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

Supreme Court rules Trump may end legal protection for Haitians and Syrians

Published

on

Supreme Court rules Trump may end legal protection for Haitians and Syrians

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Trump administration may end the Temporary Protected Status granted to more than 350,000 Haitians and Syrians whose home countries remain unsafe.

In a 6-3 decision, the court’s conservative majority said Congress gave the administration, not judges, the power to cancel or renew this temporary protection for non-citizens who are living and working here.

In a second win Thursday for the Trump administration, the court also upheld the administration’s policy of blocking asylum seekers at the southern border.

By the same 6-3 vote, the court said migrants do not have a right to apply for asylum if they are not already in the United States.

The decision on Temporary Protected Status could affect up to 1.3 million non-citizens who are in the country.

Advertisement

In 1990, Congress authorized this emergency humanitarian relief for non-citizens whose home countries were wracked by armed conflict, natural disasters or other extraordinary disruptions.

Under the law, the Department of Homeland Security may grant this protection for 6, 12 or 18 months and either renew or extend it for a similar period.

But this legal authority has been under dispute since Trump returned to the White House last year and targeted the 1.3 million people with TPS from 17 countries who were living in the United States.

Trump’s lawyers said the law made clear there was “no judicial review” of the government’s decision to cancel the grant of temporary protection.

However, immigrant rights lawyers argued the government failed in its duty to consult the State Department and assess whether it was safe for migrants to return home.

Advertisement

Repeatedly, U.S. district judges agreed with the challengers and ruled the administration’s decisions were “arbitrary” and unreasonable. But in nearly every case, the Supreme Court granted emergency appeals from the administration and set aside those orders.

Since TPS was created, the government has ended the protected designation for citizens of 18 countries.

DHS under then-Secretary Kristi Noem ended TPS for Honduras, Nicaragua, Afghanistan and Venezuela. A spokesperson for the agency previously said the Haiti designation became “a de facto amnesty program” and that allowing Syrians to remain is contrary to national interest.

Advocates for the immigrants argue that the administration failed to conduct the required process to properly evaluate each country’s conditions and instead acted on political grounds driven by racial animus.

State Department travel advisories for both countries warn people against traveling to either because of the risk of terrorism, kidnapping and widespread violence. But Federal Register notices announcing the terminations said country conditions had improved enough.

Advertisement

Recently released internal documents show that DHS decided to terminate protections for Haitians without any input from the State Department.

Citing the documents, which were obtained by the National TPS Alliance in a separate lawsuit, lawyers for the Haitians asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the case and send it back to lower courts. They argued that the justices should first consider the communications before issuing a decision.

Internal emails show that homeland security officials sought a recommendation from the State Department in May 2025, ahead of Noem’s early June deadline on whether to extend protections for Haiti. But by the time Noem signed what appears to be a final decision memo, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services had not received input from the State Department, the emails show.

“State recommendation for Haiti TPS has not come in despite of many outreach,” a homeland security deputy assistant secretary wrote in a June 2, 2025, email. A recommendation “would be helpful to have,” the person added.

Eleven days later, a USCIS project manager wrote in an email that Noem “recently elected to terminate Haiti without country conditions from DOS.”

Advertisement

USCIS initially recommended automatically extending protections before Homeland Security decided to terminate them, earlier versions of the memo indicate.

The June decision was blocked by a federal judge. In November, DHS issued another notice terminating TPS protections for Haitians.

That time, according a previously publicized email, a homeland security senior counselor asked a State Department official for the agency’s views on the country conditions in Haiti. The official, Spencer Chretien, didn’t address the country conditions but responded that “there would be no foreign policy concerns.”

Lawyers for the Haitians argued that response didn’t meet the legal standard for a sufficient consultation, though the Trump administration disagreed.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Closed-door outburst turns into victory for Trump’s Iran negotiations

Published

on

Closed-door outburst turns into victory for Trump’s Iran negotiations

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

An explosive meeting in the Senate turned into a win for President Donald Trump and his administration as key Republicans flipped on another bid to handcuff the administration’s authorities in Iran. 

In its final act before leaving Washington, D.C., for an over two-week break, the Senate rejected Democrats’ attempt to rein in Trump’s war powers in Iran as talks continue between Iran and the U.S. to hammer out a long-term peace deal. 

It was the same war powers resolution from Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., that passed over a month ago and stunned Republicans in the upper chamber.

‘HE NAMED NAMES’: TRUMP’S SENATE MEETING EXPLODES INTO SHOUTING MATCH OVER IRAN

Advertisement

Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and Senate GOP leaders are pushing forward with budget reconciliation to fund the final piece of government that had been shut down by Senate Democrats’ opposition to President Donald Trump’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement actions. (Nathan Posner/Anadolu)

What seemed like a predetermined outcome just hours after Trump and Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., sparred over the Iran war, and the administration’s lack of forthcomingness with lawmakers, during a closed-door meeting to discuss the president’s marquee voter ID and citizenship verification legislation turned into a surprise late night win.

