March, 14 2024, 12:06pm EDT

Medicare Advantage Myth-Busting
This year, the majority of Americans eligible for Medicare coverage chose to enroll in private Medicare Advantage (MA) plans rather than Traditional Medicare. Insurance companies that run these MA plans spend significant sums of money to blanket seniors with marketing that highlights the supposed advantages of MA like low upfront costs, supplemental coverage, and other unique perks like subsidizing gym memberships. However, the ads leave seniors in the dark on the downsides of MA like heavily restricted networks that damage one’s choice of provider along with dangerous delays and denials of necessary care. At the same time, both the Biden Administration and many members of Congress from both parties have voiced support for the further privatization of Medicare through growing Medicare Advantage.
In this article, we will debunk several pervasive myths about MA that proponents and insurance giant owners push in their effort to continue privatizing Medicare at the expense of patients.
Myth #1: Medicare Advantage Is Medicare
The inclusion of the term Medicare in Medicare Advantage — otherwise known as Medicare Part C — is incredibly misleading, as the program is de facto government-subsidized private insurance.
Traditional Medicare is public insurance, where tax revenues are directly used to cover healthcare for seniors and some disabled people. It employs a fee-for-service (FFS) payment model, where the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) directly pays for each covered service by a healthcare provider.
In contrast, MA consists of thousands of different plans mostly provided by health insurance giants like UnitedHealthcare and Humana. Seven large insurance companies accounted for 84% of MA plan enrollment in 2023. Rather than directly covering care as needed, the federal government pays lump sum Medicare dollars, known as capitated payments, to these private insurers for each patient. MA plans make money by spending as little as possible on patient care in order to keep as much of the leftover taxpayer money as possible.
In other words, MA is private insurance supported by government subsidies, and it is a form of managed care by health insurance companies. MA is not a government-managed public health insurance program like Traditional Medicare.
Myth #2: Medicare Advantage Saves Money
Medicare Advantage has never saved taxpayers money as a substitute for Traditional Medicare. In fact, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), taxpayers have spent more on financing MA than they would have if everyone was covered under Traditional Medicare.
In fact, Congress and CMS have been working to try to stop MA companies from gaming the system to steal taxpayer money. A 2023 study by the Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) estimates that CMS overpaid MA plans between $88-$140 billion in 2022 alone through various practices like pretending patients were sicker than they were along with targeting healthier, less costly seniors to enroll in their plans. Overpayments have also caused all Medicare beneficiaries to pay billions in higher Medicare Part B premiums.
Through taking taxpayer subsidies, MA has been significantly more profitable for insurance companies than the private plans offered to the rest of Americans. In 2021, MA companies had a gross profit margin of $1,730 per enrollee, which is more than double their profit margin on the individual market ($745). In 2023, Humana ended its entire commercial insurance business in order to entirely focus on government-funded programs like MA.
Some who claim MA saves money point to how MA spending is growing at a slower rate than Traditional Medicare. However, their point assumes that people enrolled in MA and Traditional Medicare share the same characteristics, which is false. MA targets and enrolls people who are healthier, less likely to use medical services, and, thus, less expensive to cover than those in Traditional Medicare.
Myth #3: Medicare Advantage Is Necessary To Save Beneficiaries Out-of-Pocket Spending
One of the primary appeals of Medicare Advantage is the idea that it saves beneficiaries money. However, this is highly dependent on how much care someone needs. The extent to which MA does save money for patients is not a natural result of its supposed superiority; it is due to intentional political sabotage and decision making.
Patients in both MA and Traditional Medicare have to pay a monthly premium for Medicare Part B ($174.40 in 2024). Then, Traditional Medicare covers 80% of costs for outpatient services. Beneficiaries are responsible for paying the remaining 20%, with no limit on out-of-pocket (OOP) payments. However, Traditional Medicare fully covers inpatient services such as hospitalization after a patient meets a deductible ($1,632 in 2024). For prescription drug coverage, Traditional Medicare beneficiaries pay a monthly premium for a Medicare Part D plan run by a private insurer ($40 average in 2023).
