Connect with us

Politics

Johnson Rules Out an Aggressive Plan to Cut Medicaid as G.O.P. Moderates Waver

Published

on

Johnson Rules Out an Aggressive Plan to Cut Medicaid as G.O.P. Moderates Waver

Speaker Mike Johnson has dropped one of the most aggressive options the G.O.P. was considering to cut Medicaid costs to help pay for President Trump’s domestic agenda, bowing to pressure from politically vulnerable Republicans and underscoring the deep party divisions imperiling the plan.

Leaving his office on Tuesday night after meeting with a group of more moderate members, Mr. Johnson told reporters that House Republicans had ruled out lowering the amount the federal government pays states to care for working-age adults who became eligible for the program through the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion.

Mr. Johnson also suggested he was leaning against another way of reducing spending on Medicaid, by changing the way the federal government pays states — currently by providing a percentage of beneficiaries’ medical bills — to a flat fee per person.

“I think we’re ruling that out as well, but stay tuned,” the speaker said.

The retreat was an acknowledgment that many House Republicans viewed the ideas — both of which would create large state budget shortfalls — as politically toxic. It also underscored how difficult it will be for Mr. Johnson’s conference to find Medicaid cuts that hit the spending targets Republicans set for themselves and also win enough votes to pass.

Advertisement

Ultraconservative Republicans quickly vented their opposition, in a public reminder that Mr. Johnson’s efforts to stave off a revolt of mainstream lawmakers could cost him crucial support from his right flank. That could doom Mr. Trump’s vast tax and spending cut plan in the House, where the speaker can afford to lose fewer than a handful of votes.

“Well – I haven’t ruled it out,” Representative Chip Roy, Republican of Texas, declared on social media after Mr. Johnson’s comments on Tuesday night about abandoning the idea of cutting back on federal payments for some Medicaid beneficiaries. “It’s necessary to stop robbing from the vulnerable to fund the able-bodied.”

House Republicans are laboring to identify roughly $2 trillion in spending cuts to help offset both the 2017 tax cuts they want to extend and the new tax cuts they want to pass in their reconciliation bill. The biggest challenge so far has centered on the Medicaid program, which provides health insurance to 72 million poor and disabled Americans.

The House budget plan calls for $880 billion in cuts from the committee that oversees the program, a target that would be difficult to achieve without substantial changes. If House Republicans cannot agree on policies that comply with the instructions, the entire package could be doomed.

Abruptly reducing federal funding for the program by paying less in the 40 states and the District of Columbia that have expanded Medicaid under Obamacare would have saved an estimated $710 billion over a decade, according to new estimates released by the Congressional Budget Office on Wednesday.

Advertisement

That would have cut funding to state governments, which would have been left with difficult choices. Nine states have passed laws that would cause them to automatically drop coverage for the expansion population if federal funding declines, and three others have provisions that would force an immediate legislative review.

Other states would need to make up the money in some other way — by cutting benefits or payments to medical providers, raising taxes or cutting other state functions. As a result of those changes, the budget office estimated that the policy would cause 5.5 million Americans to lose their Medicaid coverage and 2.4 million Americans to become uninsured.

The Obamacare expansion extended health benefits to poor, childless adults without disabilities, a population that many Republican lawmakers consider less worthy of resources than other populations Medicaid serves, such as poor children, pregnant women and Americans who live in nursing homes. But other Republicans see this population as a core constituency, as working-class voters have become a growing component of the party’s electoral coalition.

Some conservatives like Mr. Roy have argued that uniting around cutting the Affordable Care Act, a program their party detests, should be the bare minimum for Republicans looking to raise revenue for Mr. Trump’s agenda.

“I’ve got a bunch of my colleagues running around saying, ‘Well, we can’t touch Medicaid,’” Mr. Roy said in a speech on the House floor. “Why can’t we? Medicaid was expanded under Obamacare, which we all opposed, and the Medicaid expansion was a big reason why we opposed it.”

