Politics
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
By Zolan Kanno-Youngs, Gilad Thaler, Jon Miller, Stephanie Swart, Rafaela Balster, Whitney Shefte and Nikolay Nikolov
May 29, 2026
Politics
Federal judge orders Trump’s name removed from Kennedy Center, says only Congress can rename it
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
A federal judge on Friday ordered that President Donald Trump’s name be removed from the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.
U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, an Obama appointee, said the iconic venue cannot be renamed without an act of Congress, ruling that the Kennedy Center Board of Trustees overstepped its “statutory bounds by unilaterally renaming” the building.
As part of his ruling, the Trump administration will be required to take down all physical signage bearing Trump’s name and eliminate any references to a “Trump-Kennedy Center” from official materials.
TRUMP KENNEDY CENTER’S BOARD VOTES UNANIMOUSLY TO APPROVE $257M RENOVATIONS AND TWO-YEAR CLOSURE
A sign is displayed on the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts building. (Getty Images)
“The Kennedy Center’s organic statute makes crystal clear that the Center is to be named for President Kennedy, and it cannot bear any other formal name or public memorial based on the Board’s unilateral say-so,” Cooper wrote. “Congress gave the Kennedy Center its name, and only Congress can change it.”
Roma Daravi, the Trump Kennedy Center vice president of public relations, said the board plans to appeal the decision.
“We will review the decision carefully though the reality remains — the Center requires an urgent and significant restoration – a truth that even the plaintiff acknowledges,” Daravi said. “With $257 million secured by President Trump and approved by Congress, the resources are in place and we remain committed to pursuing every lawful avenue to ensure the Trump Kennedy Center is restored as a national cultural landmark for all Americans to enjoy.”
The ruling was part of a lawsuit filed by U.S. Rep. Joyce Beatty, D-Ohio. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
BOARD VOTES KENNEDY CENTER TO BE RENAMED ‘TRUMP-KENNEDY CENTER,’ LEAVITT SAYS
President Donald Trump stands in the presidential box during a tour of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C., on March 17, 2025. On Friday, a federal judge ruled that Trump’s name must be removed from he iconic venue. (Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images)
Cooper previously denied a request for a preliminary injunction filed by a preservation group to block the planned two-year closure of the Kennedy Center for a rehabilitation project.
Trump secured $257 million from Congress as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act to address disrepair and deferred maintenance of the Kennedy Center, which critics say has been neglected and mismanaged before Trump intervened.
The funds appropriated by Congress are spent on maintenance, repairs, security, and capital projects related to the building and site.
Beatty, who serves as an ex officio member of the board, praised Friday’s ruling.
“Today’s ruling rightly affirms that this administration’s efforts to rename and close the Center have no basis in law,” Beatty said in a statement provided to Fox News Digital. “The Kennedy Center is an institution that belongs to the American people, not to Donald Trump. He has desecrated this sacred memorial for his own vanity. I am proud to have fought for the rule of law and to protect this sacred institution.”
Workers install Donald J. Trump signage above the existing Kennedy Center sign in Washington, D.C., on Dec. 19, 2025. (Jacquelyn Martin/AP)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Trump’s name was added to the venue last December following a unanimous decision by the board. In February 2025, Trump was elected chairman of the Kennedy Center board after removing 18 trustees appointed by former President Joe Biden.
WASHINGTON — A framework agreement to end the U.S. war with Iran is all but settled, pending sign-off from the presidents of the two warring sides, President Trump said Friday, projecting optimism that a deal could finally be at hand.
Yet doubt cast a shadow over the diplomatic process entering the weekend as Trump faced a politically fraught decision to enter an agreement that would invariably require significant concessions to Tehran.
The negotiations have faced severe headwinds in recent days, with both sides accusing the other of violating a fragile ceasefire that has largely stopped the fighting since April.
On his Truth Social site, Trump said he had summoned his top aides to the White House Situation Room to decide on the deal.
The agreement would see an end to the U.S. naval blockade on Iranian ports and the removal of Iranian mines from the Strait of Hormuz, an international waterway through which 20% of the world’s energy supply passes each day. The strait, Trump wrote, will reopen with “no tolls” for “unrestricted shipping traffic, in both directions.”