Traditional Medicare beneficiaries can purchase a supplemental Medigap insurance plan to cover most OOP spending (average monthly premium of $139 in 2023), which a plurality (41%) did in 2021. Eighty-nine percent of people in Traditional Medicare had some form of supplemental coverage in 2023, such as through Medicaid (19%) or their employer/union (31%).
In MA, premiums, coinsurance rates, and deductibles vary across the thousands of different plans. However, the average monthly premium is very low ($18.50 estimate for 2024), and many plans have $0 premiums. Additionally, CMS mandates that MA plans have an OOP spending limit. The average limit for in-network services was $4,835 in 2023; when accounting for both in- and out-of-network services, the average limit was $8,659. Ninety-seven percent of MA beneficiaries are in plans that incorporate drug coverage, and the average premium is $10 per month (73% of enrollees had no premiums for drug coverage).
For healthy individuals without need of expensive healthcare services and products, MA saves money due to its low premiums. However, while Traditional Medicare users with a Medigap plan spend more money upfront due to higher premiums, they can save thousands of dollars for expensive care that would reach their OOP limit if they were enrolled in MA.
However, many seniors simply cannot afford purchasing a Medigap plan, so they have little choice but to enroll in MA. In 2023, 52% of MA beneficiaries earned annual incomes around $25,000. Income limitations disproportionately lead Blacks (65%) and Latinos (69%) to choose MA compared to Whites (48%), as 78% and 81% of Black and Latino MA beneficiaries earn less than 200% of the federal poverty level, respectively.
Traditional Medicare beneficiaries without any form of supplemental coverage (11% of Traditional Medicare users in 2021) most certainly have to pay more for healthcare due to Part A deductible and the lack of any OOP cap. However, the lack of an OOP cap in Traditional Medicare is entirely a result of politics and can be changed. While CMS requires MA plans to have an OOP cap, policymakers have elected not to create one for Traditional Medicare. Congress could legislate a $5,000 OOP cap for Traditional Medicare; this would cost just $39 billion annually or just 28-44% of the overpayments made to MA plans in 2022.
Considering the fact that MA has never saved taxpayer money, the history of billions of dollars in overpayments to MA plans, and the fact that Congress could cost-efficiently lower costs for those in Traditional Medicare, it is a myth that MA is necessary to save patients money.
Myth #4: Medicare Advantage Improves Health Outcomes
Through incentivizing the use of preventative care, Medicare Advantage’s capitated payment model should supposedly increase the health of its beneficiaries. However, there is not sufficient evidence to prove this. Additionally, the sickest patients opt for Traditional Medicare and low reimbursement rates decrease the willingness of healthcares providers to accept MA patients.
The Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) reviewed existing studies and found that there is not strong evidence of widespread significant differences in health outcomes between Americans enrolled in MA versus Traditional Medicare. MA plans push patients to more preventative care visits, and they also incentivize beneficiaries to take on healthy habits like getting and using a gym membership. In contrast, Traditional Medicare is more likely to send its beneficiaries to higher-rated cancer facilities, nursing facilities, and home health agencies. Issues with data quality and differences in the populations who choose MA versus Traditional Medicare also render direct comparisons between the two programs quite weak.
Incentivized to spend as little as possible, MA plans pay healthcare providers less than Traditional Medicare. As a result, an increasing number of doctors and providers are declining to accept MA patients, further restricting MA networks and access to care. Additionally, lower payments can prevent doctors from providing the best quality care. In comparison, around 99% of non-pediatric physicians accept Traditional Medicare.
Medicare Advantage is a great option for relatively healthy beneficiaries who do not expect to need intensive care for serious illnesses and injuries. Capitated payments do incentivize MA insurance companies to save money by investing in healthy, preventative care and programs. At the same time, the model also incentivizes MA plans to avoid covering the highest quality care for the people most in need.
