Josh Hawley Introduces Bill To Cancel Medicaid Cuts He Just Voted For
The bill would restore funding that states rely on to finance Medicaid, which Republicans put on the chopping block by passing President Donald Trump's so-called 'big, beautiful' tax and spending law. The measure passed on a party-line vote after months of debate and hand-wringing about taking health insurance away from vulnerable Americans ― including voters who supported Trump in the 2024 presidential election.
'President Trump has always said we have to protect Medicaid for working people. Now is the time to prevent any future cuts to Medicaid from going into effect,' Hawley said in a statement released by his office.
Hawley's bill also includes an additional $50 billion in support for rural hospitals ― up from the $50 billion already included in Trump's massive tax package. Rural hospitals are expected to bear the brunt of the cuts to Medicaid, most of which are scheduled to begin in 2028.
Lawmakers often introduce standalone bills to address pet issues that don't make their way into big spending packages like the one Republicans approved earlier this month. It's rare to see a member of Congress trying to undo something they voted for, especially if they had the power to change it before it squeaked by in a 50-50 vote, with Vice President JD Vance breaking the tie in its favor.
Hawley defended the move, however, pointing to other aspects of the bill he supported, like the extensions of the 2017 Trump tax cuts and support for victims of nuclear radiation.
'You can't get everything you want in one piece of legislation. I like a lot of what we did. I don't like some of it,' the senator told reporters on Tuesday.
Republicans delayed implementation of new 'work requirements' for Medicaid in the bill until 2027 and the changes to how the program is funded to 2028, which, at least in theory, will help them avoid a voter backlash in the 2026 midterm elections.
However, Democrats argue that the negative consequences of the legislation are already being felt, citing the expected closures of rural hospitals across the country.
'At least 300 rural hospitals are at immediate risk of closing because of this bill,' Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Tuesday. 'Not two years from now. Now, this week. Two weeks after the bill passed.'
'Hospitals in Iowa, Nebraska, North Carolina and Maine have already announced that they're closing or in serious danger of closing – not in 2027, not in 2028, but soon,' he added.
Some conservative lawmakers in the House and Senate have also talked up an opportunity to pass another bill later this year under the same reconciliation process that requires only 51 votes in the upper chamber with even bigger cuts to Medicaid, including by limiting the expansion of Medicaid under the 2010 Affordable Care Act.
'What they are doing, that is just the start,' Schumer said. 'Republicans have made it clear: They want even deeper cuts to Medicaid.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
24 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Mayoral Candidate Says New Yorkers Have 'Buyer's Remorse' Over Mamdani
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. Independent New York City mayoral candidate Jim Walden said Saturday during an interview appearance on Fox News that people have "buyer's remorse" after voting for Zohran Mamdani in last month's Democratic primary. Socialist democrat Mamdani, who represents New York's 36th Assembly District, scored a decisive victory in the primary, winning 56.4 percent of the vote to give him a 12-percentage point over former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. However, a HarrisX poll that was published this week suggests that some of that support may be slipping. Why It Matters New York's mayoral race is being closely watched as a potential litmus test for the direction of the Democratic Party, which is still struggling to recover after its defeat in last year's election. Mamdani's surprising primary win reflects a growing appetite for left-leaning economic populism and signals a major shift within the party. While some believe his success could act as a potential blueprint for Democrats seeking to reconnect with urban and working-class voters, it has also exposed deep internal divisions, with establishment leaders like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries refusing to unify behind the candidate, wary of alienating moderates. Jim Walden, a partner at Walden Macht & Haran, attends a Helsinki Commission hearing on the impact of doping in international sport, on July 25, 2018, on Capitol Hill in Washington. Jim Walden, a partner at Walden Macht & Haran, attends a Helsinki Commission hearing on the impact of doping in international sport, on July 25, 2018, on Capitol Hill in Washington. Jacquelyn Martin/AP What To Know During a Saturday morning appearance on Fox News, Walden who is currently polling in last place in the New York City general mayoral race with 1 percent, blamed the Democratic Party for Mamdani's success in the primary. "My understanding is that a lot of people have buyer's remorse because the Democrats did a terrible job on opposition research during the primary," he said. The HarrisX poll, released Tuesday, shows Mamdani barely leading the pack of candidates in the race. The poll shows Mamdani, with 26 percent of the vote, in a tie with Cuomo who has 23 percent. Republican mayoral candidate Curtis Sliwa has 22 percent and current NYC Mayor Eric Adams, who is running as an independent and who has faced multiple scandals since being in office, sat at 13 percent. In HarrisX's poll, a three-way race without Adams, Cuomo (31 percent) is statistically tied with Mamdani (29 percent) and Sliwa (28 percent). However, in a three-way race without Cuomo, Mamdani leads by 10 points, winning 35 percent to Sliwa's 25 percent and Adams' 19 percent. In head-to-head matchups, Mamdani topples Adams 43 to 36 percent, but trails Cuomo 