And “Iran must agree that they will never have a Nuclear Weapon or Bomb,” Trump wrote, noting that Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium, the key ingredient for nuclear weapons, “will be unearthed by the United States (which, it is agreed, is the only Country, along with China, with the mechanical capability of doing so!), in close coordination and conjunction with the Islamic Republic of Iran, plus the International Atomic Energy Agency, and DESTROYED.”
“No money will be exchanged, until further notice,” he added.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent also said the deal would require Iran to disavow the continuation of its domestic nuclear program — a diplomatic feat never before achieved throughout a quarter-century of international negotiations over Iran’s nuclear work.
It is unclear whether Tehran would go that far. And Iran’s negotiators expressed defiance on Friday, stating that there was “no trust in guarantees or words” from the American side.
“No step will be taken before the other side acts first,” said Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the speaker of Iran’s Parliament. “We do not gain concessions through dialogue, but through missiles.”
It remains unclear when the Trump administration would ease sanctions on Iran, how extensive that relief would be, or what form it would take — questions that fueled Republican criticism of the Obama-era nuclear deal more than a decade ago.
The working diplomatic document would formally extend the existing ceasefire for 60 days, allowing for a more detailed negotiation to take place over Iran’s nuclear program. But the truce as it currently stands is on perilous ground. Iran launched a ballistic missile on Thursday at Kuwait, a close U.S. ally, after American forces took “defensive” actions against Iranian missile launchers and mine-laying boats it had launched in the strait.
The war has proved historically unpopular with the American public, and has seen oil prices soar since the U.S. military, in partnership with Israel, launched its first strikes against Iran in February.
Bessent said he is hopeful that oil prices would drop quickly once an agreement is signed. But industry analysts say the effects of the war on the oil market could last for months, if not years, with the stability of traffic through the Strait of Hormuz now in question for commercial shippers.
While oil has dropped to under $100 a barrel, markets appeared skittish on Friday over the prospects for a deal, with mixed messages appearing to emerge out of the region.
It is also unclear whether a U.S. agreement with Iran would in any way bind Israel’s hands in its military operations, either in Iran or in Lebanon, where an Iranian proxy militia, Hezbollah, has vowed to keep up the fight.
Israel has ramped up strikes against Hezbollah targets in recent days, jeopardizing a delicate ceasefire negotiated with the Lebanese government, a deal encouraged by the Trump administration in order to grease the wheels for its talks with Tehran.
Trump has been uncharacteristically silent on the prospects of an agreement in recent days, expressing cautious optimism in limited exchanges with reporters.
“It’s hard to say exactly when or if the president’s going to sign,” Vice President JD Vance, who has led the U.S. diplomatic team, told reporters, noting that “the nuclear stuff” is still subject to negotiation. “We’re going back and forth on a couple of language points.”
“I do think that we’ve made a lot of progress here,” Vance added. “Hopefully we’ll continue to make progress, and the president will be in a position where he can endorse the agreement. But obviously, that’s still TBD.”
-
Seattle, WA2 minutes agoSeattle City Council proposal would use street closures to curb gun violence
-
San Diego, CA5 minutes agoSan Diego teen organizes Eid goodie bags for children after Mosque tragedy
-
Milwaukee, WI10 minutes agoWhat is treatment court? Milwaukee County celebrates graduates
-
Atlanta, GA17 minutes agoAtlanta airport unveils new South Parking Deck, adding more than 7,000 spaces
-
Minneapolis, MN20 minutes agoUnited flight from Chicago to Minneapolis diverted to Wisconsin due to unruly passenger: officials
-
Indianapolis, IN25 minutes agoTop seeded West Chester cruises to 12-3 win over University of Indianapolis in the Division II championship
-
Pittsburg, PA32 minutes agoPittsburg man accused of hotel kidnapping, assault enters plea deal
-
Augusta, GA35 minutes agoSenate candidate Derek Dooley visits Lincolnton, Augusta