To restrict care that beneficiaries would otherwise receive in Traditional Medicare, MA companies delay and deny care through prior authorizations (PAs) and payment denials. In 2021, patients and their providers had to file 35 million PA requests in order to receive medical care. MA companies denied 2 million of these requests. People only bothered to appeal 11% of the time; however, those that did had a 82% success rate. In 2022, 94% of physicians surveyed by the American Medical Association reported experiencing PAs which caused delays to necessary care; 56% reported this occurring always or often. Eighty percent reported that PAs caused the abandonment of recommended treatment, and 33% reported that they caused a serious adverse event for their patients.
There are many reasons for poor health outcomes in the United State: lack of healthcare access, high costs, low income, poor diet, and lack of exercise to name a few. The strategy of giving lump sums of money — mostly to insurance giants — and incentivizing them to spend as little as possible is not supported with evidence of improved health outcomes and does not directly tackle these greater issues.
Myth #5: Medicare Advantage Offers Benefits That Traditional Medicare Simply Cannot Match
A primary selling point of MA plans is that they offer supplemental benefits — mainly coverage for dental, vision, and hearing care — that Traditional Medicare does not provide. While this is true, it is misleading because it does not reveal the quality of this coverage.
While the vast majority of MA plans offer supplemental benefit coverage, there isn’t evidence that their beneficiaries actually utilize dental, hearing, and vision services much more than people enrolled in Traditional Medicare. In fact, there is some evidence to the contrary regarding dental care. This is because MA supplemental “coverage” does not protect patients from having to spend significant sums of money out of their own pockets.
Most MA plans have high coinsurance rates along with low annual caps on how much insurance will cover. So, MA coverage predominantly doesn’t help patients with expensive dental, hearing, or vision treatments. This prevents many seniors from being able to afford care even though they technically have coverage. Ultimately, MA plans constantly advertise that they offer supplemental coverage, but they leave Americans in the dark on how little financial help they will actually receive.
Additionally, taxpayers and Traditional Medicare beneficiaries are effectively subsidizing these additional benefits. Not only has MA never saved taxpayer money, it is further depleting the Medicare Trust Fund and raising Part B premiums for all Medicare beneficiaries. These higher premiums and taxpayer overpayments allow MA companies to market supplemental benefits along with the aforementioned low premiums which attract healthier and lower-income seniors.
Instead of enriching MA companies, Traditional Medicare could provide dental, hearing, and vision benefits for less than $42 billion in 2025, which is 30-48% of the overpayments taxpayers made to MA in 2022. Unlike in MA, this coverage would not be limited to restricted provider networks.
Myth #6: Medicare Advantage Is Necessary To Lower Healthcare Spending
Healthcare spending overall and Medicare spending specifically increase every year more than inflation. The United States spends more money per capita than any other country on healthcare. The average cost of healthcare per person in other wealthy nations is roughly half as much as the United States.
To lower Medicare spending, proponents of Medicare Advantage tout the benefits of “value-based” care compared to Traditional Medicare’s FFS model. Critics claim that FFS incentivizes wasteful spending and opportunities for doctors to become rich by billing Medicare for services unnecessary to patient health.
In contrast, “value-based” care involves CMS giving lump sums of money (capitated payments) to MA companies for each patient, supposedly incentivising efficient healthcare spending on preventative care. Through spending less and, ideally, keeping patients healthier, MA companies get to keep more money.
While there are case studies of mission-driven organizations succeeding with capitated payments, this does not hold true for the large, for-profit insurance giants that dominate MA. Rather, the major MA companies’ primary goal is to maximize profit. Therefore, they typically take as much taxpayer money as feasible by gaming the system while restricting care in order to spend less and keep as much as possible.
However, the entire premise that reducing healthcare usage with a more restrictive insurance policy is the best means to lower healthcare spending is baseless. The United States does not use healthcare services more than the other countries who spend far less, and the same is true for Medicare compared to similar foreign populations.
