'We're All Going to Die': GOP Fumbles Defense of Medicaid Cuts
Senator Joni Ernst speaks at an event at tThe U.S. Capitol Visitor Center in Washington, DC, on April 30, 2025. Credit - Tasos Katopodis—Getty Images for 137 Ventures/Founders Fund/Jacob Helberg
This article is part of The D.C. Brief, TIME's politics newsletter. Sign up here to get stories like this sent to your inbox.
Donald Trump's demand for a sprawling legislative package of expensive tax cuts and big spending reductions is running into trouble as even his strongest Republican allies are having a tough time defending it.
Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa leaned into tongue-in-cheek gallows humor last week, telling an audience 'Well, we all are going to die,' in response to concerns that kicking millions off Medicaid would lead to more deaths. House Speaker Mike Johnson, meanwhile, is simply repeating the inaccurate statements that the White House keeps putting out, asserting—very wrongly—on Sunday that 'we're not cutting Medicaid,' and last month claiming that the bill's deepest cuts would target migrants in the country without proper documentation. 'The numbers of Americans who are affected are those that are entwined in our work to eliminate fraud, waste and abuse. So, what do I mean by that? You got more than 1.4 million illegal aliens on Medicaid,' Johnson said on CNN on May 25. And just this week, he told NBC another disproven assertion: 'I am telling you this is going to reduce the deficit.'
It all points to how openly frustrated Republicans on Capitol Hill are about walking a plank of their own making. Trump's demands to take on his second-term agenda in one bite has boxed in his party and they're plenty steamed about the blatant lack of an off-ramp. As one Hill aide put it to me, it's like watching what can most generously be called an 'Ostrich Strategy'—head in the sand, hoping no one notices the reality happening above ground.
The fissures are there for anyone who dares see them. Sen. John Hawley of Missouri on Monday said the President had told him not to cut Medicaid benefits, despite the House-passed version doing exactly that with Trump's enthusiastic endorsement. The so-called Medicaid Moderates like Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska have already balked at the House's version, which the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says would boot roughly 10 million people from current coverage.
But other Republicans, like Sens. Rick Scott of Florida and Mike Lee of Utah, have a very different complaint—that the bill doesn't cut enough. Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin says he would be fine leaving his seat if it means tanking a proposal that would balloon the debt by over $1 trillion even when factoring in economic growth. Sen. Rand Paul is objecting to a provision that increases the credit limit on the national credit card to cover purchases already made, also known as raising the debt ceiling.
And these are nominal Trump allies.
These big-ticket ideas rise and fall on salesmanship. At the height of debate over the Affordable Care Act, as Republicans were making hay out of so-called death panels, then-White House adviser David Axelrod had to tell President Barack Obama a hard truth: 'A whole bunch of facts and figures won't change that' opposition. Eventually, Obama's flood-the-zone approach powered Obamacare across the finish line, but it was plenty messy. The measure has proven durable because its benefits were tangible, and voters seldom surrender benefits.
But that is not the norm. The wasteland of these policy failures is crowded. Bill Clinton's attempts to overhaul health care in the 1990s doomed his fellow Democrats to a hellish 1994 midterm cycle. George W. Bush's efforts to privatize Social Security after his re-election bid ran headlong into a woodchipper. Obama's second-term quest at a border bill similarly crashed into unbending opposition. Trump's first-term Infrastructure Week never really got off the ground as he lurched from tweet to tweet.
Which explains why so many Republicans are squeamish about this current package. As passed by the House, Medicaid spending would be cut by at least $600 billion over a decade, reducing the rolls by 10.3 million people. The biggest chunk of that, $280 billion, would come from requiring Medicaid recipients to prove they are working. That work requirement is seen as bureaucratic red tape targeting a small pool of able-bodied participants who aren't currently working, while potentially kicking out many others who are already working but making too little to afford health coverage.
Ultimately, this is going to come down to a simple truth in politics: the biggest bullhorn wins. With an ambitious timeline of getting the 'big beautiful bill' to the White House for the President's signature by the July 4 holiday, Senate Majority Leader John Thune has to work fast. The House bill as it arrived cannot pass, meaning the Senate needs to take up the shell and do a pretty hefty rewrite. Working with a 53-vote GOP majority in a 100-member chamber, Republicans are working under a rule loophole that will allow them to get to the finish line with a bare majority, and a tie-breaking vote from Vice President J.D. Vance if needed. That means Thune can lose just three of his own, and there are at least five nos at the moment, with a few others hinting that they want their seat at the rewrite table.
Republicans have ownership of the House, Senate and White House. That doesn't mean they have control over every corner of them.
Make sense of what matters in Washington. Sign up for the D.C. Brief newsletter.
Write to Philip Elliott at philip.elliott@time.com.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Newsweek
9 minutes ago
- Newsweek
GOP Rep.: The Truth About the One Big Beautiful Bill—and What Democrats Don't Want You to Know
Advocates for ideas and draws conclusions based on the interpretation of facts and data. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Democrats have spent weeks fearmongering about so-called cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security in the One Big Beautiful Bill. Let's be clear: those talking points are false, and they know it. What this bill actually does is protect and preserve these critical safety net programs for the people they were designed to serve—pregnant women, children, individuals with disabilities, and seniors. It does so by taking on the real problem: waste, fraud, and abuse that have run rampant in our federal health programs for decades. The fact is, we are not cutting benefits for people who truly need them. We are ensuring that only those who are legal, eligible, and truly unable to work are receiving taxpayer-funded assistance. It is not compassionate to keep a broken system running. It is irresponsible and unsustainable. United States Capitol complex is pictured. United States Capitol complex is pictured. Getty Images Consider this: over 1.4 million illegal immigrants are receiving taxpayer-funded Medicaid benefits. That's not just wrong—it's dangerous. In some cases, these individuals are even on federal terror watch lists. Illegal immigrants with serious criminal records and links to terrorism have been receiving Medicaid. The One Big Beautiful Bill puts a stop to that. In addition to that, another 1.2 million people are enrolled in Medicaid despite being ineligible, and 4.8 million able-bodied adults without dependents are receiving full benefits with no requirement to work, volunteer, or pursue education or job training. Meanwhile, we hear from struggling families who actually qualify—disabled individuals, children, low-income seniors, pregnant women—who face delays and denials because Medicaid is being flooded by those who shouldn't be on it. Let's be honest: if you're fighting to protect benefits for people who are illegal, ineligible, or able to work and simply choose not to, you're not fighting for the vulnerable—you're fighting to protect the status quo of waste, fraud, and abuse. This bill restores common sense. It requires able-bodied adults to engage in 20 hours of work, job training, volunteering, or education each week in order to remain eligible for Medicaid. That's not radical—that's responsible. We also reduce federal funds to states that knowingly use Medicaid to cover illegal immigrants, like California, which plans to spend nearly $10 billion subsidizing health care for undocumented individuals using federal dollars. The One Big Beautiful Bill ends payments made for dead people and duplicate enrollees. One audit found over $4.3 billion in duplicate payments made to health insurers for just these cases. It also rolls back Biden-era rules that blocked states from removing ineligible individuals from their Medicaid rolls and imposed unrealistic mandates on nursing homes—mandates that would've forced 80 percent of facilities nationwide to shut down due to staffing requirements they simply cannot meet. The bill also improves access to care by increasing transparency in pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) and cracking down on spread pricing schemes that, according to the FTC, cost Americans $7.3 billion in excess revenue in 2024 alone. This means lower drug prices and better access to medications, especially for seniors. We are bringing back accountability. We are making sure resources go to those who truly need them—not to those exploiting the system. The One Big Beautiful Bill is not about taking care—it's about fixing a broken system and saving it for the next generation. Democrats can keep shouting their talking points, but the facts are on our side. This is a bill that puts the American people first—one that prioritizes working families, protects the most vulnerable, and stops Washington from wasting your money. That's not extreme. That's leadership. Congresswoman Erin Houchin represents Indiana's 9th District and serves on the House Rules, Budget, and Energy & Commerce Committees. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.


New York Post
10 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump speaks with Putin, says ‘not a conversation that will lead to immediate Peace' with Ukraine
WASHINGTON — President Trump spoke by phone with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday, saying it was 'not a conversation that will lead to immediate Peace' between Russia and Ukraine. 'We discussed the attack on Russia's docked airplanes, by Ukraine, and also various other attacks that have been taking place by both sides,' Trump announced after the 75-minute talk with the Kremlin tyrant. 'President Putin did say, and very strongly, that he will have to respond to the recent attack on the airfields.' Trump had a phone call with Vladimir Putin after Ukraine's attack on Russian subs in Russia's far east. AP The two also spoke about Iran, during which Putin suggested that Russia could potentially get involved in sealing a revised nuclear deal with Tehran. 'I stated to President Putin that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon and, on this, I believe that we were in agreement,' Trump wrote. 'President Putin suggested that he will participate in the discussions with Iran and that he could, perhaps, be helpful in getting this brought to a rapid conclusion. It is my opinion that Iran has been slowwalking their decision on this very important matter, and we will need a definitive answer in a very short period of time!'


CBS News
10 minutes ago
- CBS News
Whitmer says nearly 1.5 million Michiganders at risk because of potential cuts to SNAP, Medicaid
Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer claims the federal budget plan currently moving through Congress will cost Michiganders $900 million in benefits through food assistance, Medicaid and other programs. She called upon Michigan's Congressional delegation to look out for those who would most notice the financial impact, citing data from a Michigan State Budget Office report on how many Michiganders could be impacted and who they are. The SBO's memo relates that nearly 15% of Michiganders, or almost 1.5 million people, receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. More than 59% are families with children, 39% are families with members who are older adults or are disabled, and 41,000 are veterans, around 10% of our total veteran population. SNAP is the program formerly known as food stamps. These days, the benefits are handled through the Michigan Bridge Card, an Electric Benefits Transfer system. As a related matter, the SBO said 67% of SNAP recipients are covered by Medicaid, meaning some budget cuts under deliberation by Congress could threaten both the health care and food access of nearly 950,000 Michiganders. "They're jamming these cuts into a bill that also guts Medicaid, terminating health care for millions of our most vulnerable friends, family, and neighbors while jacking up costs on everyone," the governor said about the budget bill. "That's unacceptable. We should be making it easier for families to afford the essentials, like food and health care, not harder." Nonprofits and charities that can help fill the gap would notice the strain, said Ken Estelle, President and CEO of Feeding America West Michigan. Reducing SNAP benefits and/or increasing the eligibility requirements would send more people in the direction of a food bank. "We have experienced very high levels of need for food assistance for the past several years, and the potential increase in need because of these budget cuts could well exceed our ability to provide food to everyone in need," Estelle said. Pastor Richard R. White III, president of the Council of Baptist Pastors of Detroit & Vicinity, also said he has concerns. "For those we serve, who already struggle to put food on the table, this is not just a policy decision — it is a moral failure." Arguments in favor of funding the SNAP program, Whitmer's statement said, include the fact that EBT cards are accepted for payment at 9,800 locations across the state, supporting retail jobs and local economies. The governor said that most working-age adults who receive SNAP are supplementing low-paying jobs with inconsistent hours or are temporarily out of work. Pregnant mothers who have access to food benefits benefit from fewer missed days of work and healthier birthweight. And seniors who use SNAP are less likely to need hospitalization, less likely to be admitted to a nursing home, and more likely to use their prescribed medications.