Ernst responds to jeers on Medicaid cuts: ‘Well, we're all going to die'
Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst (R) pushed back against constituents who shouted out at her recent town hall meeting that cuts to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) would cause people to die, responding, 'Well, we're all going to die.'
The awkward moment came at a town hall meeting on Friday in Butler, Iowa, while Ernst defended the spending reforms in a House-passed budget reconciliation package that are intended to stop people who crossed into the country illegally from receiving federal benefits.
Someone in the crowd tried to talk over Ernst, interrupting her answer about changes to Medicaid and SNAP, yelling out that people are 'going to die' because of the reforms. Ernst answered: 'Well, we're all going to die.'
That quip produced a raucous jeer from the crowd.
'For heaven's sakes. For heaven's sakes, folks,' Ernst said, expressing frustration about some people in the crowd not listening to her explanations of the goals of the reforms.
'What you don't want to do is listen to me when I say that we are going to focus on those that are most vulnerable,' she said. 'Those that meet the eligibility requirements for Medicaid, we will protect. We will protect them.'
Ernst emphasized: 'Medicaid is extremely important here in the state of Iowa.'
'If you don't want to listen, that's fine. But what I'm doing is going through and telling you that those that are not eligible, those that are working and have opportunity for benefits elsewhere, then they should receive those benefits elsewhere and leave those dollars for those that are eligible for Medicaid,' she said.
And Ernst also said 'SNAP overpayments that the states have been making will need to stop.'
She said the reforms in the reconciliation bill are intended to root out overpayments and the payment of benefits to people who are not eligible for federal assistance under the law.
'When you are arguing about illegals that are receiving Medicaid benefits, 1.4 million, they're not eligible, so they will be coming off,' Ernst said at one point, finishing the sentence over shouts of protest from the crowd.
A spokesperson for Ernst said the senator is focused on 'improving the lives of all Iowans' and accused Democrats of trying to whip up fear among voters for political reasons.
'While Democrats fearmonger against strengthening the integrity of Medicaid, Senator Ernst is focused on improving the lives of all Iowans,' the spokesperson said.
'There's only two certainties in life: death and taxes, and she's working to ease the burden of both by fighting to keep more of Iowans' hard-earned tax dollars in their own pockets and ensuring their benefits are protected from waste, fraud, and abuse,' the aide added.
Updated at 12:36 p.m.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why Paramount's efforts to settle Trump's lawsuit has drawn mounting political heat
Paramount Global's efforts to appease President Trump could carry a steep price, and not just financially. As Paramount executives struggle to win government approval for its planned sale, the legal risks and political headaches are spreading — from Washington to Sacramento. Three U.S. senators have warned Paramount's controlling shareholder Shari Redstone and other decision-makers that paying Trump to drop his $20-billion lawsuit over an October "60 Minutes" interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris could be considered a bribe. Scrutiny widened late last week when two California Democrats proposed a state Senate hearing to probe details of the drama that has roiled the media company for months. The senators invited two former CBS News executives — who both left, in large part, because of the controversy — to testify before a joint committee hearing in Sacramento to help lawmakers examine problems with a possible Trump settlement. "I haven't seen a president act in this brazen of a manner," state Sen. Josh Becker (D-Menlo Park) said in an interview. "We're concerned about a possible chilling effect any settlement might have on investigative and political journalism. It would also send a message that politically motivated lawsuits can succeed, especially when paired with regulatory threats." Settling the Trump lawsuit is widely seen as a prerequisite for regulators to finally clear Paramount's $8-billion sale to Skydance Media, which Redstone has been desperately counting on to save her family's fortunes. Trump contends CBS edited the "60 Minutes" interview to enhance Harris' appeal in the 2024 presidential election, which she lost. He reportedly rebuffed Paramount's recent $15-million offer to settle his lawsuit, which 1st Amendment experts have dismissed as frivolous. "This is a really important case," said Scott L. Cummings, a legal ethics professor at UCLA's School of Law. "Legislators are starting to raise alarms." Read more: Trump, '60 Minutes' and corruption allegations put Paramount on edge with sale less certain But whether federal or state politicians could foil a Trump settlement is murky. Experts caution, for example, that it may be difficult, if a settlement is reached, to prove that Paramount's leaders paid a bribe. Congress has grappled with such distinctions before, Cummings said. The U.S. Senate acquitted Trump in February 2020 after the House voted to impeach him for allegedly holding up nearly $400 million in security aid to pressure Ukraine to investigate former President Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Major universities and law firms offered significant concessions to the administration this year to try to carve out breathing room. "We would have to have a lot more facts," Cummings said. "Bribery requires a quid pro quo ... and [Trump and his lieutenants] are always very careful not to explicitly couple the two things together. But, clearly, they are related, right? This is the challenge, legally speaking." Even if a Paramount payoff could be proved to be a bribe, it's unclear who would prosecute such a case. No one expects the Trump-controlled FBI or others within the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate allegations of bribery. Trump also has a grip on congressional Republicans and the Federal Communications Commission is run by a Trump appointee, Brendan Carr, who in one of his first acts as chairman, opened a public inquiry into whether the "60 Minutes" edits rose to the level of news distortion. It may fall to state prosecutors to dig into the issue, Cummings said. That hasn't stopped nationally prominent progressive lawmakers from sounding alarms. U.S. Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) have demanded Paramount provide information about the company's deliberations or concessions to facilitate a deal with Trump, including whether newscasts were toned down. "It is illegal to corruptly give anything of value to public officials to influence an official act," the lawmakers wrote in their May 19 letter to Redstone. "If Paramount officials make these concessions ... to influence President Trump ... they may be breaking the law." Redstone and Paramount failed to respond to the senators' questions by this week's deadline, according to Warren's office. Paramount and a Redstone spokesperson declined to comment. Lawmakers often express interest in big media takeovers, and Skydance's proposed purchase of an original Hollywood movie studio and pioneering broadcaster CBS could be an industry game changer. But this time, interest is less focused on vetting the Ellison family or the deal's particulars and more about determining whether Trump inappropriately wields his power. Trump has demanded Paramount pay "a lot" of money to settle his lawsuit. The president also has called for CBS to lose its station licenses, which are governed by the FCC. For more than a month, attorneys for Paramount and Trump have participated in mediation sessions without resolution. Paramount offered $15 million but Trump said no, according to the Wall Street Journal. Instead, the president reportedly demanded at least $25 million in cash, plus an additional $25 million in free commercials to pump his favorite causes. He also wants an apology. The latter is a red line for CBS News executives who say they have done nothing wrong, according to insiders who were not authorized to discuss the sensitive deliberations. Paramount's leaders have clashed over settlement efforts, according to the sources. The two California state senators — Becker and Thomas J. Umberg (D-Santa Ana) — hope such fractures provide an opening. Late last week, the pair invited former CBS News and Stations President Wendy McMahon and former "60 Minutes" executive producer Bill Owens to testify at a yet-unscheduled oversight hearing in Sacramento. McMahon exited CBS last month under pressure for her management decisions, including resistance to the Trump settlement, sources said. Owens resigned in April, citing a loss of editorial independence. "You are being approached as friendly witnesses who may help our committees assess whether improper influence is being exerted in ways that threaten public trust and competition in the media sector," Becker and Umberg wrote to the former executives. Becker is chairman of the Senate Energy, Utilities & Communications Committee; Umberg heads the Senate Judiciary Committee. California has an interest, in part, because Paramount operates in the state, including a large presence in Los Angeles, Becker told The Times. Read more: Trump, '60 Minutes' and corruption allegations put Paramount on edge with sale less certain The controversy over the edits began in October after CBS aired different parts of Harris' response to a question during a "60 Minutes" interview a month before the election. Producers of the public affairs show "Face the Nation" used a clip of Harris giving a convoluted response. The following day, "60 Minutes" aired the most forceful part of her answer, prompting conservatives to cry foul. Trump filed his federal lawsuit in Texas days before the election, alleging CBS had deceptively edited the Harris interview to boost her election chances, an allegation CBS denies. After returning to the White House, Trump doubled the damages he was seeking to $20 billion. His team claims he suffered "mental anguish" as a result of the interview. Read more: '60 Minutes,' the Associated Press, an Iowa newspaper: Trump's attacks on the media reach new heights CBS has asked the Texas judge, a Trump appointee, to dismiss the lawsuit, saying the edits were routine. Since then, the FCC's review of Paramount's Skydance deal has become bogged down. Paramount needs Carr's approval to transfer CBS television station licenses to the Ellison family. Paramount has said it is treating the proposed settlement and FCC review on the Skydance merger as separate matters. Experts doubt Trump sees such a distinction. Trump and his team "essentially are using government processes to set up negotiations that end up benefiting Trump personally in ways that raise corruption concerns," Cummings said. Paramount's decision could open the company to shareholder complaints. The reason Trump's CBS "60 Minutes" lawsuit has become such a lightning rod is "because the lawsuit is so ridiculously frivolous," said Seth Stern, advocacy director for the Freedom of the Press Foundation, which owns Paramount shares and has vowed a lawsuit if the company capitulates. "This is so transparently an abuse of power — a shakedown," Stern said. Read more: Paramount adds three new board members amid Trump troubles and FCC review Media analyst Richard Greenfield of LightShed Partners suggested that Trump's goal may be about more than his reported demand of nearly $50 million. "The far bigger question is whether there is any number that Trump would want to settle the CBS/60 Minutes lawsuit," Greenfield wrote in a blog post this week. "If Trump's goal is to weaken the press and cause persistent fear of lawsuits that could negatively impact business combinations, keeping the CBS/60 Minutes lawsuit ongoing could be in the President's best interests." UCLA's Cummings sees another deleterious outcome. A settlement could "legitimize the narrative that Trump puts out that there's some sort of corruption within these media entities," Cummings said. "He could point to a settlement and say: 'I told you they did something wrong, and they now agreed because they paid me this amount of money.' " "Even though they would be paying to get this deal through," Cummings said. Sign up for our Wide Shot newsletter to get the latest entertainment business news, analysis and insights. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Texas bill would force local deputies to cooperate with ICE
(NewsNation) — Sheriff's departments throughout Texas could be forced to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement if Gov. Greg Abbott signs a bill into law that was recently approved by the state legislature. The bill mandates that departments in 238 of the state's 254 counties enter into at least one form of a 287(g) agreement or a similar federal program, which gives deputies the authority to carry out immigration enforcement duties once they are trained. Seventy-three Texas counties have existing agreements with ICE. However, the proposed law would require full participation, and the Texas Attorney General could sue non-compliant departments. Walmart reportedly fires workers over immigration ruling Trump recently wrote on Truth Social that he is monitoring the bill, adding, 'It is important to Texas, and to our country.' Lawmakers who helped propel the bill to Abbott's desk claim it makes communities safer. Texas Rep. David Spiller, a Republican, told NewsNation that he believes if passed, the bill also offers a national blueprint on how to build cooperation between local and federal immigration agencies. 'We're identifying bad actors and people who have warrants for removal,' Spiller said. And if they committed acts that justify removal from the United States, those folks, they certainly don't need to be here.' However, some sheriffs are concerned about what they call unfunded mandates to participate in federal operations. Democrats also fear it could lead to racial profiling. Three 287(g) models exist, and under the proposed law, departments have the choice of how many options they employ. Jail Enforcement Model – This allows officers to interrogate incarcerated individuals to determine their immigration status, input their information into a Homeland Security database, take statements, and initiate the deportation process through an immigration detainer and notice to appear. Warrant Service Officer Model – Officers identify people as non-citizens during the booking process, referring those people to ICE for evaluation and possible deportation. Officers also serve ICE administrative warrants on people in custody. Task Force Model – This method allows local officers to enforce immigration laws during their routine duties in the community. Of the Texas 73 counties with agreements, 18 have officers trained in the task force model, while 70 participate use one of the jail-related agreements, The Texas Observer reported. Others have applications to become part of the 287 (g) program in place. The proposed bill provides grants to offset costs, ranging from $80,000 per year to $140,000, with the largest amounts reserved for counties with more than 1 million residents. Spiller said lawmakers are encouraging departments to follow the Warrant Service Officer model, which allows ICE to pick up an inmate within 48 hours once they are identified in the ICE database. He added that the bill is about identifying bad actors who have previously been ordered to leave the country, and not about deputies being required to enforce federal immigration law. DoorDasher drives onto tarmac at O'Hare Airport, exposing security flaw But he said full participation is needed. '(Some larger counties) know that some of these folks that they've arrested may have outstanding federal warrants, and they knowingly and willingly turn a blind eye and choose not to look,' Spiller said. 'We can't have these people turned back onto the street because they're a public safety concern.' Abbott has already 'made it clear' Texas cities and counties must fully cooperate with the federal government's efforts to arrest, jail, and deport illegal immigrants, the governor's spokesman told NewsNation. He did not specify when Abbott could sign the bill into law. Some sheriffs with existing 287 (g) agreements praise the mandatory participation, which allows flexibility without forcing deputies to 'go out and play Border Patrol or ICE', Terrell County Sheriff Thaddeus Cleveland said. The Republican sheriff understands why some in his position may choose not to go that far, but calls having the ability to get inmates into federal custody faster a 'no-brainer.' 'You're being given the tools (under the bill) to make this country safer,' said Cleveland, who uses the two jail-related programs and has applied for the task force model training. 'I don't see what people wouldn't want to participate.' Just east of Houston, Chambers County Sheriff Brian Hawthorne announced this spring that not all Sheriff's Association of Texas members support the bill's required participation, Houston Public Media reported. Hawthorne, a Republican who has had a 287 (g) agreement in place for the past four years, said many departments were concerned about unfunded mandates, despite the availability of grant money. Some fear that the largest grants may not cover the costs of what departments are being asked to do. Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzalez announced in 2017 that the department maintains law and order in the state's largest county, which includes the city of Houston. The county ended its 287(g) agreement, and Gonzalez announced he was allocating the $675,000 he spent on the deal toward improving case clearance rates and other department priorities. While not every department will face that large of a financial burden to carry out respective 287 (g) agreements, Hawthorne, the legislative chairman of the state sheriffs' association, told NewsNation that forcing every department has raised concerns among some Democratic sheriffs who are worried about the political overtones of the issue that may be alarming and bothersome to some residents in more left-leaning counties. ICE agents, South Carolina cops arrest 80 in raid at illegal club Sheriffs have expressed their displeasure about the statewide mandate to Hawthorne, but all those already allow ICE into their jail facilities, as incarcerated inmates are transferred into federal custody. Ultimately, Hawthorne believes the flexibility built into the bill makes it more palatable for local departments, which are all tasked with protecting their communities. 'Remember, the sheriff works for the people, and I've never seen a sheriff who didn't believe in the rule of law,' Hawthorne said. 'But as you and I both know, sometimes, the rule of law has a whole lot of differing opinions and ideas.' State Sen. Roland Gutierrez, a Democrat representing San Antonio, raised other potential red flags. 'Are you not afraid of the potentiality for racial profiling by police if they see what presumably looks like Mexican or Hispanic people in a truck, that they will not be pulled over simply because of the color of their skin?' Gutierrez asked the bill's senate sponsor, Republican Charles Schwertner, during the senate debate, according to the Texas Tribune. Sarah Cruz, the policy and advocacy strategist for border and immigrant rights with the Texas ACLU, voiced similar concerns after the bill passed the Texas legislature. '(The bill) will not make communities safer, but it will force sheriffs to do the work of ICE in support of the federal government's shameless mass deportation efforts,' Cruz said. Spiller, like Schwertner, maintains that the bill has nothing to do with race or nationality, but instead is more about helping ICE take those already in their base into custody and out of the jurisdiction of local sheriff's offices. Kristin Etter, the director of policy and legal services for the Texas Immigration Law Council, calls the measure a 'real slap in the face' to local law enforcement agencies tasked with protecting their communities. Etter told NewsNation that if Abbott signs the bill and it withstands legal challenges that similarly arose involving a 2017 law that abolished sanctuary cities in Texas, departments may find themselves in a precarious position. She also fears Texas could become the federal inspiration for forcing states to help drive Trump's immigration mission. '(The bill) is really placing Texas law enforcement agents under the service of the federal government,' Etter said. 'So, there's really no longer going to be any local control of how they protect their communities and keep their communities safe.' Spiller, however, disagrees and says the bill, while required, offers departments flexibility while also ensuring everyone is on the same page to better protect local counties and Texas as a whole. 'We're trying to make communities safer and the streets safer,' Spiller said, 'and this is the best way we have to do it.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
50+ Alabama groups urge Gov. Ivey, legislators to oppose cuts to Medicaid, ACA coverage
MONTGOMERY, Ala. (WHNT) — A slew of organizations are urging Gov. Kay Ivey and state lawmakers to oppose healthcare cuts in the U.S. House's budget reconciliation bill. In a letter initiated by the Cover Alabama Coalition, 52 organizations are asking state policymakers to contact members of Congress and express concerns about the bill's negative impact on Alabama's families and budgets. 'This legislation would undermine Alabama's ability to manage its Medicaid program, limit our future options and increase barriers to coverage for families across our state,' the letter reads. On May 22, the U.S. House approved a huge budget bill, 215-214. The groups contend the bill — which among its provisions extends and creates new tax cuts and creates new spending for a border wall and immigration enforcement — would also either drive the costs of healthcare up or make it inaccessible for millions of people. 📲 to stay updated on the go. 📧 to have news sent to your inbox. 'The bill … would allow the enhanced Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies to expire, making Marketplace plans less affordable for more than 400,000 Alabamians,' the letter reads. 'This would result in coverage losses and higher uninsured rates, especially among working families who don't qualify for Medicaid but can't afford full-price private plans.' Expiration of enhanced ACA tax credits would cost Alabama an estimated 10,000 jobs and $1.14 billion in GDP in 2026, the groups contend. The groups also say if the budget bill is given final approval it would cost Alabama $619 million in extra federal funding that would help cover the first two years of Medicaid expansion. The bill would also freeze provider taxes at current levels, which would limit the state's future options for funding Medicaid by forbidding legislators to increase fees on nursing homes, ambulance services and other providers. The groups say the bill would also would reduce the retroactive Medicaid coverage period from three months to just one. This change could leave many pregnant women and other Alabamians in greater medical and financial risk. It also would undermine a new law that the Legislature passed this year to remove red-tape barriers to Medicaid coverage for thousands of mothers who are expecting. The letter encourages state policymakers to reach out to Alabama's congressional delegation and urge them to oppose the bill. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