Then why is healthcare so expensive in the United States? Prices. Healthcare prices in the United States are significantly higher than other countries. This reality is a result of factors like market consolidation (lack of competition), patents, administrative waste, and more.
Rather than combat the large hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, private equity companies, insurance giants, and other powerful private interests who control armies of lobbyists and excesses of campaign cash, MA proponents provide a simple solution: make people get less care. This is a convenient solution which happens to also further enrich and get the blessing of dominant insurers like UnitedHealth Group.
All in All, Medicare Advantage Is a Scam
Congress created Medicare Advantage with the 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act (MMA). After signing the bill into law, President George W. Bush boasted how MA would lower costs, expand benefits, afford seniors more choices, and improve quality of care. However, this supposed modernization of Medicare was really a scheme to privatize, gifting billions of dollars to insurance companies while seeking to end Traditional Medicare.
In reality, MA has never saved taxpayer money. Through gaming the system of capitated payments, MA insurance companies have reaped billions in overpayments — which have also increased the amount all Medicare beneficiaries pay in Part B premiums.
Through restricting care and taxpayer subsidies, MA plans do offer a lower cost alternative to Traditional Medicare, especially for beneficiaries who cannot afford a supplemental Medigap plan. Additionally, it can offer supplemental benefit coverage unavailable under Traditional Medicare, even if the quality of such coverage is poor and provides limited financial support. However, this reality is not because of its inherent design; it is a result of the political sabotage of Traditional Medicare. Congress can cap OOP expenses and provide supplemental coverage for Traditional Medicare with the same money it overpays to MA insurance giants lining their profit margins.
The only choices MA afforded seniors has been which private plan they want to choose. The program destroys beneficiaries’ choice of doctor due to restricted networks. Additionally, there is not sufficient evidence that MA significantly improves health outcomes while health providers are increasingly dropping MA plans due to low reimbursements, further limiting the number of providers MA patients can see. At the same time, current comparisons between MA and Traditional Medicare are unfair as long as policy makers refuse to fix the cost gaps in the latter.
Within both the Medicare and entire American populations, healthcare costs are rising at the same time as health outcomes are worsening, especially in comparison to peer nations. While MA is a convenient solution for insurance companies, it neither addresses the causes of high prices nor poor health outcomes.
MA proponents consistently point to the increasing share of beneficiaries who choose MA over Traditional Medicare as evidence of success. Along with millions of dollars spent on deceptive advertising by insurance companies, this is the consequence of policymaker’s failure to update Traditional Medicare.
It’s past time Medicare beneficiaries are given a real choice. Instead of overpaying insurance giants to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, Congress can cap OOP expenses at $5,000 annually and provide supplemental benefits in Traditional Medicare.
The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) was established in 1999 to promote democratic debate on the most important economic and social issues that affect people's lives. In order for citizens to effectively exercise their voices in a democracy, they should be informed about the problems and choices that they face. CEPR is committed to presenting issues in an accurate and understandable manner, so that the public is better prepared to choose among the various policy options.
(202) 293-5380LATEST NEWS
'Alligator Alcatraz' Denounced as Epitome of GOP Dehumanization and Cruelty Toward Migrants
"There's no clearer illustration of the brutality of the Trump administration than robbing funds from cities supporting asylum-seekers to build... a f*up Floridian replica of one of our most notorious prisons to disappear, isolate, and abuse immigrants."
Jun 25, 2025
Rights advocates and Democratic officials across the United States this week are condemning the Trump administration and Florida Republicans' effort to construct a migrant detention facility in the Everglades dubbed "Alligator Alcatraz."
Republican Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier laid out plans to transform the Dade-Collier Training and Transition Airport—previously called the Everglades Jetport—into a temporary detention facility for undocumented immigrants in a video posted on the social media site X last week.
