White House Warns up to 9 Million Americans Could Lose Health Coverage
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
The White House released a memo on Saturday estimating that between 8.2 and 9.2 million Americans could lose their health insurance if the proposed budget reconciliation bill fails to pass.
The analysis, titled "Health Insurance Opportunity Cost if 2025 Proposed Budget Reconciliation Bill Does Not Pass," was produced by the Council of Economic Advisers and warned that, should the budget not be brought into action, the country could enter a "major recession."
Newsweek has contacted the White House via email for comment.
Why It Matters
The White House's memo comes as the debate in Congress over the House Republicans' health care and budget agenda has intensified.
Many in the health care industry have been warning that the proposed budget could lead to millions of people being pushed off the Medicaid program, however, in the memo, the White House is arguing the opposite—that the budget would save millions from losing their health insurance.
File photo: a view of the White House.
File photo: a view of the White House.
Patrick Semansky/AP
What To Know
The memo projected a dramatic rise in the uninsured population if the legislation known as the 2025 Reconciliation Bill stalls in Congress amid economic downturn concerns.
The White House Council of Economic Advisers memo assumed a baseline of roughly 27 million uninsured Americans in 2025.
It estimated that, without the budget bill and in the event of a recession, the number of uninsured people could climb to approximately 36 million, approaching the 50 million uninsured before the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) was implemented.
The Council of Economic Advisers projected that the expiration of the 2017 Trump tax cuts, set for 2026, could trigger a recession, and in turn lead to a 4 percent decrease in GDP over the course of two years.
The memo estimated unemployment could rise by four percentage points, potentially leading to 6.5 million job losses.
Noting that 60 percent of these jobs provided employer-sponsored health insurance, the memo reported that approximately 3.9 million people could then lose coverage.
The memo anticipated a 15 percent drop in health care coverage among the 22 million people enrolled in individual or marketplace plans, amounting to another 3.3 million losing coverage.
An additional 500,000 to 1 million people could lose coverage through Medicaid or ACA-subsidized plans, the memo shared.
While the White House's projections focused on implications if the budget bill fails, opponents have voiced concerns about what would happen if the bill passes.
Republicans argue that it is a necessary step to rein in federal spending and reduce the deficit, however, critics say the cuts disproportionately affect low- and middle-income Americans who rely on ACA subsidies to maintain health coverage.
The potential scaling back of the ACA, as well as other policies, in the plan is expected to see more than 13 million lose Medicaid coverage by 2034, according to research by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
What People Are Saying
The White House, wrote in a memo: "Let's assume that expiration of the 2017 Trump tax cuts in 2026 and other shocks trigger a moderate to severe recession. Such a recession will be driven by higher tax rates which will result in a reduction in economic activity that will lead to significant unemployment. This in turn will strain state finances and likely lead to reductions in generosity of benefits including Medicaid for states providing greater benefits than the average Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion state. Based on our assumptions, we estimate a net increase in uninsured of potentially 8.2 to 9.2 million people if the 2025 Proposed Budget Reconciliation Bill does not pass."
Representative Don Bacon (R-Neb.) said, according to The Hill: "I like work requirements. People that are able-bodied, mentally healthy and all that should be working if you're working age. Able-bodied people still get Medicaid, but you should be looking for work, trying to improve your skills or working. And I think most Americans want that."
Democratic Representatives Frank Pallone and Richard Neal and Senator Ron Wyden, said: "Cold, hard math paints a grim picture— the Republicans' long pursued golden goose of dismantling and undermining the ACA means millions of Americans will see their premiums skyrocket and their care reduced or outright stolen. By not extending the improvements to the Premium Tax Credits, by using reconciliation to codify cruel new rules that will make it harder for people to get care, Trump and Republicans are opening the floodgates for the biggest theft of health coverage we have ever seen. The nonpartisan CBO is now telling us that 5.7 million stand to lose their care if Republicans get their way on the ACA, with the number rising when you factor in their cruel Medicaid cuts and additional legislative changes."
They added: "Through their budget, their vision is for a poorer, sicker America. If they choose to not extend these credits, they are choosing to rip health care from millions. The horrific consequences will lie squarely at their feet."
What Happens Next
The House is expected to vote on the budget bill before the Memorial Day deadline set by Republican Speaker Mike Johnson. Further projections of insurance coverage losses will depend on congressional action, economic performance, and whether the bill's tax cuts and social program reductions become law.
Advocacy groups and Senate Republicans continue to debate the proposed changes.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
4 minutes ago
- Forbes
Is Donald Trump An Authentic Leader?
On the performative nature of authenticity, and why Trump exposes the paradoxical and unscientific meaning of the term. In a world obsessed with personal branding, real and deep fake influencers, and AI-fueled persuasion, 'authenticity' seems more valuable than ever, as the distinction between what's real and what isn't transcends everything and everyone. We no longer expect our leaders to be merely competent — a trait that, inconveniently, remains hard for most voters to identify. We want them to be 'real,' too, though no one can quite agree on what that entails in an era where even authenticity can be performative. From viral LinkedIn mantras to inspirational TED Talks, authenticity is praised as the antidote to crooked leaders, political doublespeak, and robotic managerialism, not to mention phony politicians. Indeed, research suggests that people rate 'authentic leaders' as more trustworthy, relatable, and morally grounded. And yet, despite its near-universal appeal, authenticity remains vague and elusive as a concept. We want, admire, demand it — but few can define it, especially in a sensible or cogent way, and even fewer appear to know how we would go about measuring it, at least with some degree of precision or objectivity. In the leadership literature, authenticity is generally associated with transparency, consistency, and self-awareness. In line, leaders who are seen as authentic inspire greater followership, because they appear more predictable and less manipulative. Employees trust them more, and citizens are more likely to forgive their mistakes. Consider why figures like Nelson Mandela or Angela Merkel continue to command admiration — not merely for their achievements, but for the perceived harmony between what they believed, said, and did. They were not just competent, but coherent. Conversely, politicians who appear to shapeshift with every poll are penalized — not always for their views, but for the whiff of inauthenticity. Voters would rather support someone they disagree with than someone they suspect of pandering. Indeed, perceptions of authenticity are less about ideological alignment and more about emotional resonance. People tend to see those they like as authentic — and label those they dislike as fake. Unsurprisingly, Trump supporters view him as the embodiment of authenticity, just as Obama's admirers did with him. Ask their detractors, however, and the verdict flips. In a way, the real litmus test of authenticity is whether even your critics concede that you are 'the real deal.' On that front, Trump may score higher than Obama, unless you deny the possibility that more authentic doesn't always equate to more effective… Therein lies the philosophical catch: authenticity, for all its cultural currency, is not a fixed trait. It is an attribution — something we project onto others. We can't scan a person's soul (Neuralink hasn't cracked that yet) to verify the alignment between their inner essence and their outer behavior. In truth, we struggle to verify even our own. As neuroscientist David Eagleman put it, 'The conscious mind is like a broom closet in the mansion of the brain.' Much of what drives us is hidden from ourselves, let alone others. What feels authentic might just be a well-rehearsed act — one we've repeated so often, we've come to believe it ourselves (which, admittedly, sounds great, except for the fact that the most brutal dictators in history were pretty good at it). That's why psychologists argue authenticity is socially constructed. It's not some universal signal — it's context-dependent. A CEO crying in a board meeting might be praised for vulnerability in Silicon Valley, and ridiculed as unfit in Frankfurt. Compare Obama's curated 'cool dad' persona with Merkel's austere pragmatism: both were labeled authentic, but by very different cultural standards. In the end, we judge authenticity not by some Platonic essence of the self, but by how well someone's performance matches our expectations of who they ought to be. Which brings us, inevitably, to Trump. The question is not whether he is authentic — we can't ever truly know — but why he seems authentic to so many. Trump checks all the cultural boxes of 'realness': he's blunt, unfiltered, often incoherent (even when not spontaneously so), and defiantly unrehearsed. He rants on social media at ungodly hours and insults opponents with the fervor of a WWE heel. These are not behaviors traditionally associated with leadership—but to many, that's the point. His refusal to play by the rules of political etiquette is precisely what makes him persuasive. Unlike the focus-grouped politician who triangulates every utterance, Trump performs spontaneity. And for a certain kind of voter, that performance is more persuasive than policy. So how do we assess authenticity more analytically? As I illustrate in my forthcoming book, we can determine this by examining Trump vis-à-vis the four mainstream tenets or mantras for examining authenticity in others (not just leaders), namely: (1) always be honest with yourself and others; (2) always be true to your values, no matter what; (3) don't worry about what people think of you; and (4) bring your whole self to work. 1. Is Trump brutally honest with himself and others? Trump is certainly honest with others — at least in the sense that he says what he thinks. Whether those thoughts are factually accurate is another matter entirely. Although there's little evidence of self-reflection or self-critique, we simply don't know whether his statements are improvised or calculated, even when they seem spontaneous. Furthermore, there's no way to know whether he truly believes some of the over-the-top comments he makes, for instance on his own capabilities. When he tells us that he is 'a very stable genius', does he truly believe it? It would be easier to prove or disprove whether such statements are factually correct than whether he actually believes them himself. Evolutionary psychology shows that truly believing such statements even when they are not factually correct (what psychologists refer to as self-deception) is rather common in humans because it helps us display convincing signs of confidence and be regarded as competent. In other words, the best way to fool others is to fool yourself first. This introduces an interesting paradox: your likelihood of being perceived as authentic increases when you are not honest with yourself. By the same token, if you are honest with yourself, and therefore aware of your limitations, you may not be perceived as confident and therefore competent! In this way, Trump's self-deception may be a powerful tool to come across as genuine and competent – people are more likely to believe you are a stable genius if they see that you truly believe it yourself when you make such statements. 2. Is Trump uncompromisingly true to his values? Trump's values are difficult to pin down ideologically, but he is consistent in tone and temperament. He prizes dominance, loyalty, and personal success — values that appear deeply ingrained across decades of business and political life. He doesn't pivot or play nice to broaden appeal. That may limit his coalition, but it boosts the perception that he 'sticks to his guns.' Also, his decisions seem consistently optimized to enhance self-interest (either at national, party, or individual level), and despite his self-presentation as master deal maker he seems quite transparent in the goals and outcomes he pursues. To be sure, those who don't share his values will not accept that he is acting authentically by 'following his values no matter what'. This is an important reminder of the fact that value-centricity is not inherently beneficial or effective in leaders: what matters is what your values are, whether they are shared by others, and how they impact others (not just your voters, but society at large). In fact, history is replete with examples of leaders who were clearly true to their values, and impressively executed against them, but without having much in the form of positive effects (and often many negative effects) on their followers. 3. Is Trump unbothered by what people think of him? This one seems tailor-made for Trump. He thrives on attention but is often indifferent — when not hostile — to criticism. Most politicians spin, apologize, or moderate. Trump doubles down. Whether it's calling opponents nicknames, attacking journalists, or airing grievances, he seems genuinely unconcerned with being liked by everyone. In the authenticity game, that's a powerful signal: he performs as someone who is beyond calculation. To be sure, breaking prosocial etiquette norms does not make you authentic, just like being controversial doesn't make you right. Still, given that overt and aggressive confrontation tends to be uncharacteristic in a typical politician (and even someone with traditional political skills), it can make you seem authentic regardless of whether this is a calculated self-presentational strategy. It's like being a social media troll: you offend, and some people will celebrate your radical candor! That said, this disregard for what people think of you is also emblematic of a narcissistic personality, whether in its clinical or sub-clinical (highly functioning) form. Research on vulnerable narcissism suggests that those who lash out or seem impervious to criticism may in fact be protecting a fragile ego—especially when rejection threatens their self-image. Trump's combative and adversarial style, far from indicating thick skin, may signal the opposite: a compulsive need to dominate the narrative to avoid feeling diminished. As a result, what looks like radical candor may actually be a meticulously constructed performance of invulnerability. 4. Does Trump bring his whole self to work? Unquestionably. Trump does not compartmentalize. The same persona that tweets 'covfefe' at midnight is the one addressing (and trying to dismantle) the UN General Assembly. His speeches, interviews, and online posts share the same syntax, cadences, and vocabulary. His business brand, political identity, and personal life blur into one. That's the very definition of bringing your whole self to work—for better or worse. In fact, applying one of the most common scientific and popular criteria for defining authenticity, namely consistency between what leaders say and do, there's no question that with Trump (at least his current iteration) what you see is what you get – after nearly 150 days of presidency, he has enacted most of his intended plans and promises. To be sure, unlike Melania, who also has access to the private or personal version of the president, we will never know whether the home version of Trump is radically different from his professional self, which is the norm with most leaders (and people). Conclusion: More Authentic, Less Effective? So, is Trump an authentic leader? From the perspective of public perception, probably yes — at least to those who admire him. Even many critics concede that his rawness makes him 'real.' He stands out precisely because he does not seem like a conventional politician. But here's the irony: the very traits that enhance his reputation for authenticity—lack of filter, abrasiveness, impulsivity — also limit his effectiveness as a leader, particularly in contexts that require diplomacy, coalition-building, and emotional intelligence. Indeed, if you were tasked with coaching Trump, the likely strategy would be to curb his most 'authentic' impulses: inject some tact, broaden his emotional bandwidth, tone down the narcissism, and embrace more perspective-taking. That might make him more effective — but also less 'himself.' Such is the paradox of authenticity in leadership: being too true to yourself can inhibit your leadership talents. Ultimately, the case of Donald Trump reminds us that authenticity is not an unqualified virtue. Like most traits, it is only beneficial in moderation and context. What followers experience as authenticity may simply be a refusal to conform. But in politics — as in life —there's a fine line between being genuine and being a jerk. The best leaders know how to walk that line without losing either their compass or their followers. In other words, they are clear about where their right to be themselves ends, and their obligation to others begins. Importantly, while people seem to genuinely love the concept of 'authenticity' (not just in leaders, but humans in general), we would do well to acknowledge that, alas, there is just no objective way to quantify how authentic someone is, or whether someone is acting in an authentic way or not. Rather, authenticity is retrofitted to affection: we tend to deem people authentic if we like them, and fake if we don't. In politics, this creates a curious paradox. Donald Trump is hailed as the very embodiment of authenticity — by his supporters. So too is Barack Obama — by his own. But ask the other side, and the verdict flips. Same goes for charisma: it is an attribution we make about people we like and admire, because they seem better able to influence and persuade us, because we share their beliefs, values, and personal attributes, to the point of embodying a part of who we are or want to be. In that sense, Freud was onto something when we noted that our connection with leaders is in itself narcissistic: we love people who represent who we are, and when they are also leaders who appear to love us, our love is a subliminal and socially legitimate way of loving ourselves. In the end, authenticity may be less a moral virtue than a psychological illusion —comforting, relatable, and occasionally dangerous. We crave it in leaders because it reassures us that someone, somewhere, is being 'real' in a world that often feels fake. But the paradox is hard to escape: the more someone tries to prove their authenticity, the less authentic they seem. Perhaps the lesson is this: in leadership, as in life, being true to yourself only matters if your 'self' is worth following.
Business Insider
7 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Travel ban: 10 exceptions that allow citizens from restricted countries to enter the U.S.
Some select groups of people from the 12 countries affected by President Trump's travel ban may still be allowed entry into the United States. President Trump's travel ban affects citizens from 12 countries, imposing restrictions due to national security concerns. Certain exceptions allow entry based on humanitarian grounds, national interest, or specific visa classifications. Critics argue the travel restrictions disproportionately affect vulnerable populations and strain international relations. Despite the travel ban in place, there are specific exceptions that allow citizens from the affected or restricted countries to enter the United States. These exceptions are typically based on humanitarian grounds, national interest, or specific visa classifications and are designed to accommodate urgent or essential travel needs that align with U.S. policy considerations. The travel ban which takes effect from today, bars nationals from Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Congo-Brazzaville, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen from entering the U.S. Additionally, nationals from seven other countries - Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela, face partial travel restrictions. The U.S. government justifies these measures on national security grounds, citing concerns over terrorism, insufficient passport controls, and high visa overstay rates in the affected countries. However, exceptions exist that allow certain individuals from these nations to enter the U.S. These exemptions reflect the government's recognition of humanitarian, diplomatic, and strategic factors that require flexibility beyond the broad restrictions. Here are 10 exceptions to Trump's travel restrictions According to the BBC, the travel restrictions do not apply to specific categories of individuals, as detailed in the list below. "Lawful permanent" US residents Their immediate family members who hold immigrant visas US government employees with Special Immigrant Visas Adoptions Dual nationals when the individual is not travelling on a passport from one of the affected countries Afghan nationals holding Special Immigrant Visas Holders of "immigrant visas for ethnic and religious minorities facing persecution in Iran" Foreign nationals travelling with certain non-immigrant visas Athletes, their teams (including coaches and supporting staff), and their immediate family when travelling for major sporting events, such as the men's football World Cup in 2026 and the Summer 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles In addition, the US Secretary of State may grant exemptions to individuals on a "case-by-case" basis, if "the individual would serve a United States national interest". Trump's travel restrictions criticized President Trump's travel restrictions have sparked widespread criticism both internationally and domestically. Numerous countries and organizations have voiced dissent, arguing that the ban unfairly targets certain nations and exacerbates existing geopolitical tensions. The African Union was among the first to publicly condemn the policy, urging the United States to engage in meaningful dialogue with the affected countries rather than impose broad restrictions. The group emphasized that cooperation and diplomatic engagement would better address security concerns without harming innocent civilians. In a notable response, the President of Mali took retaliatory measures by limiting visa issuance to U.S. citizens hoping to travel to Mali.
Bloomberg
12 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Trump's Tariff Chaos Threatens His Push for Rust Belt Revival
President Donald Trump's signature trade policy is threatening to backfire by upending other top priorities: the revival of US manufacturing and the American Rust Belt. In Illinois, Trump's tariffs prompted a compressor maker to delay a key equipment purchase after an ambitious factory revamp. Rockwell Automation Inc., a Wisconsin-based producer of factory tools, says some manufacturers are putting projects on hold because of uncertainty over costs and future demand. Snap-on Inc. is seeing similar hesitancy among car mechanics.
