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.
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced Saturday that the Trump administration is sanctioning a senior Nicaraguan official over alleged human rights violations.
Rubio said the U.S. is designating Vice Minister of the Interior Luis Roberto Cañas Novoa for his role in “gross violations of human rights” under the government of President Daniel Ortega and Vice President Rosario Murillo, marking what he said was the latest effort to hold the regime accountable.
“The Trump administration continues to hold the Murillo-Ortega dictatorship accountable for brutal human rights violations against Nicaraguans,” Rubio said in a post on X. “I’m designating Nicaraguan Vice Minister of the Interior Luis Roberto Cañas Novoa for his role in human rights violations.”
RUBIO TESTIFIES IN TRIAL OF EX-FLORIDA CONGRESSMAN ALLEGEDLY HIRED BY MADURO GOVERNMENT TO LOBBY FOR VENEZUELA
Secretary of State Marco Rubio speaks at the State Department, April 14, 2026. The U.S. announced sanctions on a Nicaraguan official tied to alleged human rights abuses under the Ortega-Murillo government. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
The designation was made under Section 7031(c), which allows the State Department to bar foreign officials and their immediate family members from entering the United States due to involvement in significant corruption or human rights abuses.
The State Department has said the Ortega-Murillo government has engaged in arbitrary arrests, torture and extrajudicial killings following mass protests that began in April 2018.
“Nearly eight years ago, the Rosario Murillo and Daniel Ortega dictatorship unleashed a brutal wave of repression against Nicaraguans who courageously stood against the regime’s increased tyranny, corruption, and abuse,” the statement reads.
The State Department said that the sanction marked the anniversary of the 2018 protests, after which more than 325 protesters were murdered in the aftermath.
A panel of U.N.-backed human rights experts previously accused Nicaragua’s government of systematic abuses “tantamount to crimes against humanity,” following an investigation into the country’s crackdown on political dissent, according to The Associated Press.
The experts said the repression intensified after mass protests in 2018 and has since expanded across large parts of society, targeting perceived opponents of the government.
TRUMP ADMIN ANNOUNCES EXPANSION OF VISA RESTRICTION POLICY IN WESTERN HEMISPHERE
Nicaragua President Daniel Ortega delivers a speech during a ceremony to mark the 199th Independence Day anniversary, in Managua, Nicaragua Sept. 15, 2020. (Nicaragua’s Presidency/Cesar Perez/Handout via Reuters)
Nicaragua’s government has rejected those findings.
The designation follows a series of recent U.S. actions targeting the Ortega-Murillo government. In February, the State Department sanctioned five senior Nicaraguan officials tied to repression, citing arbitrary detention, torture, killings and the targeting of clergy, media and civil society.
Earlier this week, the department also announced sanctions on individuals and companies linked to Nicaragua’s gold sector, including two of Ortega and Murillo’s sons, accusing the regime of using the industry to generate foreign currency, launder assets and consolidate power within the ruling family.
The State Department said the move is part of ongoing efforts to hold the Nicaraguan government accountable for its actions.
Fox News Digital reached out to the Nicaraguan government and its embassy in Washington for comment but did not immediately receive a response.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
A man waves a Nicaraguan flag during a demonstration to commemorate Nicaragua’s national Day of Peace, which is celebrated in the country on April 19, and to protest against the government of Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega in San Jose, Costa Rica on April 16, 2023. (Jose Cordero/AFP)
The Trump administration has taken an increasingly aggressive posture in the Western Hemisphere in recent months, including a Jan. 3, 2026, operation that resulted in the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores.
The U.S. has also carried out a series of strikes targeting suspected drug-trafficking vessels in the region, part of a broader crackdown tied to regional security and narcotics enforcement efforts.
WASHINGTON — Upbeat claims from President Trump over an imminent peace deal to end the war with Iran were met with deep skepticism Friday across the Middle East, where Iranian and Israeli officials questioned the prospects for a lasting agreement that would satisfy all parties.
The outlines of an agreement began to emerge that would provide Iran with a major strategic victory — and a potential financial windfall — allowing the Islamic Republic to leverage its control over the Strait of Hormuz to exact significant concessions from the United States and its ally Israel as Trump presses for a swift end to the conflict.
In a series of social media posts and interviews with reporters, Trump announced that the strait was “fully open,” vowing Tehran would never again attempt to control it. But Iranian officials and state media said that conditions remained on passage through the waterway, including the imposition of tolls and coordination with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
Iranian diplomats posted threats that its closure could resume at any time of their choosing, and warned that restrictions would return unless the United States agreed to lift a blockade of its ports. Trump had said Friday that the blockade would remain in place.
“The conditional and limited reopening of a portion of the Strait of Hormuz is solely an Iranian initiative, one that creates responsibility and serves to test the firm commitments of the opposing side,” said a top aide to Iran’s president, dismissing Trump’s statements on the contours of a deal as “baseless.”
“If they renege on their promises,” he added, “they will face dire consequences.”
In an overture to Iran, Trump said Israel would be “prohibited” from conducting additional military strikes in Lebanon, where the Israeli government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seeks to prevent Hezbollah, an Iranian proxy militia, from rearming, a potential threat to communities in the Israeli north.
But in a speech delivered in Hebrew, Netanyahu would say only that Israel had agreed to a temporary ceasefire, while members of his Cabinet warned that Israel Defense Forces operations in southern Lebanon were not yet finished. A top ally of the prime minister at a right-wing Israeli news outlet warned that Trump was “surrendering” to Iran in the talks.
It was a day of public messaging from a president eager to end a war that has proved historically unpopular with the American public, and has driven a rise in gas prices that could weigh on his party entering this year’s midterm elections.
Yet, Republican allies of the president have begun warning him that an agreement skewed heavily in Tehran’s favor could carry political costs of its own.
Trump was forced to deny an Axios report Friday that his negotiating team had offered to release $20 billion in frozen Iranian assets in exchange for Tehran agreeing to hand over its fissile material, buried under rubble from a U.S. bombing raid last year.
That sum would amount to more than 10 times what President Obama released to Iran under a 2015 nuclear deal, called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, that was the subject of fierce Republican criticism in the decade since.
“I have every confidence that President Trump will not allow Iran to be enriched by tens of billions of dollars for holding the world hostage and creating mayhem in the region,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a strong supporter of the war. “No JCPOAs on President Trump’s watch.”
Still, Trump said in a round of interviews that a deal could be reached in a matter of days, ending less than two weeks of negotiations.
He claimed that Tehran had agreed to permanently end its enrichment of uranium — a development that, if true, would mark a dramatic reversal for the Islamic Republic from decades developing its nuclear program, and from just 10 days ago, when Iranian diplomats rejected a U.S. proposal of a 20-year pause on domestic enrichment in favor of a five-year moratorium.
He said Iran had agreed never to build nuclear weapons — a pledge Tehran has made repeatedly, including under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, in a religious decree from then-Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and in the 2015 agreement — while continuing nuclear activities viewed by the international community as exceeding civilian needs.
And he repeatedly stated that Iran had agreed to the removal of its enriched uranium from the country, either to the United States or to a third party. Iranian state media stated Friday afternoon that a proposal to remove the country’s highly enriched uranium had been “rejected.”
Iran’s agreement to allow safe passage for commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz is linked to a ceasefire in Lebanon that the Israeli Cabinet approved for only a 10-day period. Regardless of whether it holds or is extended, Israeli officials said their military would not retreat from its current positions in southern Lebanon — opening up Israeli forces to potential attack by Hezbollah militants unbound by a truce brokered by the Lebanese government.
The Lebanese people, Hezbollah officials said, have “the right to resist” Israeli occupation of their land. Whether the fighting resumes, the group added, “will be determined based on how developments unfold.”
An Iranian official threw cold water on the prospects of reaching a comprehensive peace deal in the coming days, telling Reuters that a temporary extension of the current ceasefire, set to expire Tuesday, would “create space for more talks on lifting sanctions on Iran and securing compensation for war damages.”
“In exchange, Iran will provide assurances to the international community about the peaceful nature of its nuclear program,” the official said, adding that “any other narrative about the ongoing talks is a misrepresentation of the situation.”
Trump told reporters Friday that the talks will continue through the weekend.
While Trump claimed there aren’t “too many significant differences” remaining, he said the United States would continue the blockade until negotiations are finalized and formalized.
“When the agreement is signed, the blockade ends,” the president told reporters in Phoenix.
Times staff writer Ana Ceballos contributed to this report.
CHAMBERS OF
JUSTICE ELENA KAGAN
Supreme Court of the United States Washington, D. C. 20343
February 7, 2016
Memorandum to the Conference
Re: 15A773 West Virginia, et al. v. EPA, et al.
15A776 Basin Elec. Power Cooperative, et al. v. EPA, et al. 15A787 Chamber of Commerce, et al. v. EPA, et al.
15A778 Murray Energy Corp., et al. v. EPA, et al.
-
15A793 North Dakota v. EPA, et al.
I agree with Steve that we should direct the States to seek an extension from the EPA before asking this Court to intervene. We could also include, at the end of such an order, language along the lines of the following, to encourage the D. C. Circuit to act expeditiously in its resolution of this matter: “In light of that court’s agreement to consider this case on an expedited schedule, we are confident that it will [or even: we urge it to] render a decision with appropriate dispatch.” See Doe v. Gonzales, 546 U. S. 1301, 1308 (2005) (GINSBURG, J., in chambers); Kemp v. Smith, 463 U. S. 1344, 1345 (1983) (Powell, J., in chambers); Holtzman v. Schlesinger, 414 U. S. 1304, 1305, n. 2 (1973) (Marshall, J., in chambers).
The unique nature of the relief sought in these applications gives me real pause. The applicants ask us to enjoin a regulation pending initial review in the court of appeals. As we often say, “we are a court of review, not of first view.” See Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 718 n. 7 (2005); cf. Doe, 546 U. S., at 1308 (“Re- spect for the assessment of the Court of Appeals is especially warranted when that court is proceeding to adjudication on the merits with due expedition.”). As far as I can tell, it would be unprecedented for us to second-guess the D. C. Circuit’s deci sion that a stay is not warranted, without the benefit of full briefing or a prior judi- cial decision.
On the merits, this is a difficult case involving a complex statutory and regu- latory regime. Although the parties’ abbreviated discussion of the issues at stake here makes it difficult for me to determine with any confidence which side is likely to ultimately prevail, it seems to me that at this stage the government has the bet- ter of the arguments. The Chief’s memo focuses on the applicants’ argument that the “best system of emission reduction” refers “solely [to] installation of control technologies (e.g., scrubbers).” 2/5 Memo, at 2. The ordinary meaning of “system” is in fact quite broad, appearing to encompass what EPA has done here. Of course, we would want to consider this term in the larger context of the Clean Air Act’s regula-
-
Missouri4 minutes ago
Missouri Lottery Powerball, Pick 3 winning numbers for April 18, 2026
-
Montana10 minutes ago
Montana Lottery Powerball, Lotto America results for April 18, 2026
-
Nebraska16 minutes agoGallery: Huskers Run-Rule No. 12 USC to Take Series
-
Nevada22 minutes agoIN RESPONSE: Cortez Masto lands bill would keep the proceeds in Nevada
-
New Hampshire28 minutes agoNew Hampshire grapples with nuclear waste storage – Valley News
-
New Jersey34 minutes agoNearby shooting interrupts 13-year-old’s birthday party in Paterson; 1 killed, 3 injured
-
New Mexico40 minutes agoCalm and warmer conditions move into New Mexico
-
North Carolina46 minutes agoMemorial service held for former Miss North Carolina Carrie Everett