The site "presents an efficient, low-cost opportunity to build a temporary detention facility because you don't need to invest that much in the perimeter. People get out, there's not much waiting for 'em other than alligators and pythons," he said in the video. "Nowhere to go, nowhere to hide."
"Detaining immigrants at a remote airfield in the Everglades, with no clear legal framework or due process, is about fear, not safety."
Citing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Reutersreported that "the Florida facility, estimated to cost $450 million annually, could eventually house up to 5,000 people."
According toThe New York Times, "A spokesperson for the attorney general said work on the new facility started on Monday morning." The effort is directly tied to President Donald Trump's push for mass deportations that critics denounce as devastating for families and the economy.
Trump's homeland security secretary, Kristi Noem, toldUSA Today that the facility will be partly funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Shelter and Services Program. Her department said on X that "we are working on cost-effective and innovative ways to deliver on the American people's mandate for mass deportations. Alligator Alcatraz will expand facilities and bed space in just days, thanks to our partnership with Florida."
Responding to that post, Uthmeier wrote that "I'm proud to help support President Trump and Secretary Noem in their mission to fix our illegal immigration problem once and for all. Alligator Alcatraz and other Florida facilities will do just that. We in Florida will fight alongside this administration to keep Florida safe, strong, and free."
Florida turning airfield in the Everglades into "Alligator Alcatraz" to hold detained migrants
[image or embed]
— MSNBC (@msnbc.com) June 24, 2025 at 1:16 PM
The plan has been lambasted by some local environmentalists and Indigenous people, as well as Florida Democrats. José Javier Rodríguez, a Democrat running to be the state's attorney general, said in a Wednesday statement that Uthmeier's Alligator Alcatraz "isn't a serious plan, it's a reckless, rushed project that puts lives and resources at risk."
"Detaining immigrants at a remote airfield in the Everglades, with no clear legal framework or due process, is about fear, not safety," he continued. "The most obvious reason seems to be political theater, just trying to get attention in Washington, rather than looking out for the interests of our state and its people."
"Now they're funding it with FEMA dollars—money meant to help us prepare for hurricanes and natural disasters, especially in states like Florida," he added, also noting Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis' use of emergency powers to seize the site.
Congressman Maxwell Alejandro Frost (D-Fla.) also blasted the plan, saying in a Tuesday statement that "Donald Trump, his administration, and his enablers have made one thing brutally clear: They intend to use the power of government to kidnap, brutalize, starve, and harm every single immigrant they can—because they have a deep disdain for immigrants and are using them to scapegoat the serious issues facing working people."
"They would rather us point fingers at immigrants for the housing crisis, violence, lack of healthcare, and high costs that plague our nation rather than blame the inaction of politicians and greedy corporations," he argued. "This was never about public safety. It was never about putting America first."
Frost continued:
They target migrants, rip families apart, and subject people to conditions that amount to physical and psychological torture in facilities that can only be described as hell on Earth. Now, they want to erect tents in the blazing Everglades sun and call it immigration enforcement. They don't care if people live or die; they only care about cruelty and spectacle.
I've toured these facilities myself—real ones, not the makeshift tents they plan to put up—and even those detention centers contain conditions that are nothing short of human rights abuses. Places where people are forced to eat, sleep, shower, and defecate all in the same room. Places where medical attention is virtually nonexistent.
Anyone who supports this is a disgusting excuse for a human being, let alone a public servant.
Frost wasn't the only federal lawmaker who sounded the alarm this week. Congresswoman Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), a fierce critic of the president's anti-migrant agenda, said Tuesday that "there's no clearer illustration of the brutality of the Trump administration than robbing funds from cities supporting asylum-seekers to build 'Alligator Alcatraz.'"
"Nope, that's not an island for bad-behaving alligators your family could visit after Disney," she wrote on social media. "It's a f*up Floridian replica of one of our most notorious prisons to disappear, isolate, and abuse immigrants."