Trump argued to the GOP that the previous war powers resolution, which passed on Tuesday thanks in part to a pair of Republicans being absent, hurt the administration’s negotiating position with the Iranians.

Meetings with key holdouts at the White House helped change the minds of Cassidy and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who has routinely voted with Democrats on every war powers resolution brought forward, and provided the administration with a win as they work toward a deal beyond the 60-day memorandum of understanding with Iran.

IRATE REPUBLICANS ACCUSE TRUMP OF HANDING DEMOCRATS A WIN AFTER BLOWING UP HOUSING PACKAGE

Advertisement

“I want to thank Vice President [JD] Vance and Special Envoy [Steve] Witkoff for the thorough briefing this afternoon on Iran,” Cassidy said on X. “I appreciate the quick invitation to the White House to address many of my concerns.” 

And Paul, who voted present, noted that his “opinion on the debate over war and executive power has not changed and I have voted that way several times.” 

“But since hostilities seem to be over and the President asked me to give consideration to his negotiating position, I will do so,” Paul said on X. “My vote of present is a way to give the President more space and leverage to negotiate a lasting peace.”

Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., who has been at the forefront among Democrats in pushing war powers resolutions in the upper chamber, acknowledged that “this is a different moment,” but cautioned that the ceasefire appeared to be “precarious right now.” 

When asked if he believed Trump’s case to Republicans that the successful war powers vote just a day before was hurting the administration’s leverage, Murphy said, “The Iranians don’t — you know, all they have to do is read a poll and find out that people in this country don’t support the war. They didn’t support the war.”

Advertisement

TRUMP HEADS TO CAPITOL HILL FOR PIVOTAL MEETING AS SENATE GOP DIVISIONS DEEPEN

President Donald Trump boards Air Force One as he departs Reading Regional Airport in Reading, Pa., on Tuesday, June 23, 2026. (Evelyn Hockstein/Reuters)

Still, it marked a key win for Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and the Senate GOP’s whip operation, led by Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso, R-Wyo., to flip the skeptics into backers of the administration’s long game in Iran after several contentious weeks in the Senate spurred by Trump’s last-minute decisions that either derailed or torpedoed several of his key agenda items. 

Thune and Barrasso, accompanied by Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, huddled in the GOP leader’s office as the vote wound down late Wednesday to call Trump, and share the news of the vote. 

“Wow! The Senate just changed its vote on Iran from 50-48 against, to 50-47 for,” Trump said on Truth Social. “Rand Paul and Bill Cassidy changed. Thank you to Leader John Thune, Lindsey Graham, Bernie Moreno, and all. This vote puts Iran on notice!”

Advertisement

It also comes at a time when speculation has swirled over the nature of Thune and Trump’s relationship as the president, accompanied by chatter online, have ramped up the pressure to pass the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act. 

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Moreno made the case that the questions over their relationship, and Thune’s position as leader, was just noise, and that “there’s not a single solitary Senator running for office that says leader Thune should be replaced, not one, even non-incumbents.” 

“What today showed is that President Trump has a kind of relationship with John Thune where he says, ‘Hey, let me talk to the guys,’ understand the situation,” Moreno said. “As much as Cassidy and Trump got into it, it was because they’re both passionate, they’re both smart people.”

“And now, we’ve most importantly sent the Iranians a message that President Trump has the full backing of the Congress, and that was an incredibly important day,” he continued. “That’s a huge victory for us.”

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump refuses to sign landmark housing bill, demanding Congress pass voter ID law

Published

on

Trump refuses to sign landmark housing bill, demanding Congress pass voter ID law

President Trump canceled his planned signing Wednesday of the landmark housing bill Congress passed this week, in a striking decision to jeopardize a rare bipartisan success in order to demand that lawmakers pass voter ID legislation.

The president’s reversal, as a stage and chairs for the signing ceremony were set up in the Capitol and stakeholders were arriving on the Hill, underscored his fixation on asserting some federal control over election processes.

And it displayed a remarkable willingness to threaten a bill that he and his party could have framed as a win on affordability ahead of the midterm elections, as Republicans fight to keep U.S. House control amid economic dissatisfaction among Americans.

Hours before the president torpedoed the bill signing, the White House had said the measure was an example of a “promise kept.”

“Today’s Housing News Conference and Signing is hereby cancelled until such time as we pass the desperately needed SAVE AMERICA ACT, which I consider to be a National Emergency,” Trump wrote Wednesday morning on his social media website.

Advertisement

It opened a new front in ongoing tension between Trump and Senate Republicans, which already had neared a breaking point this week over the proof-of-citizenship bill. Senate leaders have told the president that the bill, dubbed the SAVE America Act, does not have the votes to pass.

And it shocked lawmakers who had been celebrating the bipartisan accomplishment. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles), who had helped lead negotiations, said Trump was “slapping millions of families in the face” after having supported the bill.

“Trump is making his promise crystal clear: If you’re dealing with high housing costs, you’re on your own,” Waters told reporters at a Democratic news conference Wednesday afternoon.