Advertisement

But many of Mr. Roy’s colleagues, especially those in politically competitive seats, do not agree. The cuts would be particularly damaging in wealthier Democratic-led states, such as California and New York, where Republicans have been elected in districts where many constituents use Medicaid.

Medicaid pays those states 90 percent of the medical bills for people covered under the expansion, but only half the bill for other beneficiaries, a significant difference.

“I will never support cuts to Medicaid, Medicare or Social Security that are not specifically aimed at reducing waste, fraud or abuse,” said Representative Jeff Van Drew, Republican of New Jersey.

But without any such cuts, Republicans are left with a dwindling set of options that would allow them to meet their $880 billion target. Medicaid reforms with broad support across the caucus, such as requiring beneficiaries to prove they are employed in order to keep their benefits, would not reduce spending by nearly as much.

Another option under consideration, limiting taxes on hospitals and other complex financing maneuvers that states use to increase federal spending on the program, would tend to disadvantage states led by Republicans. The budget office estimated it would reduce the deficit by around $668 billion and cause 3.9 million more people to become uninsured.

Advertisement

Mr. Trump has also recently expressed a reluctance to make any major cuts to Medicaid, and has repeated several times that the program should not be “touched.” A White House official said Mr. Trump was pushing for stronger discounts on prescription drugs used in Medicaid, an alternative that would avoid some of the political pitfalls but may not save enough to comply with the budget language.

Politics

AOC accuses Vance of believing ‘American people should be assassinated in the street’

Published

on

AOC accuses Vance of believing ‘American people should be assassinated in the street’

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is leveling a stunning accusation at Vice President JD Vance amid the national furor over this week’s fatal shooting in Minnesota involving an ICE agent.

“I understand that Vice President Vance believes that shooting a young mother of three in the face three times is an acceptable America that he wants to live in, and I do not,” the four-term federal lawmaker from New York and progressive champion argued as she answered questions on Friday on Capitol Hill from Fox News and other news organizations.

Ocasio-Cortez spoke in the wake of Wednesday’s shooting death of 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good after she confronted ICE agents from inside her car in Minneapolis.

RENEE NICOLE GOOD PART OF ‘ICE WATCH’ GROUP, DHS SOURCES SAY

Advertisement

Members of law enforcement work the scene following a suspected shooting by an ICE agent during federal operations on January 7, 2026, in Minneapolis, Minnesota. (Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)

Video of the incident instantly went viral, and while Democrats have heavily criticized the shooting, the Trump administration is vocally defending the actions of the ICE agent.

HEAD HERE FOR LIVE FOX NEWS UPDATES ON THE ICE SHOOTING IN MINNESOTA

Vance, at a White House briefing on Thursday, charged that “this was an attack on federal law enforcement. This was an attack on law and order.”

“That woman was there to interfere with a legitimate law enforcement operation,” the vice president added. “The president stands with ICE, I stand with ICE, we stand with all of our law enforcement officers.”

Advertisement

And Vance claimed Good was “brainwashed” and suggested she was connected to a “broader, left-wing network.”

Federal sources told Fox News on Friday that Good, who was a mother of three, worked as a Minneapolis-based immigration activist serving as a member of “ICE Watch.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Ocasio-Cortez, in responding to Vance’s comments, said, “That is a fundamental difference between Vice President Vance and I. I do not believe that the American people should be assassinated in the street.”

But a spokesperson for the vice president, responding to Ocasio-Cortez’s accusation, told Fox News Digital, “On National Law Enforcement Appreciation Day, AOC made it clear she thinks that radical leftists should be able to mow down ICE officials in broad daylight. She should be ashamed of herself. The Vice President stands with ICE and the brave men and women of law enforcement, and so do the American people.”

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Politics

Contributor: Don’t let the mobs rule

Published

on

Contributor: Don’t let the mobs rule

In Springfield, Ill., in 1838, a young Abraham Lincoln delivered a powerful speech decrying the “ravages of mob law” throughout the land. Lincoln warned, in eerily prescient fashion, that the spread of a then-ascendant “mobocratic spirit” threatened to sever the “attachment of the People” to their fellow countrymen and their nation. Lincoln’s opposition to anarchy of any kind was absolute and clarion: “There is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law.”

