logo
Guthrie has long wanted to overhaul Medicaid. Now he has to sell members on a compromise

Guthrie has long wanted to overhaul Medicaid. Now he has to sell members on a compromise

Yahoo13-05-2025

With House Republicans warring over Medicaid, Energy and Commerce Chair Brett Guthrie is playing peacemaker — telling moderates the party isn't going to gut the safety-net program while also assuring fiscal hawks that Republicans will slash hundreds of billions of dollars.
It's a delicate balancing act for the mild-mannered Kentucky Republican, who's been largely successful in preventing an all-out, intraconference revolt. But he's about to face his biggest leadership test yet Tuesday as his panel meets to advance its contributions to President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' that go further than what some centrists would like — and not far enough to satisfy every hard-liner.
'I think he's learned a lot,' said Rep. David Valadao of California, one moderate who has more Medicaid recipients in his swing district than any other House Republican and has been working to warn his colleagues about going too far in overhauling the program. 'But he just has a very difficult task.'
The Energy and Commerce portion of the massive, party-line package needs to reduce the deficit by $880 billion. The bulk of these savings is expected to come from changes to Medicaid, which currently serves nearly 80 million Americans.
The draft legislation being marked up Tuesday would scrap the most controversial proposals that had initially been on the table, including one to cap federal spending in states that have expanded Medicaid under the Democrats' 2010 health law. At the same time, it would throw conservatives red meat, like banning federal funding for Planned Parenthood and pulling back money from states offering Medicaid to undocumented immigrants.
It also would add new mandates that will likely force states to revamp how they finance their programs or cut benefits, along with new work requirements that are expected to result in reduced enrollment. Democrats released preliminary Congressional Budget Office estimates they requested Sunday night, which found more than 8.6 million people would go uninsured if the health portions of the GOP's party-line package became law — resulting in cuts of at least $715 billion
In many ways, this bill is a compromise for Guthrie, who has talked for nearly his entire, 16-year career in Congress about wanting to make sweeping changes to Medicaid to protect it from abuse and, in turn, insolvency — in line with what hardliners are pushing.
'I'd personally love per-capita allotments for Medicaid,' said Guthrie in an interview earlier this year, referring to a controversial proposal to cap federal spending in the program. 'I'm not sure we're going to be able to get 218 votes for that.'
The conference's staunchest conservatives, however, don't see it as a compromise at all. To the extent that Guthrie's proposal seeks to strike a balance between wishlists for centrists and fiscal hawks, the latter contingent see it as falling far too short.
'I sure hope House & Senate leadership are coming up with a backup plan … because I'm not here to rack up an additional $20 trillion in debt over 10 years or to subsidize healthy, able-bodied adults, corrupt blue states, and monopoly hospital ceos,' Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) said in a social media post Monday.
Hard-liners are also privately livid that Guthrie and House Republican leaders were, in the later stages of negotiations, too focused on Trump's anxieties about the House appearing too aggressive on Medicaid. Fiscal hawks privately fumed that Guthrie and leadership increasingly turned to creative ways to find savings across the program. But in the end, it constituted 'shell games' that wouldn't bend long-term federal spending on the program, according to four Republicans involved in the talks.
Guthrie was a recent guest at an hours-long House Freedom Caucus meeting on the subject, where efforts to explain how Congress could inadvertently cause widespread Medicaid coverage losses largely fell flat.
'That's not our problem,' Rep. Eric Burlison (R-Mo.) shot back at one point.
Guthrie has, however, spent considerable time among moderates, often one-on-one, to walk them through various potential proposals on overhauling Medicaid and sort out any confusion.
Those conversations have involved no 'strong-arming,' said Rep. Gus Bilirakis, the Florida Republican who chairs the Energy and Commerce subcommittee on commerce, manufacturing and trade, in an interview.
'I sit down and walk through some policy options and I think I made people feel more comfortable with where we are,' Guthrie told reporters after a recent meeting with members concerned about deep Medicaid cuts. 'We're not going to do anything that's drastic.'
The conservative health policy chops Guthrie has accumulated over years of studying the issues has lent him credibility with members on opposite ends of the ideological spectrum.
'He brings up that right mixture of the human aspect — the compassionate side of being an American — along with a deep understanding of policy that exceeds most staff members,' said Rep. August Pfluger (R-Texas), an ally of Guthrie's on the committee. Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.), a member of both Energy and Commerce and the House Freedom Caucus, conceded in an interview that while 'there are things we're all disappointed aren't in [the bill] … Most people who've talked with him realize that he's an honest broker who's trying to do a hard job.'
Guthrie's own willingness to compromise could also be what brings colleagues around at Tuesday's markup. That includes Rep. Nick Langworthy (R-N.Y.), who had been expressing reservations about Medicaid cuts but on Tuesday praised Guthrie's proposal as one that 'strengthens the social safety net while restoring fiscal responsibility.'
'He's probably the most transparent committee chair in the halls of Congress,' Langworthy, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, said of Guthrie in a recent interview. 'He and the staff of Energy and Commerce are doing yeoman's work listening to members' concerns across the conference of all ideologies to make sure that … this is a final product that will be able to get 218 votes.'
That's one Energy and Commerce Republican Guthrie can count on. He can only afford to lose about a handful of others on the panel and still advance the measure, given all Democrats are expected to oppose it. His margin of error will be even more slender when it hits the House floor as soon as next week, bundled together with the other components of the massive package of tax cuts and extensions, border security investments, energy policy and more.
Hard-liners will be sure to keep grumbling. Moderates will continue to be inundated with political attack ads from Democrats, alongside public backlash from hospitals and GOP state legislators that would feel the effects.
'The GOP is putting up smoke and mirrors but this is all very simple: Donald Trump and Republicans are abandoning working families so they can fund tax handouts to billionaires,' DNC chair Ken Martin said in a statement.
And in the leadup, Guthrie has tried to keep a low profile: A typically accessible presence on Capitol Hill, the lawmaker has recently been shielded by aides who would rather he not weigh in on the increasingly fragile, ongoing negotiations.
But Guthrie has found it hard at times to stifle his chattiness — one of the qualities that has helped him build at least modest consensus around one of the thorniest issues in the megabill.
Heading into a closed-door meeting in the basement of the Capitol two weeks ago, Guthrie almost slipped into the room undetected by the press. But ten feet from the door, a reporter asked Guthrie whether one sensitive Medicaid proposal remained under consideration.
The committee chair started to reply as a staffer quickly interjected to silence the exchange. Just before stepping into the meeting, however, Guthrie stuck his head out to confirm: 'We're still discussing.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump seizes on Los Angeles protests in contentious use of military amid migrant crackdown
Trump seizes on Los Angeles protests in contentious use of military amid migrant crackdown

CNN

time23 minutes ago

  • CNN

Trump seizes on Los Angeles protests in contentious use of military amid migrant crackdown

This is the showdown the White House has been waiting for. Unrest sparked by federal immigration raids in Los Angeles provided a questionable catalyst for President Donald Trump to stage a demonstration of military force. His deployment of National Guard troops, against the wishes of California's governor and LA's mayor — both Democrats — appears at this point to be mostly for show, intended to create the perception of the administration getting tough. But the reservists' presence at a fraught, politicized moment could worsen tensions and even become a trip wire that prompts more aggressive administration action. Northern Command said Sunday evening that 500 US Marines were now on 'prepared to deploy' status ahead of what would be a stunning and constitutionally dubious escalation if they were to show up in Los Angeles. Weekend protests saw law enforcement officers in riot gear use tear gas and flash bangs to disperse crowds in downtown Los Angeles and the nearby city of Paramount. The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department said demonstrators threw objects and were violent toward federal agents and deputy sheriffs. Trump is relishing his response. 'Order will be restored, the Illegals will be expelled, and Los Angeles will be set free,' the president posted on Truth Social on Sunday. He seems to be eyeing political objectives that go beyond the immediate situation in Los Angeles, which, compared with historical precedents, hardly seems to justify a unilateral presidential intervention. He is delivering a warning to Democratic jurisdictions nationwide that oppose his deportation moves. And he's not simply demonstrating his desire to militarize his crackdown on undocumented migrants, which he promised in the 2024 campaign despite legal constraints. He's implying he'll use the military, specifically the National Guard, to act against protest and dissent — a prospect that is troubling in a democratic society. Trump's move on Saturday is also a hint that he's willing to trample tradition and potentially constitutional limits down the line and that he wants to exploit what Republicans see as Democratic weakness on public order. And it buttresses the authoritarian image-making of a strongman commander in chief who ended last week ringside at a UFC fight and who will cap this week with tanks rumbling through the capital, on his birthday, at a parade ostensibly marking the Army's 250th anniversary. Trump gave the order to send 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles after several days of protests and unrest following Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids that netted dozens of arrests. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Saturday night that the move was necessary because of the failure of California authorities to protect federal immigration officials and their own citizens. CNN's Priscilla Alvarez and Betsy Klein reported that White House officials first decided to rush federal agents and resources to Los Angeles to protect ICE agents and guard one of the federal buildings where protests gathered. On Saturday evening, the decision was taken to send in the guard. Despite the heated rhetoric of administration officials and Republican lawmakers on Sunday, however, there were few signs that disorder is raging out of control or that local authorities cannot cope. California Gov. Gavin Newsom has accused Trump of taking a 'purposefully inflammatory' step, and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said National Guard deployments were not 'called for.' And by the standards of outbursts of unrest in the US over the past few decades, the situation in Los Angeles does not appear especially acute. On Sunday, National Guard troops took up positions in three locations in Los Angeles, in what appeared to be the first instance in decades of reservists being deployed by a president without coordination with a governor. CNN crews captured California National Guard troops, operating under the authority of Trump rather than Newsom after the president called them into federal service, pushing back demonstrators outside a detention center. A federal officer was seen firing what appeared to be a gas canister. The stationing of troops at federal facilities is a potentially significant distinction since they were not initially being used in active law enforcement. Such a step would infringe on the Posse Comitatus Act, which bars federal troops from participating in law enforcement unless specifically authorized by the law or Congress. Even in this case, though, the legal situation is not definitive. The administration has not so far invoked the Insurrection Act, which in some circumstances permits the president to use the military to end an insurrection or rebellion of federal power in a state. An objective analysis of the situation in Los Angeles suggests no such extreme disorder yet. But one top administration official seems to be choosing his language with precision. Domestic policy adviser Stephen Miller posted on X that there were two choices: 'Deport the invaders, or surrender to insurrection.' The echoing of the Insurrection Act by a powerful administration figure who claims an 'invasion' of migrants justifies Trump's use of emergency and all but unlimited executive power is probably not a coincidence. The president doubled down in a Sunday Truth Social post, claiming 'violent, insurrectionist mobs are swarming and attacking' federal agents. The National Guard deployment clearly risks politicizing the military. But it's a political no-brainer for the White House. Images of troops in combat gear, and the administration's vows to enforce order if local leaders won't, boost Trump's tough-guy image, which is an important factor in his appeal to his supporters. It bolsters Republican claims of fecklessness in liberal-run cities that have been plagued by homelessness and crime. By sending troops in over Newsom's head, Trump escalates his feud with the governor, who is one of the most prominent national Democrats at a time when Trump is threatening to pull federal funding to the state. This may also serve as a warning to other blue states that they could see the militarization of the deportation program if they don't cooperate. Then there's the distraction factor. The theatrics of troop arrivals may help disguise the fact that deportations have yet to reach the levels some supporters likely hoped for. And at a dicey political moment, following his public estrangement from Elon Musk and with doubts hanging over his massive domestic spending bill, escalating an immigration controversy serves to change the subject for Trump. Immigration has long been one of his reliable political havens. Still, a new CBS poll Sunday showed that while a majority approve of Trump's goals on the issue, 56% fault his approach. Top Republicans were quick to back Trump's California moves after days when Washington was consumed by the president's psychodrama with Musk. 'You have a very weak, lawless-leaning governor in Gov. Newsom, who's not enforcing the nation's laws,' Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma told CNN's Dana Bash on 'State of the Union.' He went on, 'The president has made it very clear: If the governor or the mayor of the city isn't willing to protect the citizens of his state or the city, then the president will.' Another Republican senator, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, had few concerns about using National Guard troops. 'You provide massive manpower to prevent violence,' he told Bash. 'It would be nice if Democrat politicians wouldn't keep stirring it up and keep asking people to go out there and protest against lawful law enforcement actions. That's kind of hard to stomach.' Oklahoma's other Republican senator, James Lankford, said on NBC's 'Meet the Press' that Trump was trying to 'de-escalate all the tensions' by sending troops. Democrats, however, lashed out at Trump's move. 'My concern, of course, is that this inflames the situation and that he is hellbent on inflaming the situations,' Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar said on CBS' 'Face the Nation.' 'Individual governors look at their states. They make decisions,' Klobuchar said. 'But in this case, the president, time and time again, has shown this willingness to, one, violate the law, as we've seen across the country in many different situations outside of the immigration context. And two, inflame situations.' Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent who caucuses with Democrats, warned on 'State of the Union' that 'we have a president who is moving this country rapidly into authoritarianism.' Sanders added: 'This guy wants all of the power. He does not believe in the Constitution. He does not believe in the rule of law … he thinks he has a right to do anything he wants.' Concerns Trump is flexing authoritarian impulses and that the administration would relish confrontations that allow it to move in this direction were underscored by a post on X by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. He wrote that if violence continued, 'Active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton will also be mobilized — they are on high alert.' A threat by the defense secretary to deploy a force whose battle honors include Belleau Wood, Iwo Jima and Fallujah onto American streets does not only offend principles of democratic republican government. It would almost certainly be illegal, unless Trump invokes the Insurrection Act. At this point, the conditions of that legislation look nowhere near being met. Trump said Sunday he was not yet ready to invoke the act. Still, all this is chilling given his warning last year that he'd be prepared to use the military against 'the enemy from within.' This also comes after four months in which the administration has used questionable presidential power to target institutions from law firms to universities to the media. And it has used contentious national emergencies declared to unlock authorities on trade and immigration. Common Defense, the country's largest grassroots veterans organization, condemned Trump's deployment of the California National Guard. 'The militarized response to protests in Los Angeles is a dangerous escalation that undermines civil rights and betrays the principles we swore to uphold,' said Naveed Shah, the group's political director and a US Army veteran. Hegseth's post underscores one reason why critics regarded him as unsuitable to serve as defense secretary — the fear he'd do anything that Trump told him to, unlike first-term Pentagon chief Mark Esper, who wrote in his book that the president asked whether troops could shoot in the legs demonstrators who gathered at the White House amid the George Floyd protests. Hegseth dodged in his confirmation hearing when repeatedly asked by Hawaii Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono whether he'd carry out such an order from Trump. And he also hedged when asked by Michigan Democratic Sen. Elissa Slotkin whether he agreed that there were some orders a president may give that were unconstitutional. 'I am not going to get ahead of conversations I would have with the president. However, there are laws and processes inside our Constitution that would be followed,' Hegseth said. Little in Hegseth's tenure so far suggests he'd stand up against any of the president's more extreme ideas. That's one reason why Trump's unilateral deployment of reserve troops to Los Angeles seems like the initial thrust of an expanding administration effort to use the military in a domestic context.