35 to 50 percent. The poll surveyed 585 registered New York City voters online between July 7–8. The margin of error is ±4.1 percentage points. HarrisX said it conducted the survey before Cuomo announced that he's running as an independent in the general election. Walden addressed the fears that multiple independent candidates could split the vote, allowing Mamdani a clear path to victory. The lawyer said that, when the general election comes, all the independents, aside from the frontrunner, should drop out to allow them to run directly against Mamdani. "We have to put our political ambitions in the backseat for the interests of New Yorkers," he said, adding that Cuomo has signaled support for the plan, while Adams and Sliwa have not. The poll comes as the majority of New York's Democratic leadership has refused to endorse Mamdani, who has run on promises to make buses free and make rent cheaper. His progressive policies have led Republicans, including President Donald Trump, to label him a "communist." However, other recent polls show Mamdani maintaining a decisive lead over Cuomo, Adams and Sliwa. A Data for Progress (DfP) survey, also released this week, showed 40 percent of likely voters would vote for Mamdani if the mayoral election was held on July 15. The poll also showed that 25 percent would vote for Cuomo, 15 percent would vote for Adams, 14 percent would back Sliwa, and 1 percent would vote for Walden. The poll surveyed 756 likely voters between July 1 and 6, with a margin of error of ± 4 percentage points. Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani gets endorsed by the United Teachers Federation in downtown Manhattan on July 9. Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani gets endorsed by the United Teachers Federation in downtown Manhattan on July 9. Kaite Godowski/AP What People Are Saying Jim Walden said during an appearance on Fox News on Saturday, "At the end of the day, I say to New don't have to choose these broken politicians who are either extremists or craven or incompetent. There is a competent change agent in the race and that's what I'm going to be." Curtis Sliwa in an emailed statement sent to Newsweek reacting to the HarrisX poll: "For the first time since 2009, a Republican for NYC mayor is within the margin of error to win. That Republican is me. The momentum is real. I'm running to be the People's Mayor and I'm going to win on November 4th!" Zohran Mamdani posted to X, formerly Twitter, on Monday: "While Andrew Cuomo and Eric Adams trip over each other to win the approval of billionaires in backrooms, our campaign remains focused on working New Yorkers and their clear desire for a different kind of politics." Dritan Nesho, CEO of HarrisX, said about the poll: "These numbers show a volatile race still taking shape. While the progressive base is fueling Mamdani's rise, Cuomo's broad name recognition and moderate appeal make him a formidable general election challenger." Political analyst Craig Agranoff told Newsweek via text message on Wednesday: "Establishment Democrats' reluctance to endorse Mamdani in the NYC mayoral race stems largely from ideological divides within the party. As a self-identified democratic socialist backed by progressive groups like the DSA and figures such as AOC, Mamdani's positions on issues like defunding the police, strong support for Palestinian rights, and aggressive economic reforms put him at odds with the more centrist, pragmatic wing represented by leaders like Jeffries, Schumer, & Hochul." What Happens Next? The general mayoral election will be held on November 4.
USA Today
25 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump: Epstein grand jury records unlikely to satisfy critics
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump acknowledged on July 19 he's unlikely to satisfy the clamor for more information about Jeffrey Epstein. Even if a court fully approves his request to release grand jury testimony about the disgraced financier and convicted sex offender, that probably won't be enough, Trump said on social media. 'Nothing will be good enough for the troublemakers and radical left lunatics making the request,' the president wrote. 'It will always be more, more, more. MAGA!' More: $10 billion lawsuit. More documents coming. Here's the latest on Trump and Epstein. Trump previously accused the Biden administration of hiding a list of Epstein clients. The Department of Justice teased that more files would be coming out, but then on July 7, Attorney General Pam Bondi said there was no client list and no further disclosure was needed. That led to a wave of backlash from Trump's MAGA base. "No one believes there is not a client list," Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Georgia, a close Trump ally, posted on X July 8. On July 18, federal prosecutors asked a federal court in Manhattan to unseal grand jury transcripts in the criminal cases against Epstein and his former associate Ghislaine Maxwell. Epstein's federal sex-trafficking case was still pending when he was found dead in a jail cell in 2019. 'Based on the ridiculous amount of publicity given to Jeffrey Epstein, I have asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony, subject to Court approval,' Trump wrote on social media. Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican who filed legislation to release all the government's Epstein records, wrote in social media post that Trump's move indicates the pressure campaign is 'working.' 'But we want all the files,' Massie added. It could take time for the courts to release any records, and the grand jury documents are just a portion of the unreleased files. 'What about videos, photographs and other recordings?' Democratic Rep. Daniel Goldman, a former prosecutor, wrote on social media in response to Bondi saying she'd seek the release of grand jury testimony. 'What about FBI… (witness interviews)? What about texts and emails?' Contributing: Zac Anderson, Aysha Bagchi, Joey Garrison.
The Hill
25 minutes ago
- The Hill
Will the 2028 Democratic nominee be ‘none of the above'?
Did you hear the one where former Vice President Kamala Harris, former Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg and California Gov. Gavin Newsom were the leading candidates for the Democratic nomination for president in 2028? Neither have I. Nor have any Democrats I speak with who concern themselves with real-world politics. In a recent poll from a company called Echelon Insights — which describes itself as 'erasing old industry lines that separate the process of conducting research from the tools to act on it' — Harris was leading the Democratic field with 26 percent of the primary vote, followed by Buttigieg at 11 percent, Newsom at 10 percent, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) at 7 percent and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) at 6 percent. I have spoken with numerous Democrats in or around the business of politics over the last few months. Not one believes that Harris will — or should be — the nominee. Similarly, none believe the other four names topping the poll will be the standard-bearer come November 2028. As has been stated many times in the past, a good lawyer can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. The same holds true for polling. Depending on where you poll and how you shade the questions, a poll can bolster the views and desires of one partisan entity over the other, be they Democrats or Republicans. As for a recent glaring example of such polling flaws — purposeful or innocent — look no further than the truly laughable final Des Moines Register-Mediacom Iowa Poll of the 2024 election season conducted by Selzer and Co. In a state Trump was heavily favored to win, the jaw-dropping poll showed Harris leading Trump 47 percent to 44 percent. Of course, Trump went on to crush Harris in Iowa by 13 points, meaning the poll was a whopping 16 points off. 'How,' curious minds wondered, 'could a legitimate poll be that far off?' Some, including Trump himself, openly speculated whether it had been a tactic to suppress the Republican vote in the state. Trump was rightfully so bothered by the massive and mysterious failure of that poll that he decided to sue pollster J. Ann Selzer, her polling firm, the Des Moines Register newspaper and its parent company Gannett. Although the suit was later dropped, Selzer chose to retire from the polling business. All that is to say that more and more people in the business put little stock in any of these polls. Of course, at some point, some Democrat is going to emerge as the frontrunner and then the eventual nominee. After Trump's decisive victory in 2024, every Democrat I spoke with believed their party would learn from its mistakes and tone-deafness and move back toward the center — back toward once again listening to the voices of working-class and disenfranchised Americans. Not only has the party not done so, but it has doubled and tripled down on 'woke' and 'DEI' rhetoric while still loudly pushing its main 'policy' plank from 2024: 'We hate Trump.' Of course, the 'we hate Trump' strategy did nothing to address the 'bread and butter' issues upending the lives of working-class and disenfranchised Americans in 2024 and it is doing less for them now. And yet, 'rising voices' such as Reps. Ocasio-Cortez and Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) still invoke that strategy incessantly in egocentric attempts at gaining attention. Here is a suggestion for Democratic-leaning polling companies. Why not poll the minority, poor and disenfranchised constituents in the districts represented by Ocasio-Cortez and Crockett? Why not ask which 'bread and butter' emergencies either is fixing by appearing on show after show proclaiming their hatred of Trump? How has the 'leadership' of Ocasio-Cortez and Crockett improved the real lives of those constituents? Most Americans want to see those 'bread and butter' issues fixed. They don't live in entrenched and elite bubbles of entitlement. They exist in an often brutally tough world, in which many still must choose which necessity they will have to go without that month. They don't care if you 'hate Trump' or not. They want to feed and protect their children. And yet Democratic leaders still refuse to wrest control back from the far-left wing of their party. Why? Are they truly that afraid and intimidated by what really does amount to a tiny percentage of their base? In the meantime, the 2028 Republican Party bench could not be stronger. Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are all on the list. And guess what? Just as in 2024, all are laser-focused on the 'bread and butter' issues that most affect the quality of life of working-class and disenfranchised Americans. So who will be the Democratic nominee in 2028? As the internal battle for control of that party goes on, my money is still on 'none of the above.'