The housing bill, which passed with overwhelming support in the House on Tuesday evening and the Senate on Monday, aims to boost housing supply. It is the most significant legislation Congress has passed on housing in more than 30 years, and it contains a host of provisions aimed at removing regulatory barriers, improving federal programs and incentivizing new home building.

As president, Trump has 10 days to sign or veto bills after they are presented. If he takes no action and Congress remains in session, a bill becomes law. Rep. Katherine Clark (D-Mass.), the House minority whip, said Republican leadership had not yet presented the bill to Trump.

Advertisement

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) indicated to reporters Wednesday that a signing could still be on the table, saying he had spoken to Trump about “delaying” the housing bill before the president announced the cancellation.

“He decided — I didn’t announce it, I wanted him to announce it — but we’re delaying this,” Johnson said. “He has a window of time before he has to sign a bill and he’s going to use a little bit more of that window of time and we’re gonna go through this together.”

Johnson said he had promised an effort to advance the SAVE America Act, saying election integrity “is the top priority.” The speaker accused Democrats of wanting “to allow for cheating and fraud in the elections because it is the only way Marxists can win.”

The White House did not respond when asked whether the president planned to veto the bill or sign it later.

Jim Tobin, president of the National Assn. of Home Builders, which advocated for the bill, said he was on his way to the ceremony, getting ready to walk through Capitol security, when Trump posted.

Advertisement

It was “very disappointing,” Tobin said, citing two years of bipartisan work among industry leaders, lawmakers and the White House, but he said he believed the bill may still ultimately become law.

“People, I believe, want to run — back home — on the affordability issue,” Tobin said. “This would be a great feather in a lot of Congress members’ hats, as well as the president’s, so I’m confident that we’ll get there.”

Last week, the NPR/PBS News/Marist Poll and Fox News poll found record dissatisfaction with the economy among Americans and Trump’s support slipping among key demographics. The president also lashed out about that on his social media website earlier Wednesday, writing without evidence: “MY REAL POLL NUMBERS ARE THE HIGHEST THEY HAVE EVER BEEN. THANK YOU!!!”

Before Trump announced the cancellation, he posted about the legislation, labeling it “the Elizabeth ‘Pocahontas’ Warren centric housing bill,” and railed about the SAVE America Act.

His push for the election overhaul bill could be a test of Senate Republicans’ willingness to counter him.

Advertisement

In recent months, they have revolted against several of his priorities, including security funding for a White House ballroom and a $1.8-billion fund to pay people who claim to have been politically persecuted by the federal government. On Tuesday, four Republican senators joined with Democrats to approve a war powers resolution seeking to block U.S. military action in Iran.

Trump, who for years has tried to sow doubt in American elections, has pressed Republicans to pass the SAVE America Act ahead of the midterm elections. He has said the bill would “guarantee” the midterms for Republicans.

Frustrated that the bill has fallen short of the 60-vote threshold needed to pass the Senate, Trump has repeatedly pressured Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) to eliminate the filibuster rule. Thune has refused.

“He is trying to put pressure on the Senate and on his own caucus to pass an unpopular bill as part of his effort to interfere in the elections,” said Wendy Weiser, democracy program director at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University. “We need to take seriously the possibility that he’s really trying to blow up the Senate over this.”

Earlier this year, Trump said he would not sign any other legislation before the election overhaul measure was passed, arguing that it “supersedes everything else.” He has threatened to not renew a key U.S. surveillance law if it does not include the voting law. And at a rally in Pennsylvania on Tuesday, the president said the election bill was needed because states such as California were trying to rig the election.

Advertisement

“California is totally rigged. All mail-in ballots, it’s a disgrace,” the president told the crowd.

In Washington, the voting law has already passed the House three times. But it has stalled in the Senate. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) told reporters Wednesday that it was an “unachievable goal” to try to get the bill passed.

The legislation would require voters to provide proof of citizenship when they register, require Americans show identification when casting a ballot and require states to send voter data to the Department of Homeland Security.

Voting rights advocates say it would create unnecessary barriers to voting for citizens. There are less disruptive ways to verify a voter’s citizenship status, and the bill would also create administrative challenges for election officials, said Wren Orey, elections project director at the Bipartisan Policy Center.

It serves Trump to continue pushing the bill even without support to pass it, said Eric Kashdan, director of federal advocacy at the Campaign Legal Center; if Republicans suffer losses in the midterms, Trump may use the narrative that elections are vulnerable to fraud.

Advertisement

“If they can say that without the SAVE Act these elections are not secure, that lays the groundwork for the administration to possibly interfere in the elections or just sow doubt,” Kashdan said.

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks) said Trump was holding the bill hostage in a bid “to control California’s elections.”

“The stage was set both physically and metaphorically for the president to sign a historic housing bill for the American people,” said Sherman, who contributed a provision to the housing bill that would help disabled veterans get rental assistance. “Trump must put his ego aside and put the American people first and sign this bill into law.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending