mahmoud Khalil's case has become a flashpoint. Khalil was arrested in March and detained after the administration accused him of violating immigration laws by engaging in anti-Israel activism. This week, Khalil said in court papers the administration's claims against him were "grotesque" and that his activism involved "protesting this Israeli government's indiscriminate killing of thousands of innocent Palestinians." Civil rights groups have warned that the government's hardliner posture risks violating free speech and protest rights. A coalition of 60 groups issued a joint statement this week on antisemitic hate crimes in which it warned the Trump administration not to over-correct because it would "make us all less safe." "As we condemn these heinous [antisemitic] acts and those who perpetrate hate and violence, we also recommit to ensuring that these events — and the legitimate fear in the Jewish community — are not exploited to justify inhumane immigration policies or to target Arab Americans and those who peacefully and nonviolently exercise their First Amendment rights in support of Palestinian human rights," the groups said. Dhillon told Fox News Digital: "It's not my responsibility to balance free speech issues on campus. It's my responsibility to enforce the federal civil rights laws. And my opinion, there's really no conflict." When he took office, Trump vowed in a string of executive orders to direct Attorney General Pam Bondi to "aggressively prosecute terroristic threats, arson, vandalism and violence against American Jews." Trump appointees at the DOJ then moved quickly to convene an antisemitism task force. Dhillon said there is also frequent communication between the White House, the DOJ, and Jewish leaders about addressing antisemitism. Jewish Students Welcome Trump Admin's Crackdown On Antisemitism, Hamas Sympathizers On Campuses "We have heard from the Jewish community, and I've probably met with — I think there's at least two dozen rabbis who have my number on speed dial now. I literally sent three emails to rabbis in the last hour," she said. She said her division has opened several investigations involving land use for religious purposes under a law known as the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), including five related to Judaism. The administration is also notifying Jewish communities of grants available for added security at synagogues, and she said campuses are a "significant focus" for her. After reports surfaced that Dhillon's shakeup in the Civil Rights Division led to a mass exodus of more than 100 attorneys leaving the division, she told the media she was unfazed by the departures and that her focus remains on launching the division's work toward combating antisemitism. Testing the limits of his subordinates and the courts, another top DOJ official, Emil Bove, launched an internal investigation into Columbia student protesters early this year. The probe caused concern among line attorneys, who felt it was flimsy and was also met with multiple reprimands from a magistrate judge, according to the New York Times. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a statement in May that the New York Times' story was false and fed to the newspaper "by a group of people who allowed antisemitism and support of Hamas terrorists to fester for years." Blanche confirmed the veracity of the investigation and said it involved, in part, a probe into a Hamas-linked image on Columbia University Apartheid Divest's social article source: Trump admin cracks down on antisemitism as DOJ official exposes 'violent rhetoric' of radical protesters
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Continued court fights could put Harvard in unwinnable position vs Trump
A federal judge in Massachusetts on Thursday granted Harvard University's emergency request to block, for now, the Trump administration's effort to ban international students from its campus, siding with Harvard in ruling that the university would likely suffer "immediate and irreparable harm" if enforced. The temporary restraining order from U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs blocks the administration from immediately stripping Harvard of its certification status under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program, or SEVP — a program run by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that allows universities to sponsor international students for U.S. visas. Burroughs said in her order that Harvard has demonstrated evidence it "will suffer immediate and irreparable injury before there is an opportunity to hear from all parties," prompting her to temporarily block the SEVP revocation. Still, some see the order as a mere Band-Aid, forestalling a larger court fight between Harvard and the Trump administration — and one that Trump critics say could be unfairly weighted against the nation's oldest university. State Department Now Scrutinizing All Visa Holders Associated With Harvard "Ultimately, this is about Trump trying to impose his view of the world on everybody else," Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman said in a radio interview discussing the Trump administration's actions. Read On The Fox News App Since President Donald Trump took office in January, the administration has frozen more than $2 billion in grants and contracts awarded to the university. It is also targeting the university with investigations led by six separate federal agencies. Combined, these actions have created a wide degree of uncertainty at Harvard. The temporary restraining order handed down on Thursday night is also just that — temporary. Though the decision does block Trump from revoking Harvard's SEVP status, it's a near-term fix, designed to allow the merits of the case to be more fully heard. Meanwhile, the administration is almost certain to appeal the case to higher courts, which could be more inclined to side in favor of the administration. And that's just the procedural angle. Judges V Trump: Here Are The Key Court Battles Halting The White House Agenda Should Harvard lose its status for SEVP certification — a certification it has held for some 70 years — the thousands of international students currently enrolled at Harvard would have a very narrow window to either transfer to another U.S. university, or risk losing their student visas within 180 days, experts told Fox News. Some may opt not to take that chance, and transfer to a different school that's less likely to be targeted by the administration — even if it means sacrificing, for certainty, a certain level of prestige. Regardless of how the court rules, these actions create "a chilling effect" for international students at Harvard, Aram Gavoor, an associate dean at George Washington University Law School and a former Justice Department attorney, said in an interview. Students "who would otherwise be attending or applying to Harvard University [could be] less inclined to do so, or to make alternative plans for their education In the U.S.," Gavoor said. Even if the Trump administration loses on the merits of the case, "there's a point to be argued that it may have won as a function of policy," Gavoor said. Meanwhile, any financial fallout the school might see as a result is another matter entirely. Though the uncertainty yielded by Trump's fight against Harvard could prove damaging to the school's priority of maintaining a diverse international student body, or by offering financial aid to students via the federally operated Pell Grant, these actions alone would unlikely to prove financially devastating in the near-term, experts told Fox News. Harvard could simply opt to fill the slots once taken by international students with any number of eager, well-qualified U.S.-based applicants, David Feldman, a professor at William & Mary who focuses on economic issues and higher education, said in an interview. Harvard is one of just a handful of American universities that has a "need-blind" admissions policy for domestic and international students — that is, they do not take into consideration a student's financial need or the aid required in weighing a potential applicant. But because international students in the U.S. typically require more aid than domestic students, replacing their slots with domestic students, in the near-term, would likely have little noticeable impact on the revenue it receives for tuition, fees and housing, he said. "This is all about Harvard, choosing the best group of students possible," Feldman said in an interview. If the administration successfully revokes their SEVP certification, this would effectively just be "constraining them to choose the second-best group," he said. "Harvard could dump the entire 1,500-person entering class, just dump it completely, and look at the next 1,500 [applicants]," Feldman said. "And by all measurables that you and I would look at, it would look just as good." Unlike public schools, which are subject to the vagaries of state budgets, private universities like Harvard often have margins built into their budgets in the form of seed money that allows them to allocate more money towards things they've identified as goals for the year or years ahead. This allows them to operate with more stability as a result — and inoculates them to a larger degree from the administration's financial hits. "Uncertainty is bad for them," Feldman acknowledged. But at the end of the day, he said, "these institutions have the capacity to resist." "They would rather not — they would rather this whole thing go away," Feldman said. But the big takeaway, in his view, is that Harvard "is not defenseless."Original article source: Continued court fights could put Harvard in unwinnable position vs Trump
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Fact Check: What we know about 'Big Beautiful Bill' banning states from regulating AI for 10 years
Claim: H.R. 1, commonly known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, contains a provision that bans states from regulating artificial intelligence for 10 years. Rating: Context: If the "Big Beautiful Bill" becomes law, states and local governments would be unable to enforce any regulations on AI systems and models involved in interstate commerce for 10 years. There are exceptions for any laws or regulations that facilitate the rollout, operations or adoption of AI models and systems. A budget bill that Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives passed on May 22, 2025, allegedly bans all 50 states from regulating artificial intelligence for a decade, according to claims shared on social media in early June. As the Senate prepared to take up H.R. 1, more commonly known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, people online expressed their concerns about the alleged AI-related provisions in the legislation. For example, one X user shared this claim (archived) on June 2, 2025: Similar claims also appeared in Facebook (archived) posts (archived) around the same time. Snopes reviewed the text of H.R. 1 and found a provision that bans states from regulating AI systems "entered into interstate commerce" for 10 years in Section 43201 of the bill. Paragraph (c) in that section outlines the 10-year moratorium on states' AI regulation: (1) In general. – Except as provided in paragraph (2), no State or political subdivision thereof may enforce, during the 10-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, any law or regulation of that State or a political subdivision thereof limiting, restricting, or otherwise regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems entered into interstate commerce. In other words, if the bill becomes law, states and local governments will be blocked from enforcing any regulations on AI systems and models that are involved in interstate commerce for 10 years. The phrase "interstate commerce" broadly refers to business or activity that crosses state lines. But in the context of this bill, the distinction likely doesn't mean much. As a result, we've rated the claim mostly true. The Supreme Court has said activities that happen entirely within one state can still count as interstate commerce if they have a significant enough impact on the national economy, as David Brody, a civil rights and technology legal expert, explained in an article for Tech Policy Press published on May 27, 2025. That means many AI systems would likely be subject to the federal rules if H.R. 1 passes. However, there are some exceptions to the 10-year moratorium on states' AI regulation — notably for any laws or regulations that facilitate the rollout, operations or adoption of AI models and systems, according to the bill text. Snopes reached out to the White House and the office of U.S. Rep. Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, who introduced H.R. 1, for comment about the 10-year moratorium on states regulating AI and the purpose of including it in the bill, and is awaiting responses. Multiple Republican lawmakers have voiced support for the 10-year moratorium, with some saying a patchwork of state laws doesn't support innovation and others stressing the importance of a federal approach to AI regulation. But other federal and state lawmakers as well as watchdog groups have strongly opposed the proposed rule over concerns about limiting states' ability to deal with potential harms caused by AI. For example, U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., said in an X post on June 3, 2025, that she "did not know about" the section of H.R. 1 that bans states from regulating AI for a decade, adding that she is "adamantly opposed" to the provision. Hundreds of state lawmakers across the political spectrum also signed a letter addressed to the U.S. House and Senate on June 3, 2025, expressing "strong opposition" to the 10-year moratorium on AI regulation. The letter read in part, "The proposed 10-year freeze of state and local regulation of AI and automated decision systems would cut short democratic discussion of AI policy in the states with a sweeping moratorium that threatens to halt a broad array of laws and restrict policymakers from responding to emerging issues." Nearly two weeks earlier, a coalition of advocacy organizations, including Common Sense Media, Fairplay and Encode, also called on congressional leaders to oppose the provision, writing in part that AI companies would have "no rules, no accountability and total control" if it were to take effect. In a letter dated May 21, 2025, the groups wrote: As written, the provision is so broad it would block states from enacting any AI-related legislation, including bills addressing hyper-sexualized AI companions, social media recommendation algorithms, protections for whistleblowers, and more. It ties lawmakers' hands for a decade, sidelining policymakers and leaving families on their own as they face risks and harms that emerge with this fast-evolving technology in the years to come. Discussions about AI companions and possible issues arising from their use have gained prominence in recent months. For example, research from Drexel University in Philadelphia suggests that inappropriate behavior, including sexual harassment, during conversations with AI chatbots is "becoming a widespread problem," the university said on May 5, 2025. Consumer Reports, another advocacy organization, also raised concerns about states being unable to deal with a variety of issues that AI technology poses, including sexually explicit images, audio and video created without a person's consent. Snopes has previously looked into other claims about the "Big Beautiful Bill," including whether it contains a provision allowing the U.S. president to delay or cancel elections. Arrington, Jodey. "Text - H.R.1 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): One Big Beautiful Bill Act." 2025, Accessed 4 June 2025. Brody, David. "The Big Beautiful Bill Could Decimate Legal Accountability for Tech and Anything Tech Touches." Tech Policy Press, 27 May 2025, Accessed 4 June 2025. Cornell Law School. "Commerce Clause." Legal Information Institute, 18 Sept. 2018, Accessed 4 June 2025. Hendrix, Justin. "Transcript: US House Subcommittee Hosts Hearing on 'AI Regulation and the Future of US Leadership.'" Tech Policy Press, 21 May 2025, Accessed 4 June 2025. Open letter from consumer advocacy organizations to congressional leadership. Common Sense Media, 21 May 2025, Accessed 4 June 2025.
