logo
After voting for Trump's megabill, GOP Sen. Josh Hawley wants to prevent a key Medicaid cut from taking effect

After voting for Trump's megabill, GOP Sen. Josh Hawley wants to prevent a key Medicaid cut from taking effect

Yahoo09-07-2025
HAZELWOOD, Mo. — Four days after President Donald Trump signed his 'big, beautiful bill' into law, one of the Republicans who voted for it wasn't interested in touting the measure's high-profile tax, immigration or health care provisions.
Instead, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., held an event here Tuesday centered on a less-noticed part of the nearly 1,000-page bill: an expanded fund for victims of nuclear waste, a bipartisan issue he worked for years to get across the finish line.
And when asked about the steep Medicaid cuts in the bill, Hawley continued to criticize them. Hawley said his 'goal' is to ensure the provider tax changes, which will limit state reimbursement for Medicaid, don't go into effect in Missouri in 2030 — even as he helped to pass a piece of legislation that will do just that.
It illustrates the challenges Republicans face as they turn their attention to selling to the public the massive bill they've been working on for months, ahead of next year's midterm elections.
'I think that if Republicans don't come out strong and say we're going to protect rural hospitals, then, yeah, I think voters aren't going to like that,' Hawley told NBC News in an interview at St. Cin Park. 'The truth of the matter is, we shouldn't be cutting rural hospitals. I'm completely opposed to cutting rural hospitals period. I haven't changed my view on that one iota.'
Hawley suggested he would work with Democrats to cut prescription drug pricing, a priority Trump has said he wants Congress to focus on, to pay for the tax cuts made permanent by the new law.
Ultimately, Hawley — who is seen as a potential future presidential candidate — chose to stay in Trump's good graces and vote for the bill despite his reservations, while managing to score victories for his constituents.
'Gotta take the wins that you can,' Hawley told NBC News when asked about voting for a bill he admitted he didn't like.
Defending his vote for the package that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected will cause nearly 12 million people to lose their health care coverage by 2034, Hawley said the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA), as well as the rural hospital fund included in the bill at the eleventh hour to appease GOP holdouts in the Senate, would expand health care in Missouri.
But for the hospitals and social safety net administrators in Missouri, the law's changes — even if not fully implemented until later — bring uncertainty to a community dependent on funding from expanded Medicaid access. The Missouri Hospital Association estimates the state will lose hundreds of millions of dollars in funding from the provider tax changes alone.
Federally qualified health centers, which rely on government funding to function and provide health care to underserved populations, are already facing shortfalls and budget cuts. An administrator at such a health center in the rural Missouri Highlands told NBC News last month that the impacts from Trump's megabill will lead to death in her community.
The issue is already impacting states across the country. Hundreds of rural hospitals could close and many more will lose billions of dollars in funding over the next decade, according to an analysis from the Kaiser Family Foundation.
From a political standpoint, Republicans will need to defend policy choices that Democrats are already attacking as they seek to hold onto their congressional majorities in 2026.
Hawley joined many GOP lawmakers in gaining private assurances from leadership early on and securing priorities in the sprawling legislation.
He worked with Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., 'early in the year' to attach RECA to the package. RECA, a federal law that provided financial compensation to individuals who developed certain diseases as a result of exposure to radiation, expired last year.
'For me, it was key to my vote,' Hawley said. The expanded fund will accept new claims from 'downwinders' and uranium workers until Dec. 31, 2027 and covers more cities and states, including zip codes in Missouri.
Joining Hawley at the news conference Tuesday were advocates for victims of nuclear radiation from all over the country dating back to the Manhattan Project, including Sherrie Hanna from Prescott, Arizona. Hanna lost her father and her husband to cancers that were later linked to nuclear waste in the area.
'They both succumbed to painful deaths,' Hanna said. 'I know how important the RECA compensation is.'
Hanna said she was 'devastated' when RECA expired in June 2024. 'I thought we would never get the program back. But we kept fighting.'
The event was also bipartisan in nature: Hawley embraced former Democratic Rep. Cori Bush — who was a member of the progressive 'squad' in Congress — and showered her with praise.
'So Cori, thank you. We would not be here without you and your work,' Hawley said.
Also joining Hawley was Rep. Wesley Bell, D-Mo., who defended his support for the provision even as he and every other Democratic member of Congress voted against the Big Beautiful Bill.
'There are some concerns and issues that many of us have with this budgetary bill. But at the same time, the folks who have been waiting a long time for compensation, to be acknowledged for the pain and suffering, that's one thing that I can rejoice in,' Bell said.
Some of the advocates who fought for RECA's passage acknowledged the bill's double-edged sword, like Navajo Nation President Buu Nygren, who traveled from Arizona to praise Hawley's efforts in securing compensation for indigenous communities impacted by the government's nuclear programs.
'It's difficult to celebrate,' Nygren told NBC News, acknowledging the bill's negative consequences on renewable energy and health care coverage for the Navajo nation.
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump Is Bringing Back the Presidential Fitness Test
Trump Is Bringing Back the Presidential Fitness Test

New York Times

time4 minutes ago

  • New York Times

Trump Is Bringing Back the Presidential Fitness Test

If you spent your childhood struggling to do chin-ups or groaning over a sit-and-reach box in gym class, brace yourself. Today, President Trump signed an executive order to reinstate the Presidential Fitness Test in public schools. The move is part of the administration's goal to 'restore urgency in improving the health of all Americans,' according to a statement released by the White House. The test, which was introduced in 1966, has taken several forms over the years. The most recent version included a one-mile run, modified sit-ups, a 30-foot shuttle run, the sit-and-reach flexibility test and a choice between push-ups and pull-ups. In the last iteration, children who scored in the top 15 percent nationwide earned a Presidential Physical Fitness Award. The Trump administration has yet to announce which exercises will be included in the new test. In 2012, the Obama administration replaced the Presidential Fitness Test with a program called the Presidential Youth Fitness Program, which was less focused on standardized fitness benchmarks. Some fitness and child development experts have criticized the Presidential Fitness Test as too rigid. Children who are the same age, for instance, could be very different sizes or at different developmental stages. And focusing on scores, experts said, could risk turning some children off exercise altogether. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Appellate judges question Trump's authority to impose tariffs without Congress
Appellate judges question Trump's authority to impose tariffs without Congress

Boston Globe

time5 minutes ago

  • Boston Globe

Appellate judges question Trump's authority to impose tariffs without Congress

Brett Schumate, the attorney representing the Trump administration, acknowledged in the 99-minute hearing 'no president has ever read IEEPA this way' but contended it was nonetheless lawful. The 1977 law, signed by President Jimmy Carter, allows the president to seize assets and block transactions during a national emergency. It was first used during the Iran hostage crisis and has since been invoked for a range of global unrest, from the 9/11 attacks to the Syrian civil war. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Trump says the country's trade deficit is so serious that it likewise qualifies for the law's protection. Advertisement In sharp exchanges with Schumate, appellate judges questioned that contention, asking whether the law extended to tariffs at all and, if so, whether the levies matched the threat the administration identified. 'If the president says there's a problem with our military readiness,' Chief Circuit Judge Kimberly Moore posited, 'and he puts a 20 percent tax on coffee, that doesn't seem to necessarily deal with (it).' Schumate said Congress' passage of IEEPA gave the president 'broad and flexible' power to respond to an emergency, but that 'the president is not asking for unbounded authority.' Advertisement But an attorney for the plaintiffs, Neal Katyal, characterized Trump's maneuver as a 'breathtaking' power grab that amounted to saying 'the president can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, for as long as he wants so long as he declares an emergency.' No ruling was issued from the bench. Regardless of what decision the judges' deliberations bring, the case is widely expected to reach the US Supreme Court. Trump weighed in on the case on his Truth Social platform, posting: 'To all of my great lawyers who have fought so hard to save our Country, good luck in America's big case today. If our Country was not able to protect itself by using TARIFFS AGAINST TARIFFS, WE WOULD BE 'DEAD,' WITH NO CHANCE OF SURVIVAL OR SUCCESS. Thank you for your attention to this matter!' In filings in the case, the Trump administration insists that 'a national emergency exists' necessitating its trade policy. A three-judge panel of the The issue now rests with the appeals judges. The challenge strikes at just one batch of import taxes from an administration that has unleashed a bevy of them and could be poised to unveil more on Friday. The case centers on Trump's so-called 'Liberation Day' tariffs of April 2 that imposed new levies on nearly every country. But it doesn't cover other tariffs, including those on Advertisement The case is one of at least seven lawsuits charging that Trump overstepped his authority through the use of tariffs on other nations. The plaintiffs include 12 US states and five businesses, including a wine importer, a company selling pipes and plumbing goods, and a maker of fishing gear. The US Constitution gives Congress the authority to impose taxes — including tariffs — but over decades lawmakers have ceded power over trade policy to the White House. Trump has made the most of the power vacuum, raising the average US tariff to more than 18 percent, the highest rate since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University. The attorney general for one of the states suing Trump sounded confident after the hearing, arguing that the judges 'didn't buy' the Trump administration's arguments. 'You would definitely rather be in our shoes going forward,' Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said. Rayfield said that Trump's tariffs — which are paid by importers in the United States who often try to pass along the higher costs to their customers — amount to one of the largest tax increases in American history. 'This was done all by one human being sitting in the Oval Office,' he said.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store