Notably, Trump last month advocated for reopening the island prison of Alcatraz in California's San Francisco Bay.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Medicaid Defenders in Wheelchairs Arrested Ahead of Senate Vote on 'Betrayal of a Bill'
"Great optics if you want to ignite a revolution," remarked one observer.
Jun 25, 2025
Dozens of peaceful protesters including people in wheelchairs were arrested inside a U.S. Senate building in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday while protesting Republicans' proposed cuts to Medicaid spending in the budget reconciliation package facing votes on Capitol Hill in the coming days.
The group Popular Democracy in Action said that "today, over 60 people were arrested in the Russell Senate Building Rotunda in a powerful act of nonviolent civil disobedience" against "cuts to essential social programs like Medicaid" and the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, or SNAP.
"If you're zip-tying grandmas protesting losing healthcare maybe you're not the good guys in the story?"
Protesters were zip-tied and dragged from the building by police after demonstrators unfurled three large banners inside the rotunda with messages calling on lawmakers to protect Medicaid and other essential social programs. One of the banners read, "Senate Republicans Don't Kill Us, Save Medicaid."
Reporting on the arrests, The Tennessee Hollercontented, "If you're zip-tying grandmas protesting losing healthcare maybe you're not the good guys in the story?"
The so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act being pushed by U.S. President Donald Trump would slash federal Medicaid spending by billions of dollars, introduce work requirements for recipients, and impose other conditions that critics say would result in millions of vulnerable people losing their coverage in order to pay for a massive tax cut that would disproportionately benefit wealthy households and corporations.
"Nearly 80% of Americans support preserving and expanding Medicaid, yet this bill would do the opposite—slashing $880 billion from care to fund $4.5 trillion in tax breaks for billionaires," Popular Democracy in Action said in a statement. "Over 16 million people could lose coverage over the next decade if the proposed spending bill passes, and new work requirements threaten to strip lifesaving care from those who need it most."
Popular Democracy in Action said Wednesday's press conference, which preceded the civil disobedience, "underscored the urgent need for Congress to divest from endless wars abroad and invest in our communities at home. Participants have one clear message for Senators currently debating the bill: 'We need to kill this bill, before it kills us all.'"
"Nearly 80% of Americans support preserving and expanding Medicaid, yet this bill would do the opposite."
In addition to Popular Democracy in Action, groups including the Service Employees International Union, Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), Debt Collective, Stand Up Alaska, Action NC, Arkansas Community Organizations, and American Disabled for Attendant Programs Today (ADAPT) took part in Wednesday's protest, which followed similar past actions in defense of Medicaid.
"Yesterday was the three-year anniversary of the deadly, disastrous Dobbsdecision that has literally put our lives on the line," PPFA president and CEO Alexis McGill Johnson said at the protest. "In this big, bad betrayal of a bill there is a provision to defund Planned Parenthood."
"Half of our patients rely on Medicaid to get access to care. What they would do, is put at risk a third of all of our health centers, and there's nowhere for our patients to go to be absorbed into the system," she continued. "That puts at risk access to contraception, breast exams, cancer exams, wellness exams, access to STI testing and treatment—just to give billionaires a tax break."
"And here's a kicker, for the 1 million patients who rely on that care, 90% of those health centers are in states with abortion access," McGill Johnson added. "So we need to call this what it is: a backdoor abortion ban."
Earlier in the day members of these groups were joined at a press conference by U.S. Sens. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who condemned the GOP bill.
"I'm the point person for the Democrats in this fight—and it's the most important fight I've ever been in, because this battle this week is going to determine the future of American healthcare," said Wyden. "Are you for caviar or kids? Mar-a-Lago or the middle class? Hedge funds or healthcare? I know what side you're on—now we have got to make sure that a whole lot of Senate Republicans make the right choice too."
While it is uncertain how many—if any—upper chamber Republicans will oppose the bill, more than a dozen House GOP lawmakers claimed Tuesday that they would not back the Senate's version of the legislation due to Medicaid cuts.
Both chambers of Congress are scheduled to recess for the July 4th holiday next week. Trump is pushing lawmakers to vote on the package before the break. Under reconciliation rules, both chambers must pass identical versions of the legislation.
Most proponents of the bill are determined to pass it with the Medicaid cuts. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Tuesday that "failure is not an option."
"I know a lot of us are hearing from people back home about Medicaid," McConnell noted. "But they'll get over it."
#WeWontGetOverLosingMedicaidRepublicans don’t GAF about us…📌 Today, Capitol Police are threatening to arrest people in wheelchairs.📌 Yesterday, McConnell said “failure is not an option” and this…
[image or embed]
— Christopher Webb (@cwebbonline.com) June 25, 2025 at 11:59 AM
Participants in Wednesday's protest vowed to keep battling to preserve Medicaid.
"The stuff we're fighting for, the kind of healthcare, long-term services, housing, well-paid work with paid days off and benefits—those are the things we've fought for for 50 years," said Mike Oxford of ADAPT. "We've been fighting for years... we're not backing down."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Melting Down Over NYC Mayoral Primary, Trump Calls Mamdani '100% Communist Lunatic'
"Trump attacking Mamdani is basically an endorsement at this point," said one social media user.
Jun 25, 2025
Democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani won New York City's Democratic mayoral primary on Tuesday by campaigning on issues including affordable housing, fare-free buses, no-cost childcare, green schools, and raising the minimum wage—a platform that has "terrified" oligarchs, including Republican U.S. President Donald Trump, who weighed in Wednesday afternoon.
In a pair of posts on his Truth Social network, Trump—an erstwhile New Yorker—called Mamdani "a 100% Communist Lunatic," said that "we've had Radical Lefties before, but this is getting a little ridiculous," and attacked the winner's appearance, voice, intelligence, and supporters, including Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).
"I have an idea for the Democrats to bring them back into 'play.' After years of being left out in the cold, including suffering one of the Greatest Losses in History, the 2024 Presidential Election, the Democrats should nominate Low IQ Candidate, Jasmine Crockett, for President," Trump wrote of a Democratic Texas congresswoman willing to call out him and his allies in Congress.
"AOC+3 should be, respectively, Vice President, and three High Level Members of the Cabinet," Trump continued, referring to progressive Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.). "Added together with our future Communist Mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani, and our Country is really SCREWED!"
Critics of Trump took the comments as a clear signal that the second-term president is scared of Mamdani and other progressive political leaders fighting for policies that would improve the lives of working people.
Donald Trump must have shit his pants worse than usual when he heard the results of the NYC primary. He is really scared of Zohran Mamdani. Trump is going to need a bigger diaper. 💩
[image or embed]
— OB1 Rebel (@ob1rebel.bsky.social) June 25, 2025 at 3:47 PM
"Trump attacking Mamdani is basically an endorsement at this point," wrote a Bluesky user called The Vivlia.
Georgia state Rep. Ruwa Romman (D-97)—known nationally as the Palestinian American barred from speaking at last year's Democratic National Convention—said: "...is Trump jealous of Zohran??? The focus of his posts is... something."
In an opinion piece published by Common Dreams before Trump's afternoon comments, political organizer Corbin Trent wrote that Mamdani beat disgraced former Gov. Andrew Cuomo "by acknowledging what everyone already knows—life has become unaffordable—and saying we're going to build our way out of it. Housing that teachers can afford. Transit that actually works. Childcare centers so parents don't have to choose between working and raising their kids. And that the ultrawealthy are going to pay their fair share."
Trent argued that other Democrats, and especially the party leadership, have much to learn from Mamdani—both in style and substance—if they want to win back voters who have gravitated to Trump and his right-wing MAGA worldview.
"Mamdani hasn't even been elected yet," Trent noted. "But he's shown us how to stop lying about what needs fixing. He's shown that you can win by promising to build for everyone, not just donors."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular