Republicans hurt rural Americans with their beautiful bill. Then they clapped.
On July 4, Friday, President Donald Trump signed his spending package, dubbed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, into law. Now, it's only a matter of time before we start seeing the consequences of $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts over a decade. Of those cuts, there will be an estimated loss of $155 billion in Medicaid funding to rural areas.
'It's the single worst piece of legislation I've seen in my lifetime, and it is a congressional Republican and presidential attack on rural America,' Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, a Democrat, said on CNN, adding that about 200,000 people in his state could lose coverage.
In my home state of North Carolina, Republican Sen. Thom Tillis estimated a $32 billion impact on the state over the next 10 years. Tillis was one of the few GOP senators to vote against the bill.
Opinion: Tillis' departure signifies troubling shift. Can any Republican stand up to Trump?
These funding cuts won't just affect individuals who rely on Medicaid for health care services. According to one analysis, more than 300 hospitals in rural areas would be at risk of closure because of the loss of Medicaid dollars.
Here is the question: Do Republicans have a plan for helping these communities, or will they be too busy high-fiving each other?
After all, rural America overwhelmingly voted for Trump. So now, will the GOP do anything to help Republican voters and counties? History tells us that's not likely.
Republicans have abandoned rural America
Take the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare. Republicans have been trying to 'repeal and replace' the program since it became law in 2010. Yet despite their best efforts, the GOP has never seemed able to repeal it, much less find a suitable replacement.
Trump famously said he had "concepts of a plan" for what could replace Obamacare, but nothing has actually come to fruition either time he's been in office.
Or look at how the Republicans dismantled Roe v. Wade through the courts and implemented abortion bans across the country under the guise of 'protecting life.' Instead, health outcomes are worse. Infant mortality rates have risen in states with abortion bans. Women in states with abortion bans are more likely to die before, during or shortly after childbirth. These bans haven't stopped abortions, either – they've just made things less safe.
Opinion: Planned Parenthood isn't the only loser in Supreme Court case. Women lose, too.
If Republican lawmakers were serious about protecting life, they would be combating the country's infant and maternal mortality rates instead of decimating access to abortion services. They would have a plan to fix it instead of moving on to find other things to take away from Americans.
So, what is Congress doing to help?
Congress appears to recognize that rural communities are in need. At least, the Republicans in charge want it to seem that way. The legislature allotted $50 billion for a rural hospital fund over the next five years – far less than what is needed to make up for the loss of Medicaid dollars.
Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store.
There are plenty of people who will say Republican voters are getting what they deserve – after all, this is what the majority of rural America voted for.
I choose to believe that no one deserves to have their health care threatened, regardless of how they cast their ballots. People in rural parts of the country, regardless of how they voted, deserve to have health care that is accessible and affordable. They certainly deserve to have babies with as much medical care as possible.
ABC News and NPR recently ran coverage on Trump supporters in several states who are now struggling with what this will mean for them and their communities. While voters aren't as openly regretful of their votes as you might expect, they still have their reservations about what is to come.
We know Republican leaders don't care about Democratic voters. But if they cared about their constituents, they would be doing something to make up for this huge loss of funding and medical support. At the very least, state-level parties should begin discussing how they're going to make up the difference. However, it seems more likely that Republicans will do nothing, just as they've done every other time.
Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter: @sara__pequeno
You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Republicans just hurt their own voters to appease Trump | Opinion
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Six months in, young people have soured on Trump's job handling
Since Donald Trump took office for his second term, his job ratings have markedly declined — and more with young people than any other age group. What has made so many young Americans change their minds so quickly? For context, President Trump's electoral performance with voters under 30 improved a lot in 2024: While he lost this group to former Vice President Kamala Harris, it was by a much smaller margin than in 2020. And men under 30 ended up splitting roughly evenly between Trump and Harris. These trends prompted some observers to marvel at how conservative Gen Z had become, especially young men, and to wonder whether it marked a durable change. About half a year on from Inauguration Day, many young people have changed their minds on Trump. It looks more like many young voters gave him the benefit of the doubt when he took office, but their evaluations of him quickly started to sink. Among Americans ages 18-29, his job approval rating has fallen from a high of 55% just after he was inaugurated to 28% now. That means that half of his former approvers now disapprove. In percentage-point terms, the size of that drop is more than double what we've seen in any other age group. Which young voters have dropped off? Among young people, it's the less partisan and politically engaged who have seen the steepest drops. For example, about half of independents under 30 approved of Mr. Trump in February, but that has dropped to about one in five now. The same is true of young people who didn't vote in the 2024 election. Party identifiers and '24 voters have fallen off, too, but not to the same extent. There are also differences by gender, with young men starting out more approving of Mr. Trump than young women were. Women's ratings of the president had already begun dipping by March, while it was not until April — and the downturn in the U.S. stock market — that young men's ratings started to decline. Both have fallen steadily since then, but a faster drop among young men in the last few months has meant the gender gap in approval of Mr. Trump has shrunk. (See the bottom of this article for statistical details on estimating these smaller subgroups.) CBS News polling over the past few months offers several clues as to what young people are unhappy about these days. A majority now say Mr. Trump is doing different things than he promised during the 2024 campaign. That's a reversal in sentiment from early February, when seven in 10 said he's doing what he said he would. And it's young men who have been the most likely to flip on this question. On top of that, the administration is experiencing low points on several economic evaluations: The share of young people saying the economy is getting worse has risen to six in 10. And young Americans are less likely than older ones to see the job market as good. Overtime, young people have increasingly rated it as fairly or very in 10 also tell us that Mr. Trump's policies are making them worse off financially. That is the highest we've seen to date, and it represents a complete change from what young people expected when he was inaugurated. Back then, they were much more likely to say his policies would make them better off than worse majorities feel the Trump administration is focusing too much on tariffs (72%), deportations (64%), and ending DEI programs (55%). These shares have all grown significantly over time. By contrast, seven in 10 say the administration isn't focusing enough on lowering prices, which was a key campaign issue. Looking back and ahead… Instead of marking a permanent rightward shift, Mr. Trump's better-than-expected performance with young voters last year is beginning to look more like a temporary reaction. Indeed, less partisan voters tend to be more responsive to short-term forces, like the economic conditions that drove many at the ballot box in 2024. And when Trump was inaugurated, many young people hoped he would turn the economy around, with his initial ratings likely reflecting some optimism. This honeymoon period quickly faded. His 18-29 rating is now below Joe Biden's when he left office. Looking ahead to 2026, Republicans' electoral success may depend on both the president's numbers and youth turnout. If views of Mr. Trump's job handling don't improve over the next year, they could be a drag on GOP congressional candidates. And while young voters are less likely to turn out in non-presidential years, both the 2018 and 2022 midterms saw record numbers go to the polls, including voters under 30. In fact, in 2022, young voters turned out at a rate that came close to saving the Democrats' majority. In a tight contest, they could be pivotal again. Estimating small subgroups in polls In order to more precisely estimate trends in approval among young people, I aggregated our polls and ran a statistical model that controls for respondents' race, education level, 2024 vote, and survey date. Why take this approach? All polls have a margin of error, and the margin of error is greater for subgroups within the poll, as a function of sample size and routine weighting. So, even though young people are represented proportionate to their share of the population, estimating what percentage of them approve of the president naturally comes with a higher margin of error. It's driven by random variation in which types of young people respond to a given poll, and margins of error grow as you slice data more thinly — for instance, in disaggregating young people by gender. Since a single poll can only do so much, we can combine data across polls to boost sample sizes and gain confidence in our estimates. Aggregating surveys yields sample sizes of over 1,200 men and 1,300 women under 30 to analyze. And the model smoothens out poll-to-poll randomness within these subgroups. The modeled estimates for any given time point are consistently within range of the unmodeled survey data, typically within a few points. And importantly, they tell the same story: both young men and young women's views of Trump have worsened, and the gender gap has decreased. John Oliver: The 60 Minutes Interview Finding the plane used for Argentina's dictatorship-era "death flights" | 60 Minutes Immigration agent told 18-year-old U.S. citizen "you got no rights here" during arrest
Washington Post
11 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Trump gave the USOPC cover on its transgender athlete policy change. It could end up in court anyway
In its push to remove transgender athletes from Olympic sports, the Trump administration provided the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee a detailed legal brief on how such a move would not conflict with the Ted Stevens Act, the landmark 1978 federal statute governing the Olympic movement. That gave the USOPC the cover it needed to quietly change its policy, though the protection offers no guarantee the new policy won't be challenged in court.
American Press
13 minutes ago
- American Press
Louisiana 'ahead of the game' on Medicaid overhaul, but funding challenges loom
Rep. Stephanie Berault, R-Slidell, who sits on the House Health and Welfare Committee, says the state is well prepared to manage upcoming changes with Medicaid — although concerns remain about the burden of new work requirements and a looming loss of federal dollars. 'I don't think it's going to be as bad as all the panic seems to be,' Berault told The Center Square in an interview. 'We're going to have to make some adjustments and plan over time. I think it's going to force us to speed up some technological improvements that we were going to make anyway.' Roughly 400,000 people have lost Medicaid coverage in Louisiana since July 2023, when the state resumed eligibility checks that had been paused during the COVID-19 public health emergency. That reduced Medicaid enrollment to about 1.6 million as of June — a 21% drop from the 2023 peak of 2 million, according to a report from the Louisiana Public Affairs Research Council, citing data from the Kaiser Family Foundation. Much of the concern, Berault said, stems from fears that people could lose coverage due to administrative hurdles rather than ineligibility. 'It seems to me that a lot of the panic is around the fear that people will lose coverage because of paperwork issues, not necessarily because they lost eligibility,' Berault said. 'We have the technology that we can implement… we're just going to have to find a way to do it more quickly.' Under recently passed federal legislation dubbed the 'One Big Beautiful Bill,' Medicaid eligibility rules will tighten further. Most adult recipients will be required to work or participate in certain activities at least 80 hours per month by the end of 2026. The law also mandates income verification every six months — a compliance challenge for lower-income residents, Berault noted. 'A lot of times, people who are already having low-income challenges, resource challenges — it's compliance with having to deal with checking in and work requirements that is more difficult,' she said. Berault expects that her 'One Door' law will aid the state transition away from federal dependency. The law aims to streamline benefit access through a centralized system that connects the Louisiana Department of Health and Louisiana Workforce Commission. 'That has put us a little bit ahead of the game… the collaboration between workforce and LDH is already happening here,' Berault said. 'There will be a dashboard… they will have a case manager through Louisiana Works who is going to be helping them manage all of their benefits.' Under Berault's law, Louisiana Department of Health will handle SNAP and Medicaid eligibility, 'but it's all going to be going through a centralized from the perspective of Louisiana residents needing services,' Berault said. The federal Medicaid overhaul is also expected to impact the state's budget in coming years, as Louisiana will be required to shoulder a greater share of costs currently covered through provider taxes — a financing mechanism that draws down additional federal matching dollars. 'That is a concern that we're going to have to address during the budgeting process,' Berault said. 'As the provider tax piece drops down, the state will be required to put up more… so we're going to have to figure out where that money comes from.' Of Louisiana's $21.2 billion Medicaid budget, about $16 billion — or 75% — is currently funded by the federal government. That reliance is partly due to Louisiana's high poverty rate and its decision to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. As of 2025, about 32.8% of Louisiana residents are enrolled in the program, one of the highest rates in the country, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Despite the disenrollment trend, Louisiana's Medicaid budget continues to grow — driven by medical inflation and rate increases for providers — even as fewer people are covered. Still, Berault remains optimistic that Louisiana's proactive efforts to modernize its eligibility systems and coordinate agencies will help soften the blow of upcoming federal mandates. 'My hope is, and my expectation is, that fewer people will be missed than maybe the expectation is going to be — that there's going to be a lot of people that lose their Medicaid just because they didn't click the box, they didn't get in and verify their income,' she said. 'But if workforce is already communicating with LDH, then hopefully there'll be a lot less of that.'
