Newsom floats cutting free health care for some migrants in California
LOS ANGELES: California's Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom on Wednesday proposed eliminating free health care for undocumented migrants in what he said was an effort to balance a budget battered by Donald Trump's erratic governance.
The move is the latest sign of political moderation from a man believed to have White House ambitions, who is looking to soften his image among conservative voters and dinstance himself from a reputation as a free-spending liberal helming a state where migration is out of control.
Newsom told a press conference that California should freeze admission to the public Medi-Cal program for undocumented people starting next year, and should charge those already enrolled $100 per month.
'We're not cutting or rolling back those that enrolled in our medical system. We're just capping it, particularly for those without documentation,' he said.
Almost 11 percent of the 15 million Medi-Cal recipients are undocumented, Newsom said.
In March, the California state legislature reported that opening Medi-Cal to undocumented immigrants — which began in 2023 — had cost $2.7 billion more than expected in 2024.
The program's costs have also been bloated by high drug prices, including a growing demand for weight control prescriptions.
Trimming eligibility for Medi-Cal and cutting back on drug availability could save the state approximately $5.4 billion over the coming years, Newsom's office said.
He presented the idea as part of an overall plan to make up a $12 billion shortfall in California's budget.
Newsom said the state's financial situation was due in part to the impact of President Donald Trump's volatile tariff policies, which have walloped California, the world's fourth largest economy, and one that is heavily exposed to international trade and tourism.
The state's revenues for the first 18 months of Trump's presidency were expected to be $16 billion lower than they would have been without the volatility, a fall he dubbed the 'Trump Slump.'
Economists say the US economy as a whole is expected to take a hit from the uncertainty generated by the sudden policy lurches from the White House, with business leaders unwilling to invest and consumers increasingly wary of spending.
California last month sued the Trump administration over the tariffs, saying the president did not have the ability to impose taxes on imports unilaterally, a power the lawsuit said rests only with Congress.
Wednesday's announcement dovetails with Newsom's push to present himself as a fiscally responsible alternative to Trump, while trying to keep pace with the national mood on immigration.
But he faces a tough balancing act in a state where a majority of voters support providing health care to undocumented migrants.
'California is under assault. The United States of America, in many respects, is under assault because we have a president that's been reckless in terms of assaulting those growth engines,' he told reporters.
'It's created a climate of deep uncertainty,' he added.
'This is a Trump Slump all across the United States, reflected in adjustments by every independent economist, by leading banks, by institutions.'
Local Republicans hit back Wednesday, characterizing the budget shortfall as Democratic Party overspending that disproportionately benefits migrants.
'I urged the governor to immediately freeze his reckless Medi-Cal expansion for illegal immigrants a year and a half ago, before it buried our health care system and bankrupted the state,' state Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones said.
'With a massive deficit largely driven by this policy, our focus should be on preserving Medi-Cal for those it was originally designed to serve.'
Newsom's proposal must now go to the state legislature for review.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
15 minutes ago
- Arab News
The US-China trade war's consequences for agriculture
The trade war initiated by the Trump administration, particularly focused on China, has sparked widespread debate about its implications for various sectors, especially agriculture. As tariffs have been imposed on numerous goods, the US agricultural sector faces significant challenges, particularly concerning essential exports like soybeans and corn. This article examines the consequences of the trade conflict, especially regarding food security and weaponry, while also assessing the position of developing countries, with a specific focus on Saudi Arabia. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for formulating strategies that mitigate negative impacts and foster collaboration in an increasingly interdependent global economy. The US-China trade war was started with the intent to rectify perceived trade imbalances and protect American industries. The administration's tariffs aimed to shield domestic producers from foreign competition and address issues related to intellectual property theft. However, the immediate fallout of these tariffs has been a disruption in agricultural exports, particularly to China, which has historically been one of the largest markets for US agricultural products. American farmers, particularly those in Republican strongholds, have reported significant declines in sales, leading to financial distress. The repercussions extend beyond individual farms, threatening the broader agricultural sector's viability and influencing global food security. This conflict has highlighted the fragility of agricultural markets, which are intricately linked to international trade dynamics. The imposition of tariffs has led to a significant decrease in US agricultural exports to China, particularly in commodities like soybeans, which have seen a dramatic fall in demand. As Brazil and Argentina have ramped up their production and captured market shares, US farmers are finding it increasingly difficult to regain access to these crucial markets. The historical example of the 1980s grain embargo against the Soviet Union serves as a cautionary tale, illustrating how protectionist measures can backfire, hurting domestic producers while leaving foreign competitors relatively unscathed. Additionally, the psychological burden on American farmers cannot be overlooked. The uncertainty surrounding trade relations has led to fears of economic instability, with farmers expressing concerns over unsold crops and the long-term viability of their operations. Kenneth Hartman of the National Corn Growers Association encapsulated this anxiety by emphasizing the dire consequences of prolonged disconnection from the Chinese market. Food security has historically been a pivotal aspect of international relations. The US has often leveraged its agricultural prowess to exert influence over other nations, particularly in developing countries. Following its sanctions on Russia, the US sought to intertwine agricultural economies with its own, thereby fostering dependency through strategic practices. This raises questions about the ethical implications of using food security as a tool of power. In contrast, Saudi Arabia's approach to agricultural self-sufficiency offers a compelling counternarrative. By investing significantly in domestic agriculture, the Kingdom aims to reduce reliance on external sources, thereby enhancing national food security. This strategic pivot underscores the importance of sovereignty in food production and highlights the potential of developing nations to chart their own paths in the face of global trade pressures. Historically, John R. Block, who was secretary of agriculture in the Reagan administration, advocated for self-sufficiency in developing nations, promoting the idea that countries should cultivate their agricultural capabilities to reduce reliance on imports. However, this notion becomes paradoxical when considering that many developing countries could achieve food security more efficiently through American agricultural products. This dynamic illustrates a broader strategy of domination: controlling food equates to wielding power. By fostering dependency on US agricultural exports, America not only secures its own economic interests but also reinforces its geopolitical influence. A compelling counterexample to this paradigm is Saudi Arabia, where King Fahd's administration made a strategic pivot toward agricultural self-sufficiency, directly challenging US recommendations that favored external dependence. Recognizing the vulnerabilities associated with food imports, the Saudi government invested heavily in domestic agriculture, focusing on initiatives that would enhance local production capabilities. These investments led to significant advancements in technology, irrigation systems and agricultural practices, resulting in increased yields and a reduced reliance on imported food. This pursuit of self-sufficiency not only enhanced food security for Saudi Arabia but also economically empowered its citizens by creating jobs, fostering local industries and integrating them into the agricultural mainstream. Farmers received training and resources that allowed them to contribute to a more robust domestic agricultural sector, ultimately leading to greater national pride and resilience against global market fluctuations. Saudi Arabia's approach underscores the importance of national sovereignty in food security, highlighting that self-sufficiency can be achieved through strategic planning and investment rather than reliance on external sources. This successful policy serves as a valuable lesson for other nations, particularly those in similar geopolitical situations, emphasizing that prioritizing local agricultural development can lead to sustainable food security and economic empowerment. Saudi Arabia's pursuit of agricultural self-sufficiency serves as a valuable lesson for other nations. Dr. Turki Faisal Al-Rasheed Furthermore, as global food systems continue to evolve, the Saudi model demonstrates that countries can effectively balance self-sufficiency with international trade. By developing a robust domestic agricultural sector while maintaining trade relationships, Saudi Arabia has positioned itself to navigate the complexities of global food markets more effectively. This dual approach not only secures its food supply but also enables the country to play a more influential role in regional and global food security discussions. In conclusion, while the US promotes self-sufficiency in developing nations as a means of encouraging independence, the Saudi experience illustrates that achieving food security can also involve strategic investments in local agriculture. By recognizing the interplay between self-sufficiency and international cooperation, countries can develop more resilient food systems that protect their interests while contributing to global food security efforts. Developing countries, often caught in the crossfire of US-China trade tensions, face unique challenges. Many of these nations rely on agricultural exports to sustain their economies, making them particularly vulnerable to market fluctuations triggered by trade wars. The trade conflict can exacerbate existing inequalities, as wealthier nations with greater resources can better absorb the shocks of tariffs and retaliatory measures. In the context of Saudi Arabia, while the nation has made strides toward agricultural self-sufficiency, it remains heavily dependent on imports for various food products. The trade war complicates these dynamics, as rising food prices and market instability can threaten food security for vulnerable populations. The interplay of global trade and domestic agricultural policies thus becomes crucial in ensuring that developing nations can navigate these challenges effectively. Given the complexities of the trade war and its implications for agriculture and food security, several strategies can help mitigate negative impacts on both the US and developing nations. Firstly, pursuing diplomatic resolutions to enhance trade access with key markets, particularly China, can create a more stable environment for agricultural exports. Constructive dialogue focused on fair trade practices can cultivate cooperation and trust. Secondly, innovating through sustainable farming practices can enhance productivity and food security. Investing in technology such as precision farming can position US farmers to compete effectively in both domestic and international markets. Thirdly, forming strategic partnerships with countries facing similar agricultural challenges can establish a united front in advocating fair trade practices. Collaborating with nations with aligned agricultural interests can bolster global food security. Fourthly, encouraging farmers to diversify their export markets can reduce dependence on any single nation. By exploring opportunities in emerging markets, US agriculture can build resilience against trade disruptions. Finally, providing support to developing nations through investment, technology transfer and capacity building can help them achieve greater self-sufficiency in food production. This, in turn, can enhance global food security by reducing reliance on a few dominant suppliers. In summary, the trade war's impacts reach far beyond the immediate economic consequences for US farmers. They challenge the very foundations of global food security and the strategies employed to navigate this conflict will determine the resilience of agricultural sectors worldwide. As nations strive to adapt to these changes, the lessons learned from both the US and Saudi Arabia will prove integral to developing sustainable pathways for food security and economic cooperation in the future. The ongoing trade war between the US and China has significant implications for agriculture and global food security. As American farmers grapple with the challenges posed by tariffs and market disruptions, it is essential to consider the broader consequences of these actions on developing nations. By adopting a balanced approach that emphasizes collaboration, innovation and strategic engagement, the US can navigate the complexities of the global trade landscape. The decisions made today will shape the future of agriculture and international relations for generations to come. Through resilience and strategic foresight, American agriculture can not only weather the storms of trade conflict but also reaffirm its role as a leader in global food production. In an interconnected world, fostering cooperation and embracing the realities of global trade will be crucial for ensuring a sustainable and secure future for all nations.
Arab News
15 minutes ago
- Arab News
Is Iraq ready to stand alone against extremist threats if US withdrawal goes ahead?
LONDON: When Daesh extremists seized control of swathes of Iraqi territory in 2014, many wondered whether the onslaught could have been prevented had US troops not withdrawn from the country three years earlier. As the militants surged into Iraq's second-largest city, Mosul, there were reports of members of the Iraqi Security Forces stripping off their uniforms as they fled. 'We can't beat them,' an unnamed army officer told Reuters amid the chaos. 'They are well-trained in street fighting, and we're not. We need a whole army to drive them out of Mosul.' After three years of fierce fighting that took Daesh within 25 kilometers of the capital, Baghdad, the extremists were finally driven back and Mosul was liberated. The gargantuan military effort was spearheaded by Iraq's elite Counter Terrorism Service, bolstered by the return of American troops and the US Air Force. Images of the destruction in Mosul, along with the catastrophic impact of Daesh's occupation, might be playing on the minds of Washington officials as they once again weigh whether or not to remove American troops still stationed in Iraq. As it stands, the US and Iraq have agreed to end Operation Inherent Resolve — the US-led coalition's mission to combat Daesh — by September. Most of the 2,500 US personnel in Iraq are scheduled to leave in the initial phase, with a small number remaining until 2026. Many believe US President Donald Trump, acting under his isolationist tendencies, will want to hasten the withdrawal of those forces, or is unlikely to extend their stay if the Iraqi government requests it. With reports of an increase in attacks by Daesh sleeper cells, fears of instability across the border in Syria, and with Iran looking to shore up its proxy militias in Iraq, there are concerns that another complete US withdrawal will once again leave the country vulnerable. 'The risk of premature withdrawal from Iraq is that the Iraqi Security Forces will lose critical operational and tactical support, and Daesh will seize the opportunity to reconstitute and once again terrorize the Iraqi people and state,' Dana Stroul, research director at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and a former Pentagon official, told Arab News. The mooted withdrawal of US troops comes more than 20 years after the US-led invasion of Iraq toppled Saddam Hussain, freeing the country from dictatorship, but ushering in a period of sectarian civil war. US forces were drawn into cycles of violence and routinely became the target of two mutually antagonistic sectarian forces: Iran-backed militias and an insurgency in which Al-Qaeda played a prominent role. When President Barack Obama took office in 2009, he vowed to end US involvement in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, but not without first ordering a massive troop surge in an attempt to salvage the mission. In Iraq, where more than 100,000 people were estimated to have died in the violence, there was widespread public anger at the American presence. In the US, the war was also deeply unpopular with thousands of American soldiers having been killed. Some American and Iraqi officials wanted to maintain a US military presence in the country, fearful of an Al-Qaeda resurgence. But attempts to negotiate an agreement for a reduced force failed and in October 2011 Obama announced that all of the remaining 39,000 US troops would be withdrawn by the end of that year, bringing a close to the mission. The US spent $25 billion on training and equipping Iraq's security forces up to September 2012, alongside Iraq's own spending on fighter jets and other advanced materiel. So it was something of a surprise that Iraqi forces were so quickly overrun when Daesh launched its offensive in 2014, having emerged from the remnants of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Images of Daesh fighters driving around in US armored vehicles captured from the Iraqi military symbolized how quickly Iraq's armed forces had deteriorated since the 2011 withdrawal. As the extent of Daesh's brutality began to emerge, including the slaughter of the Yazidi minority and the beheading of Western hostages on YouTube, the US ordered its forces back to the region, as part of an international coalition, to fight the extremists in both Iraq and Syria. After some of the most brutal urban warfare seen since the Second World War, Iraq's then-prime minister, Haider Al-Abadi, declared the territorial defeat of Daesh in December 2017. US forces continued to help their allies in Syria to defeat the extremists there in March 2019. By December 2021, US forces in Iraq no longer held combat roles, instead working on training, advisory, and intelligence support for the country's military. The remaining 2,500 US troops are spread between Baghdad, Irbil in the semi-autonomous Kurdistan region, and Ain Al-Asad air base. However, soon after Al-Abadi's declaration of victory over the extremists, a new threat emerged in Iraq in the shape of Iran-backed militias, originally mobilized to help defeat Daesh. Having extended their reach over Sunni and Kurdish areas, these groups began attacking US bases with rockets and drones in a bid to force their immediate withdrawal. These attacks, sponsored by Iran's powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, prompted President Trump, during his first term, to order the killing of militia chief Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis and Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani in a drone strike on their motorcade as they left Baghdad Airport on Jan. 3, 2020. Soleimani's death was a major setback for Iran's proxies throughout the region, but the attacks on US positions did not subside. In fact, with the onset of the war in Gaza in October 2023, Iraq's Shiite militias mounted a fresh wave of strikes, ostensibly in support of Hamas. The deadliest of these occurred on Jan. 28, 2024, when three US personnel were killed and 47 wounded in a drone attack on Tower 22 just over the border in Jordan, prompting then-US president, Joe Biden, to order a wave of airstrikes on militia positions in Iraq. Mindful of the need to protect its proxies in Iraq, at a time where Lebanon's Hezbollah and Yemen's Houthis have been weakened and the sympathetic Assad regime in Syria has fallen, Iran appears to have forsworn further militia strikes on US forces. The latest agreement to end the US presence was reached in September last year with the aim of moving to a fully bilateral security partnership in 2026. Meanwhile, the US Defense Department announced in April it would be halving the number of troops in northeast Syria 'in the coming months.' An indication of Trump's aversion to the continued US military presence came during a speech in Saudi Arabia while on his tour of the Gulf in May when he decried 'Western interventionists.' A clear concern surrounding a US withdrawal is whether Iraq's security forces are now strong enough to withstand threats like the 2014 Daesh assault. The disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021 is also no doubt fresh in the minds of defense officials. A recent report by the New Lines Institute think tank in New York said that a US withdrawal from Iraq would 'heavily impede the intelligence and reconnaissance collection, artillery, and command-and-control capabilities of Iraqi military forces.' The report studied quarterly independent audits for the US Congress between 2019 and 2024 to assess the capabilities of Iraqi forces. It looked at the three main forces in Iraq: the Iraqi Security Forces, Counter Terrorism Service, and the Kurdish Peshmerga. The report said: 'While segments of Iraq's military, such as the CTS and Kurdish security forces, have proven efficient in counterterrorism operations, several gaps exist in Iraq's conventional capabilities, including artillery, command and control, inter- and intra-branch planning, and trust.' The think tank said there were serious questions about whether Iraq's security forces would be able to 'hedge against internal and external challenges' in the absence of the US security umbrella. The report's co-author Caroline Rose, a director at New Lines, says the gaps in Iraqi capabilities 'could reverse over a decade of progress that Operation Inherent Resolve has made in Iraq.' 'If the objective is still to advance Iraqi forces' operational capacity, sustain gains against Daesh, and serve as a 'hedge' against Iranian influence, there is work still to be done,' she told Arab News. While Iraq has enjoyed a period of relative stability, the threats to its national security continue to lurk within and beyond its borders. The biggest fear is of a Daesh resurgence. Although the group has been severely depleted, it continues to operate cells in rural areas of Iraq and Syria, and has since made headway in Afghanistan, the Sahel, and beyond. 'Since January, the US military is still actively supporting the Iraqis,' said the Washington Institute's Stroul. 'There have been monthly operations against Daesh, including the killing of a senior leader in western Iraq. This tells us that Daesh is still a threat, and the US support mission is still necessary.' Another concern is that instability in Syria, where the embryonic, post-Assad government is facing significant security challenges, could again provide a breeding ground for Daesh that could spill across the border. 'There are still 9,000 Daesh detainees held in prison camps in northeast Syria,' said Stroul, adding that these present 'a real risk of prison breaks that will replenish Daesh ranks and destabilize Syria, Iraq, and the rest of the region. If the security situation deteriorates in Syria, this will have seriously negative impacts in Iraq.' And then there is the ongoing threat posed by Iran-backed militias. While these militias have been officially recognized as part of Iraq's security apparatus, some believe the US presence in Iraq helps keep them — and, by extension, Iran — in check. 'The staging of US forces and equipment, combined with a deep Iraqi dependence on American technical and advisory support, creates an obstacle and point of distraction for Tehran and its proxies,' Rose said. If the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq is inevitable, then how can Washington best prepare Iraq to go it alone? For Rose, the US should play a 'long game' to sustain security ties with Iraq and preserve the progress made under Operation Inherent Resolve. She recommended the US continue investing in Iraq's defense and security, conducting regular joint military exercises, and using its current presence in Irbil and Baghdad to build strong relations with security officials. She also advised other international bodies, like the NATO Mission-Iraq and the EU Advisory Mission Iraq, to coordinate closely with the US as the drawdown gets underway. Although the US appears set on pivoting away from the region to focus strategic attention on the Asia-Pacific, some still hope there could be a way for America to maintain some form of military presence, given the rapidly evolving situation in the wider Middle East. Reports earlier this year suggested some senior Iraqi politicians aligned with Iran privately want a US presence to continue, at least until ongoing US-Iran nuclear talks reach a conclusion. 'The US military mission is one of support, advice, and assistance by mutual consent of Baghdad and Washington,' Stroul, of the Washington Institute, said. 'If the Iraqi government invites the US military to remain for some period of time, there should be agreement on the supporting role that the US can play.' If Iraq hopes to maintain lasting stability, it needs to ensure its security forces can act alone to protect the country and population from internal and external threats. Continuing to work with the world's foremost military power, even in a limited capacity, would go some way to ensuring the horrors of 2014 are not repeated.
Asharq Al-Awsat
2 hours ago
- Asharq Al-Awsat
Grand Mosque's Mobile Stroke Unit Saves Life of Ugandan Hajj Pilgrim
The Mobile Stroke Unit (MSU) stationed at the Grand Mosque, affiliated with King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center (KFSHRC), successfully intervened to save a Ugandan Hajj pilgrim who suffered a severe cerebral hemorrhage. The pilgrim lost consciousness within the Grand Mosque due to the hemorrhage, prompting an immediate response from the specialized unit, reported the Saudi Press Agency on Sunday. Upon diagnosis at the scene, immediate treatment was initiated before the pilgrim was transferred to King Abdulaziz Hospital, a Makkah Health Cluster member, for further comprehensive medical care. The MSU, unique in the Middle East, is fully equipped with a specialized medical team including a neurologist, cardiologist, respiratory therapist, emergency nurse, radiologist, and paramedic, along with a CT scanner. This advanced capability significantly enhances the efficiency of on-site diagnosis and treatment. The Ugandan pilgrim received critical treatment within an impressive 16 minutes, one-sixth of the internationally accepted standard time of 60 minutes for such cases. His condition has since improved, and he is now undergoing medical rehabilitation to complete his Hajj rituals. This rapid and efficient response exemplifies Saudi Arabia's integrated healthcare system, which aims to boost service quality and accessibility with the highest efficiency. Such efforts align directly with the objectives of the Health Sector Transformation Program and the Pilgrim Experience Program, key pillars of Saudi Vision 2030, focused on providing advanced healthcare and ensuring pilgrims perform their rituals safely.