7 top crypto ETFs: The best funds for investing in Bitcoin, Ethereum and more
7 top crypto ETFs: The best funds for investing in Bitcoin, Ethereum and more

Yahoo

time32 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

7 top crypto ETFs: The best funds for investing in Bitcoin, Ethereum and more

Bitcoin has hit a number of all-time highs in 2025, and the Trump administration is prioritizing rules that open up the crypto world to more investment, including creating the U.S. Strategic Bitcoin Reserve. So it's no surprise that traders have been actively pushing up crypto prices on the positive shift in sentiment. But how do investors without crypto accounts — or those who are wary of dodgy cryptocurrency exchanges — get a piece of the cryptocurrency market? Simple. Crypto ETFs give anyone with a traditional brokerage account the ability to get exposure to the most popular cryptocurrencies — and more ETFs are on the way to the market. If you're looking to trade crypto through ETFs, it's vital to know exactly what's under the hood of the ETF, and that may not always be obvious by the fund's name. Broadly, traders have several types of crypto funds, depending on what they own. Direct ownership of cryptocurrencies: These ETFs — called spot ETFs — own cryptocurrencies, meaning their shares represent real stakes in the cryptocurrency. These funds closely track the price moves of their cryptocurrency. These funds tend to have relatively low management expenses (i.e. low expense ratios). Indirect exposure to cryptocurrencies: These ETFs use financial derivatives such as futures contracts, to mimic the cryptocurrency's performance. These funds may move in the direction of the cryptocurrency but often don't closely track the crypto's moves. These funds tend to have higher fees, because of the costs of trading. Some funds may try to double the performance of Bitcoin using derivatives, though at greater risk and cost. Options strategies with cryptocurrencies: Some newer funds may own spot ETFs and use options to generate income from the highly volatile asset, and then pay out that income as dividends to shareholders. These funds also have higher fees. Direct ownership of crypto- or blockchain-related stocks: Some crypto ETFs may invest in stocks of companies that profit on blockchain or other crypto-related companies. This ETF will track the fund's stocks and not really the performance of a cryptocurrency. These funds may have lower expense ratios, but you'll need to check each fund's fees. While ETFs owning Bitcoin, the most popular cryptocurrency, had existed for a few years before 2024, that year saw a big development as the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved trading in spot Bitcoin ETFs in January and then spot Ethereum ETFs later on. These spot ETFs allow investors to earn virtually the same return as the underlying crypto coin, since they own the cryptocurrency directly. So they're a great pick if you want to invest in these top crypto assets without having to open an account at a crypto exchange and deal with the headaches of handling the coins yourself. The fund company safeguards the crypto, and since ETFs are listed on the exchange, you can work with any of the best online brokers to buy them. For now, only Bitcoin and Ethereum are approved for spot ETFs, but that could change soon, as the crypto-friendly administration of President Donald Trump eases regulations on the sector. Already, dozens of applications for other crypto ETFs have been submitted, and funds for two of the most popular cryptocurrencies — Solana and Avalanche — are among the applicants. So investors may soon have a low-cost way to wager on the prices of many more cryptocurrencies. Below are some top cryptocurrency funds, including what the funds own, how much they charge (as a percentage of your investment) and how they may perform. The funds all feature low expense ratios. ETF (ticker) What it owns Expense ratio How it may perform iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) Bitcoin 0.25% Tracks the returns of Bitcoin closely. Franklin Bitcoin ETF (EZBC) Bitcoin 0.19% Tracks the returns of Bitcoin closely. Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund (FBTC) Bitcoin 0.25% Tracks the returns of Bitcoin closely. Bitwise Ethereum ETF (ETHW) Ethereum 0.20% Tracks the returns of Ethereum closely. Franklin Ethereum ETF (EZET) Ethereum 0.19% Tracks the returns of Ethereum closely. iShares Ethereum Trust (ETHA) Ethereum 0.25% Tracks the returns of Ethereum closely. VanEck Digital Transformation ETF(DAPP) Blockchain-related stocks 0.51% Tracks a set of blockchain stocks such as crypto exchanges. The expense ratios for the Bitcoin and Ethereum funds are low, particularly given the relatively high costs of trading cryptocurrency directly, even at some of the best crypto apps and exchanges. A $10,000 investment in the iShares Bitcoin Trust, the largest spot Bitcoin fund by assets, costs $25 per year, and you pay a proportional share of that each day you own the fund. As you can see in the table, the first three funds are all spot Bitcoin ETFs, so they own the crypto directly and the fund performs almost exactly like the cryptocurrency itself. Similarly, the Ethereum funds here are all spot funds, so they closely track the price of Ethereum. So they're a good substitute for trading these cryptocurrencies on your own through an exchange. Here are more of the best Bitcoin ETFs and best Ethereum ETFs. The final fund invests in blockchain and related crypto and infrastructure companies such as crypto exchange Coinbase and Strategy, a company that invests in Bitcoin directly through an elaborate process that could significantly magnify the returns, albeit at much greater risk. Returns at this crypto fund will reflect the weighted average performance of the fund's stocks, and it won't track any cryptocurrency directly, though it may rise and fall with the crypto market. Traders looking to buy a crypto ETF should know exactly what the fund owns so they can get the type of exposure and investment that they actually want. Each fund must report exactly how it's investing its money, so a quick search for the fund will tell you its specific strategy and what kinds of assets it owns — actual cryptocurrency, spot ETFs, futures contracts or stocks. Editorial Disclaimer: All investors are advised to conduct their own independent research into investment strategies before making an investment decision. In addition, investors are advised that past investment product performance is no guarantee of future price appreciation. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data

China's Total Rare Earth Exports Recover Ahead of US Trade Talks
China's Total Rare Earth Exports Recover Ahead of US Trade Talks

Bloomberg

time36 minutes ago

  • Bloomberg

China's Total Rare Earth Exports Recover Ahead of US Trade Talks

Chinese exports of rare earths, a group of 17 minerals at the center of a trade dispute with Washington, recovered to 5,865 tons in May, according to customs data on Monday. That's an improvement on the 4,785 tons shipped in April, although it's still below last year's figure of 6,217 tons. Overseas sales so far this year have risen 2.3% to 24,827 tons. The data doesn't cover rare earth products, which include high-value magnets for electric motors and hard-disk drives.

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