Unfortunately, it seems that every few years, Americans must be reminded anew of Lincoln’s wisdom. This week’s lethal Immigration and Customs Enforcement standoff in the Twin Cities is but the latest instance of a years-long baleful trend.

On Wednesday, a 37-year-old stay-at-home mom, Renee Nicole Good, was fatally shot by an ICE agent in Minneapolis. Her ex-husband said she and her partner encountered ICE agents after dropping off Good’s 6-year-old at school. The federal government has called Good’s encounter “an act of domestic terrorism” and said the agent shot in self-defense.

Suffice it to say Minnesota’s Democratic establishment does not see it this way.

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey responded to the deployment of 2,000 immigration agents in the area and the deadly encounter by telling ICE to “get the f— out” of Minnesota, while Gov. Tim Walz called the shooting “totally predictable” and “totally avoidable.” Frey, who was also mayor during the mayhem after George Floyd’s murder by city police in 2020, has lent succor to the anti-ICE provocateurs, seemingly encouraging them to make Good a Floyd-like martyr. As for Walz, he’s right that this tragedy was eminently “avoidable” — but not only for the reasons he thinks. If the Biden-Harris administration hadn’t allowed unvetted immigrants to remain in the country without legal status and if Walz’s administration hadn’t moved too slowly in its investigations of hundreds of Minnesotans — of mixed immigration status — defrauding taxpayers to the tune of billions of dollars, ICE never would have embarked on this particular operation.

Advertisement

National Democrats took the rage even further. Following the fateful shooting, the Democratic Party’s official X feed promptly tweeted, without any morsel of nuance, that “ICE shot and killed a woman on camera.” This sort of irresponsible fear-mongering already may have prompted a crazed activist to shoot three detainees at an ICE facility in Dallas last September while targeting officers; similar dehumanizing rhetoric about the National Guard perhaps also played a role in November’s lethal shooting of a soldier in Washington, D.C.

Liberals and open-border activists play with fire when they so casually compare ICE, as Walz previously has, to a “modern-day Gestapo.” The fact is, ICE is not the Gestapo, Donald Trump is not Hitler, and Charlie Kirk was not a goose-stepping brownshirt. To pretend otherwise is to deprive words of meaning and to live in the theater of the absurd.

But as dangerous as this rhetoric is for officers and agents, it is the moral blackmail and “mobocratic spirit” of it all that is even more harmful to the rule of law.

The implicit threat of all “sanctuary” jurisdictions, whose resistance to aiding federal law enforcement smacks of John C. Calhoun-style antebellum “nullification,” is to tell the feds not to operate and enforce federal law in a certain area — or else. The result is crass lawlessness, Mafia-esque shakedown artistry and a fetid neo-confederate stench combined in one dystopian package.

The truth is that swaths of the activist left now engage in these sorts of threats as a matter of course. In 2020, the left’s months-long rioting following the death of Floyd led to upward of $2 billion in insurance claims. In 2021, they threatened the same rioting unless Derek Chauvin, the officer who infamously kneeled on Floyd’s neck, was found guilty of murder (which he was, twice). In 2022, following the unprecedented (and still unsolved) leak of the draft majority opinion in the Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Supreme Court case, abortion-rights activists protested outside many of the right-leaning justices’ homes, perhaps hoping to induce them to change their minds and flip their votes. And now, ICE agents throughout the country face threats of violence — egged on by local Democratic leaders — simply for enforcing federal law.

Advertisement

In “The Godfather,” Luca Brasi referred to this sort of thuggery as making someone an offer that he can’t refuse. We might also think of it as Lincoln’s dreaded “ravages of mob law.”

Regardless, a free republic cannot long endure like this. The rule of law cannot be held hostage to the histrionic temper tantrums of a radical ideological flank. The law must be enforced solemnly, without fear or favor. There can be no overarching blackmail lurking in the background — no Sword of Damocles hovering over the heads of a free people, ready to crash down on us all if a certain select few do not get their way.

The proper recourse for changing immigration law — or any federal law — is to lobby Congress to do so, or to make a case in federal court. The ginned-up martyrdom complex that leads some to take matters into their own hands is a recipe for personal and national ruination. There is nothing good down that road — only death, despair and mobocracy.

Josh Hammer’s latest book is “Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West.” This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate. X: @josh_hammer

Advertisement

Insights

L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.

Viewpoint
This article generally aligns with a Right point of view. Learn more about this AI-generated analysis
Perspectives

The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.

Ideas expressed in the piece

  • Democrats and activist left are perpetuating a dangerous “mobocratic spirit” similar to the mob law that Lincoln warned against in 1838, which threatens the rule of law and national unity[1]
  • The federal government’s characterization of the incident as self-defense by an ICE agent is appropriate, while local Democratic leaders are irresponsibly encouraging anti-ICE protesters to view Good as a martyr figure like George Floyd[1]
  • Dehumanizing rhetoric comparing ICE to the Gestapo is reckless fear-mongering that has inspired actual violence, including a shooting at an ICE facility in Dallas and the fatal shooting of a National Guard soldier[1]
  • The shooting was “avoidable” not because of ICE’s presence, but because the Biden-Harris administration allowed undocumented immigrants to remain in the country without legal status and state authorities moved too slowly investigating immigrant fraud[1]
  • Sanctuary jurisdictions that resist federal law enforcement represent neo-confederate “nullification” and constitute crass lawlessness and Mafia-style extortion, effectively telling federal agents they cannot enforce the law or face consequences[1]
  • The activist left employs threats of violence as systematic blackmail, evidenced by 2020 riots following Floyd’s death, threats surrounding the Chauvin trial, protests at justices’ homes during the abortion debate, and now threats against ICE agents[1]
  • Changing immigration policy must occur through Congress or federal courts, not through mob rule and “ginned-up martyrdom complexes” that lead to personal and national ruination[1]

Different views on the topic

  • Community members who knew Good rejected characterizations of her as a domestic terrorist, with her mother describing her as “one of the kindest people I’ve ever known,” “extremely compassionate,” and someone “who has taken care of people all her life”[1]
  • Vigil speakers and attendees portrayed Good as peacefully present to watch the situation and protect her neighbors, with an organizer stating “She was peaceful; she did the right thing” and “She died because she loved her neighbors”[1]
  • A speaker identified only as Noah explicitly rejected the federal government’s domestic terrorism characterization, saying Good was present “to watch the terrorists,” not participate in terrorism[1]
  • Neighbors described Good as a loving mother and warm family member who was an award-winning poet and positive community presence, suggesting her presence during the incident reflected civic concern rather than radicalism[1]
Continue Reading

Politics

Trump plans to meet with Venezuela opposition leader Maria Corina Machado next week

Published

on

Trump plans to meet with Venezuela opposition leader Maria Corina Machado next week

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

President Donald Trump said on Thursday that he plans to meet with Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado in Washington next week.

During an appearance on Fox News’ “Hannity,” Trump was asked if he intends to meet with Machado after the U.S. struck Venezuela and captured its president, Nicolás Maduro.

“Well, I understand she’s coming in next week sometime, and I look forward to saying hello to her,” Trump said.

Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado waves a national flag during a protest called by the opposition on the eve of the presidential inauguration, in Caracas on January 9, 2025. (JUAN BARRETO/AFP via Getty Images)

Advertisement

This will be Trump’s first meeting with Machado, who the U.S. president stated “doesn’t have the support within or the respect within the country” to lead.

According to reports, Trump’s refusal to support Machado was linked to her accepting the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize, which Trump believed he deserved.

But Trump later told NBC News that while he believed Machado should not have won the award, her acceptance of the prize had “nothing to do with my decision” about the prospect of her leading Venezuela.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending