'Right down the line': Medicaid reform in 'big, beautiful bill' divides lawmakers by party
Democrats have railed against potential Medicaid cuts since Trump was elected, while Republicans have celebrated Medicaid reform through the reconciliation process as an efficient way to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse in the welfare program.
Fox News Digital asked lawmakers from both ends of the political spectrum to react to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act's Medicaid reform. The results were as expectedly divided.
"This is all B.S., what the Democrats are doing," Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., told Fox News Digital. "They're pushing the agenda that we're cutting 10 million people off Medicaid. It's people that actually shouldn't be on it, illegals that shouldn't be on it. We're reforming it."
Gop Rails Against 'Blatantly False' Dem Claims About Medicaid Reform In Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill'
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), a nonpartisan federal agency that has been ridiculed by Republicans, estimated this week that Trump's "big, beautiful bill" would leave 10.9 million people without health insurance, including 1.4 million who are in the country without legal status in state-funded programs.
Read On The Fox News App
But Republicans are holding firm in their defense of Medicaid reform, which Republicans say only cuts benefits to illegal immigrants, those ineligible to receive benefits who are currently receiving benefits, duplicate enrollees in one or more states and those who are able but choosing not to work.
"The people who would not continue to get Medicaid benefits under this bill were not qualified to get them in the first place," Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., told Fox News Digital.
Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' Faces Resistance From Republican Senators Over Debt Fears
Democrats continue to sound off on the healthcare threat of eliminating 10 million people from Medicaid. Not a single House Democrat voted to pass Trump's championed legislation, which includes fulfilling key campaign promises like cutting taxes, immigration reform and American energy production.
"These burdensome regulatory requirements for proving that somebody has obtained or sought work are going to mean millions of people will go without healthcare, and the restrictions on food assistance are equally an obstacle to people meeting their everyday needs," Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said.
Blumenthal added he is "very, very concerned about these seemingly cruel and unproductive ways of raising money simply to finance tax cuts" for "wealthy billionaires."
New Jersey Democratic Sen. Andy Kim said he is happy to have an "honest conversation" about government efficiency and saving taxpayer dollars, but that's not the reality of this bill.
"People are struggling, and I feel like, in the richest, most powerful country in the world, we should be able to make sure that people can have the basic needs they need to be able to survive," Kim said of Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits.
Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., told Fox News Digital there is "nothing beautiful" about Trump's "big, beautiful bill."
"This is horrific, and it adds massive amounts to our debt, compromising our ability to [fund] the fundamentals in the future, foundations for families to thrive — health care, housing, education, good-paying jobs. That's what we should be doing here, not doing massive tax cuts for billionaires and paying for them by tearing down programs for ordinary families," Merkley said.
The national debt stands at more than $36.2 trillion as of June 5, according to the Fox Business, based on data from the Treasury Department.
The CBO's report this week also estimated Trump's bill will cut taxes by $3.7 trillion while raising deficits by $2.4 trillion over a decade.
Fox News' Anders Hagstrom and Eric Revell contributed to this report. Original article source: 'Right down the line': Medicaid reform in 'big, beautiful bill' divides lawmakers by party
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
20 minutes ago
- The Hill
US should fix the gender gap in refugee protection
In a recent decision denying asylum to a Salvadoran woman being stalked by gang members, the Board of Immigration Appeals — the highest administrative body for interpreting U.S. immigration law — found that under U.S. law, her claim that Salvadoran women constitute a group of people at risk of persecution was 'overbroad and insufficiently particular to be cognizable.' The foundation of refugee law — both internationally and in the U.S. — is that asylum should be provided to a person with a well-founded fear of being persecuted on any of five grounds: race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or 'membership in a particular social group.' This last category is intended to protect people similarly exposed to persecution as the other four groups because of immutable characteristics that cannot be changed or beliefs so fundamental they should not be required to change them. There are precedents in both U.S. and international law for treating women as a 'particular social group.' In Perdomo v. Holder and Mohammed v. Gonzales, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recognized that gender is an 'innate characteristic' that is 'fundamental to [one's] identity.' In two cases, the European Union Court of Justice found that Afghan women, as women, are subject to persecution. But in denying this woman's claim, the Board said, 'If we held that groups defined solely by sex were cognizable, we would essentially create another protected ground under the INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] — that of sex — to add to the grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.' That, it said, would be a job for Congress. Because 'membership in a particular social group' is so open to interpretation — including very narrow interpretations like the Board's — the challenge to Congress should be raised. What is the logic in saying that individuals should be denied asylum because the persecuted group they are a part of is too large? In a country where any group of people is widely persecuted, it shouldn't matter whether that group is large or small to decide whether one of its members needs protection. All that should matter is the likelihood of the risk that person faces and the severity of the threat to them or of the abuse they have experienced. Of course, being a woman per se is not grounds for asylum, any more than being a member of any race, nationality or religion. But gender should be similarly recognized as a category deserving protection if it is the reason a specific woman is being persecuted. Some women have advanced successful asylum claims by identifying themselves as members of a small, highly specific group. In the landmark Fauzia Kasinga case, a woman fleeing genital mutilation was granted asylum not based on her right not to be persecuted on the basis of her gender, but rather as a member of a particular social group, defined as 'young women who are members of the Tchamba-Kasungu Tribe of northern Togo who have not been subjected to female genital mutilation, as practiced by that tribe, and who oppose the practice.' A more narrowly defined group is hardly conceivable. Often, though, the compulsion to particularize can distort the reality of persecution. Consider women in Afghanistan under the Taliban. All Afghan girls are barred from education beyond the sixth grade. No woman is allowed to attend university and all face severe restrictions on employment. A woman is not allowed to walk outside her home unless accompanied by a male relative, limiting access to public spaces and services, including access to health care. Violations of the hijab dress code and other draconian rules are met with severe punishment. In September 2024, the UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan said the 'Taliban's institutionalized system of…gender persecution…impacts almost the entire population.' When Congress next looks at U.S. immigration law, it should question why women should have to shoehorn their claims into a narrow understanding of membership of a particular social group and thereby have less consistent or predictable protection than racial, religious, nationality and political groups. In light of the Board of Immigration Appeals' narrow reading of existing law, Congress should amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to add gender as an unequivocally protected ground of the refugee definition standing alongside race, religion, nationality and political opinion.
The Hill
20 minutes ago
- The Hill
Cornyn leans into Texas redistricting fight amid uphill reelection bid
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) is leaning into the Texas redistricting battle as he seeks to fend off a conservative primary challenge from Attorney General Ken Paxton (R). On Tuesday, Cornyn publicly called for FBI Director Kash Patel to assist in tracking down Democrats who fled the state in protest. Two days later, the senator and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) separately confirmed that the FBI was assisting in the effort. The move to get out in front of the redistricting battle allows Cornyn to ingratiate himself with the state's deeply conservative base, who have distanced themselves from the incumbent senator in his uphill primary battle against Paxton. 'I think this is a good opportunity for Cornyn to show that he's a fighter and that's willing to take on an issue that's a red meat issue that resonates with the base. When you see those opportunities, you have to take them,' said Brendan Steinhauser, Cornyn's former campaign manager and a Texas-based GOP strategist. 'In campaigns like this, you don't get to control events. You can only control how you react and respond to them,' he continued. 'This is exactly the kind of thing he needs.' Cornyn's allies have touted the senator's move. The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) rolled out a digital ad titled 'Cornyn Fights–Paxton Folds.' The incumbent senator and his allies have also taken a number of swipes at Paxton in the process, pointing out that the state attorney general was in Europe as the redistricting battle erupted. Paxton had previously traveled to Scotland at the end of July and met with Trump during the president's trip to his Turnberry golf course. 'Memo to @kenpaxtontx:Hey, Ken. Are you in the office today? It's kind of important. Let me know if you need the off the golf course in Scotland and do your job. President Trump and Governor Abbott need a focused AG. For once,' Cornyn said in a post on X earlier this week. An unnamed Republican strategist called Paxton's decision to stay in Europe 'a missed opportunity,' but added it was not 'necessarily a vulnerability.' 'Texas Democrats doing this wasn't a surprise,' said an unnamed GOP strategist.'I'm really surprised that Paxton didn't plan better and go 'You know what, I should probably do my visit with Trump and at least come back to Austin for a day and half.'' The same strategist argued that Cornyn's role as a federally elected official has forced him to 'cheer from the stands,' while it is easier for Paxton to get involved as a state elected official. 'It's such a state-centric issue,' the strategist said. 'If anybody, it would traditionally advantage Paxton over Cornyn just given his role in being able to use the Texas judicial system to chase these folks down.' And Paxton has emerged as a prominent voice in the fight. He initially criticized Cornyn's call for the FBI to intervene on Steve Bannon's 'War Room' podcast on Tuesday, saying it was 'purely a state issue.' But Paxton later reversed in a statement to The Hill, saying he was open to the FBI getting involved. 'I'm in full support of using every possible method to secure a quorum and hold lawless Democrat legislators accountable for abandoning Texans, including involving federal authorities and the FBI,' Paxton said. And as state attorney general, Paxton has used his office to take action against Texas Democrats. Paxton announced this week he would seek judicial orders 'declaring that runaway Democrats who fail to appear by the Speaker's deadline have vacated their office.' Additionally, Paxton said he is investigating whether former Rep. Beto O'Rourke's (D-Texas) political group is breaking laws by allegedly 'bankrolling' the state Democratic lawmakers out-of-state travel. 'It's more about the actions he takes, it's more about the statements, it's more about having a voice in this, and you don't necessarily have to be in the state to accomplish that,' Steinhauser said. The pro-Paxton Lone Star Liberty PAC compiled mainstream media coverage of the state's redistricting saga and Paxton's response, along with conservative media figures praising the state attorney general, into a digital spot released on Friday. The redistricting battle comes as Cornyn faces the biggest fight of his political life in his bid to hold onto his seat. Outside groups backing Cornyn have spent swaths of money boosting Cornyn in recent weeks. According to the Texas Tribune, the Senate GOP leadership-affiliated One Nation has spent over $4 million in advertising, while Texans for a Conservative Majority, another pro-Cornyn group, has spent $3.2 million. The pro-Cornyn Conservative Majority Project has spent roughly $500,000. 'They're just throwing everything at the wall possible to try to capture one poll that shows him with momentum and really gaining on Paxton,' the unnamed strategist said. 'They're doing it to get the president's attention.' Most polls have shown Cornyn consistently trailing Paxton in the polls, in many cases by double digits. Cornyn's team has maintained that there is plenty of time to close the gap by next year. There is also the hope that an endorsement from Trump, who has given no indication he will wade into the primary, would boost Cornyn. 'These skirmishes on redistricting and otherwise are just bigger parts of the play for Cornyn in a mad dash to try to do anything he can to take the lead in polling,' the strategist said.
Fox News
20 minutes ago
- Fox News
MSNBC's Ali Velshi asks host Jen Psaki if she felt 'scared' of Trump, his administration
MSNBC's Ali Velshi questioned fellow colleague Jen Psaki on Friday about whether she felt scared of being targeted by President Trump or the administration.
