5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Opinion
GOP Medicaid Cuts Are a Dagger Pointed Directly at Our Most Vulnerable
Every moment that activists can delay the passage of these Medicaid cuts is more time to mount an opposition. Republicans might not want to admit it, but support for Medicaid is strong and deep.
May 16, 2025
The numbers are clear. Nursing home residents depend on Medicaid. According to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, fully 63% of nursing home care in the United States is funded by Medicaid. Some states are even more dependent on Medicaid than the national average. For example, in West Virginia fully 77% of nursing home care is funded by Medicaid.
Politico reported on the morning of May 15 that after a marathon markup session lasting 26 hours, the House Energy and Commerce Committee advanced legislation that “would slash Medicaid spending by hundreds of billions of dollars.” These cuts would directly impact nursing home residents and their families. The Washington Post reports that:
“Their [nursing home residents] coverage will be at risk,” said Katie Sloan Smith, president and chief executive of LeadingAge, a Washington lobbying association for operators of nonprofit senior-care facilities. “Either the home itself will have to make up for that loss in some way or they will simply have to say, ‘We can no longer support people on Medicaid’ and close those beds.”
While the Medicaid cuts would hurt nursing home patients, they would also severely impact those who receive care at home (often referred to as home and community-based care). According to National Public Radio, Medicaid pays for care at home for roughly 4.5 million Americans.
The Medicaid cuts that passed the Energy and Commerce Committee would devastate America’s family caregivers as Medicaid also funds caregiver respite programs and caregiver training. The cuts would hurt our most vulnerable and their families.
Where are our citizens on the question of Medicaid cuts? The evidence clearly shows that the American people oppose Medicaid cuts. In fact, there is support for more spending on Medicaid. Polling from the Kaiser Family Foundation published in March of this year found that 42% want to see an increase in Medicaid spending. Just under 3 in 4 (73%) of respondents say that Medicaid is important to their local communities. Democrats (83%), Independents (74%), and Republicans (61%) all see Medicaid as very important to their local community.
Late Thursday May 15, the fate of the measure that passed the Energy and Commerce Committee was in doubt as the legislation moves to a vote in the House of Representatives. There will no doubt be more twists and turns before the measure heads to the Senate. Every moment that activists can delay the passage of these Medicaid cuts is more time to mount an opposition. Republicans might not want to admit it, but support for Medicaid is strong and deep.
This is the greatest threat to Medicaid since its creation in 1965. The GOP legislation is a dagger pointed directly at our most vulnerable. Many of those who would be impacted by Medicaid cuts are not able to raise their voices. Therefore, it up to those of us who can, to raise our voices and tell our elected representatives to reject these cruel proposals that would devastate our families, friends, and neighbors. The stakes in the debate over Medicaid are far too high for any of us to stay silent.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Trump's Trade Deals Endanger Farmers and Our Food System
Trump's efforts to undo the previous administration’s policies set up our food system for disruption and crisis, subjecting farmers to the uncertainties of international markets and developments elsewhere.
May 16, 2025
Former presidential adviser-cum-rightwing podcaster Steve Bannon often mentions that discerning the truth of President Donald Trump's policy goals entails focusing on the signal and not the noise.
But doing so has been next to impossible when trying to figure out the rationale behind the administration's moves in agriculture, which since January have generated widespread confusion and uncertainty.
Specifically, while Trump publicly proclaims that he stands with farmers, his tariff war with China stands to rob producers of their markets. Since Trump's last term, China has already been looking to countries like Brazil for soybeans as the U.S. has proven an unreliable partner. Adding insult to injury, unexpectedly cancelling government contracts with thousands around the country early in his term placed undue stress on farmers who already have to contend with what extreme weather events throw their way.
Taken together, the bailouts along with the freshly inked U.K.-U.S. trade deal and easing of tariffs on China illustrate how the Trump administration prioritizes export agriculture as the driving force of our country's farm system.
Now, with the details of the U.K.-U.S. trade deal becoming known, the signal—that is, the truth—of the Trump administration's vision for agriculture is coming into view. To the point, not unlike how U.S. agriculture has been directed for the past few decades, it is becoming clear that this administration will prioritize exports. The problem with this vision is that, even if it generates short-term profits, it endangers our long-term national food security by dangerously further internationalizing our agricultural system.
Consider the praise that U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins heaped on the U.K.-U.S. deal that was made on May 8, singling out its supposed gains for farmers.
Following the announcement, the secretary announced a tour that she will take through the United Kingdom to tout the agreement. While details are still being hashed out, we are told of a promised $5 billion in market access for beef and ethanol.
Contrast that clear messaging—the signal—with how government contracts with farmers were frozen and made subject to administrative review, and the funding for local food programs was slashed.
The contracts were connected with the Biden administration's Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which included resources for initiatives like those dealing with soil and water conservation, and supporting local food processing. Additionally, programs that connected local producers with schools and food banks, for example, the Local Food for Schools Cooperative Agreement Program and the Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreement Program, had their funding cut in the amount of about $1 billion.
Since February, some of the contracts have been unfrozen if they aligned with the administration's political objectives (i.e. not promoting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, or DEI). Despite court orders ruling that all contracts must be honored, if and when the funds will be distributed, remains to be seen.
Overall, the noise surrounding the unfolding contract drama signals to farmers who want to diversify their operations and serve local markets that they should second guess looking to the government for help.
At the same time, Trump has not abandoned all producers.
In fact, amid the commotion about freezing some contracts, Secretary Rollins ok'd billions in direct payments, or bailouts, for growers of commodity crops such as corn. Thanks to such payments and not any improvements to markets, it is expected that farmers will see their incomes increase when comparing this year with the last.
Taken together, the bailouts along with the freshly inked U.K.-U.S. trade deal and easing of tariffs on China illustrate how the Trump administration prioritizes export agriculture as the driving force of our country's farm system.
Such dynamics smack of contradiction, as Trump appears eager to send our food abroad while he's willing to do whatever to bring manufacturing back to America's shores in the name of strengthening the national economy.
Still, the deeper problem is with how export promotion makes our food system insecure, subjecting farmers to international political upheavals and economic disruption.
Remember the 1970s, when a grain production crisis prompted sudden demand in the Soviet Union. Then-Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz told farmers to "plant fence row to fence row" and "get big or get out" to profit from the newfound export opportunity.
The promise of international markets came—and went. President Jimmy Carter's embargo of grain exports to the Soviet Union in 1980 for that country's invasion of Afghanistan came as a body blow to the farmers who made commodity exports central to their financial plans. Farmers then struggled to pay off the debt for the land and machinery that they acquired just a few years before, which, with rising gas prices, contributed to the 1980s farm crisis. Parallels abound now, including the initial effects of Russia's invasion of Ukraine increasing fertilizer and gasoline costs, and most recently, the ongoing dynamics of Trump's trade war with China.
Concerning the U.K.-U.S. deal, U.K. imports of ethanol may seem a boon for corn growers. But without future terms of the deal becoming clear, it is unclear if this is simply a continuation of what the British already import. Similarly, the significance of the slated $250 million in purchases of beef products is of questionable importance, as last year the U.S. exported $1.6 billion to China. Regardless of the recent 90 day truce in the China-U.S. trade dispute, the remaining 30% tariff would still hurt American farmers. The Trump administration's export push will find farmers without markets and in need of more bailouts.
Besides subjecting U.S. farmers' livelihoods to international uncertainty, the other concern is the lack of concern for the next generation of food producers. Year after year, the country's farmers are getting older, with no one stepping up to replace them. According to the 2022 Agricultural Census, the average farmer is over 58 years old, up over half a year from when the last census was conducted in 2017. During that same time, we lost nearly 150,000 operations. Since 2012, over 200,000 farmers have left the industry, representing a 10% decline. Meanwhile, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, upwards of 70% of farmland is expected to change hands over the next 20 years.
Export promotion serves a temporary fix, but places farmers at the whims of international politics. Moreover, it threatens our country's already economically pressed farmers, making our country even more dependent on a dwindling number of people for our food, as well as imports. In fact, since 2004, while exports have nearly doubled from $50 billion to $200, our food imports have increased slightly more so.
Trump's efforts to undo the previous administration's policies set up our food system for disruption and crisis, subjecting farmers to the uncertainties of international markets and developments elsewhere. If there is a signal with the noise that Trump is making with our food system, then this is it—farmers better get ready for a volatile next few years and more bailouts, as operations will continue to go under. Overall, Trump's nationalist rhetoric amounts to little, as our food system becomes more global, increasingly made vulnerable to dynamics outside our control.
Keep Reading
Show Less
How Donald Trump’s Legal Framework Mirrors the Historical Architectures of Genocide
The structural conditions that have historically preceded ethnic cleansing are now observable in the administration’s deportation efforts.
May 16, 2025
I have taught AP U.S. history for years, as well as Government and World History courses. I have written an original curriculum for Honors Economics. I coached successful Public Forum and Policy debate teams for five years. In addition to my professional experience, I am a close reader of both historical scholarship and current events. The conclusions that follow are drawn from a systematic comparison of this year’s immigration and due process developments with established patterns in the historical record.
The federal government is executing a coordinated legal and administrative campaign aimed at the identification, arrest, and removal of millions of undocumented immigrants. These efforts rely on expanded authority for military and federal agencies, the criminalization of municipal noncooperation, and the systematic dismantling of legal protections previously afforded to vulnerable populations. Though presented as standard immigration enforcement, the structure and language of these measures reflect a state-directed attempt to displace a racially and ethnically defined group. The legal apparatus includes provisions for indefinite detention, the arrest of elected officials, and the use of private contractors to operate beyond traditional channels of accountability.
These policies are not theoretical. They are codified in executive orders, agency directives, and prosecutorial actions. The stated goal exceeds the undocumented population, and enforcement does not rely on individualized findings of legal status. It is categorical. The administration describes its targets as “invaders” and “vermin” and frames sanctuary jurisdictions as criminal conspiracies. These terms do not function as rhetoric. They define policy. Laws criminalizing refusal to comply with deportation efforts are designed to eliminate legal and institutional resistance.
The most effective deterrent to escalation remains noncompliance at every level of implementation.
What follows is a chronology of recent actions taken or proposed during the second Trump administration, aligned with legal precedents from early Nazi Germany. These are not metaphors. Each section pairs language from contemporary United States policy with that of the 1930s German state, using identical structure and phrasing where historically appropriate. The purpose is to allow for clear legal comparison of governance models used to execute racialized mass removal.
In January 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14159 titled “Protecting the American People Against Invasion.” The order suspended habeas corpus protections for undocumented immigrants, expanded federal authority over sanctuary jurisdictions, and authorized indefinite detention and mass deputization of local police under 287(g) agreements.
On February 28, 1933, Adolf Hitler enacted the Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State. The decree suspended habeas corpus, granted the central government power over state authorities, and permitted indefinite detention and mass deputization of local police to suppress declared enemies of the state.
In April 2025, the Trump administration began removing civil servants based on prior involvement in diversity or civil rights programs. A directive issued April 2 targeted officials for dismissal or reassignment solely for ideological nonconformity.
On April 7, 1933, Hitler’s regime enacted the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service. This measure removed Jews and political opponents from public office based on ancestry or beliefs and mandated reassignment or termination for ideological deviation.
In May 2025, the Department of Justice ordered the identification of state and local officials who refused to assist with federal immigration enforcement. These officials were targeted for prosecution under statutes related to obstruction and harboring.
In March 1933, the Nazi regime began detaining opposition party members and regional officials who resisted centralized directives. Local leaders were prosecuted or removed for obstructing enforcement of national laws.
In February 2025, the Trump administration revoked federal support for PBS and NPR and initiated reviews of media funding for ideological violations. The stated aim was to eliminate sources of disinformation and enforce loyalty to national priorities.
In March 1933, the Nazi government enacted the Editors Law, revoked press credentials from noncompliant outlets, and placed all broadcast content under state control. The purpose was to remove disloyal voices and ensure total ideological conformity.
In May 2025, a Wisconsin judge was arrested for allegedly aiding an undocumented immigrant. Federal officials warned that similar acts of judicial noncooperation could be prosecuted as subversion.
In July 1933, the Nazi regime dismissed judges deemed politically unreliable and established special courts. Judges who issued rulings contrary to regime policy were disciplined or removed.
In April 2025, Trump officials proposed turning military bases into detention centers for families without legal review. These facilities would be operated by private contractors under emergency protocols.
In June 1933, Nazi authorities converted military and industrial sites into concentration camps. The camps detained prisoners without court oversight and were run by SS forces under emergency powers.
In May 2025, the Department of Homeland Security announced it was considering the arrest of Democratic members of Congress who protested at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility. They were accused of obstructing federal officers and interfering with detention protocols.
In March 1933, the Nazi regime arrested parliamentary members and accused them of obstructing national authority. Resistance to regime policy was criminalized as a threat to public order.
Trump has constantly proposed legislation to end birthright citizenship for children of undocumented parents. His proposals aim to redefine legal membership in the national community.
In 1935, the Nazi regime enacted the Reich Citizenship Law. The law stripped Jews of citizenship and redefined the legal criteria for national belonging.
The current phase of the Trump administration’s immigration policy reflects an early stage rather than a peak of repression. The legal and operational structure for targeted mass removal is being assembled through executive orders, bureaucratic purges, and prosecutorial test cases that redefine the limits of federal authority.
The scale of proposed removals exceeds historical precedent but has not yet reached full execution. Institutional resistance is inconsistent but has not been eliminated. Local and state officials retain procedural leverage if they choose to apply it. The most effective deterrent to escalation remains noncompliance at every level of implementation.
The policy direction is explicit. Continued repression is not a possibility but a stated intention. The presence of Latino Americans in federal agencies and military institutions has not prevented policy targeting based on national origin or perceived foreignness. Participation does not provide exemption from removal. The structural conditions that have historically preceded ethnic cleansing are now observable. The determining factor will be whether enough people act before enforcement becomes normalized.
Keep Reading
Show Less
It's Time for Young Men to Be Allies in the Fight Against Online Misogyny
The fight against misogyny requires active engagement from all corners of society, including those who have the privilege and responsibility to challenge these harmful ideologies.
May 16, 2025
Earlier this year, the University of York released a sobering report: 90% of secondary school teachers in the U.K. said their male students are being heavily influenced by online misogynistic figures—often quoting or defending toxic masculine personalities in classes. Girls, meanwhile, are withdrawing from discussions, leaving classrooms quietly divided along gender lines.
This is not just a school issue; it's a society-wide crisis forming in real time, and it's happening worldwide. Boys are learning that dominance is power and empathy is weakness, lessons they carry with them far beyond the walls of a classroom. Online misogyny thrives not only because of those who perpetrate it but also due to the silence of many men who choose not to confront it. This passive complicity allows harmful narratives to flourish, shaping a digital culture where toxic masculinity is normalized and women's voices are marginalized.
There is a better way forward. As a human rights advocate with extensive experience in promoting positive masculinity at RWAMREC, Rwanda Men's Resource Center, I have witnessed firsthand how transformative male engagement approaches can challenge gender-based violence and reshape harmful cultural narratives, both online and in the real world. But, despite their demonstrated successes, these programs are vastly underutilized. Many campaigns focus exclusively on empowering women to protect themselves, rather than mobilizing men to take collective responsibility for change. To truly create lasting change and address online misogyny, we must invest in programs that equip men with the tools and confidence to act as allies.
Without the active involvement of tech companies in combating online misogyny, even the most well-intentioned male allies will face an uphill battle.
Content creators promoting hypermasculine personas characterized by control, dominance, and anti-woman rhetoric have amassed audiences in the tens of millions across platforms like X, TikTok, and YouTube. Such creators often blend self-improvement themes with misogynistic and conspiratorial messaging, making their content more appealing and harder to critique. A U.K.-based survey of secondary school teachers revealed that 90% observed male students mimicking or defending online personalities who espouse these hypermasculine ideologies, demonstrating their real-world influence in shaping gender attitudes among youth. Too many boys view this kind of hateful content with complacency, fostering environments where such attitudes are normalized. But a recent study presented compelling evidence supporting the effectiveness of male bystander intervention in reducing sexist behavior. The research found that when male bystanders actively confronted instances of gender prejudice, female victims experienced increased feelings of empowerment and a greater willingness to confront the perpetrator themselves.
By encouraging men to reflect on their behaviors and understand the impact of their words, the toxic patterns that often go unchecked in digital spaces can be dismantled. Educational campaigns that include men in honest conversations about gender equality have led to more respectful engagement on social media, gaming platforms, and online forums. Participants are more likely to recognize misogynistic content, challenge harmful narratives, and avoid contributing to hostile online environments. These efforts not only reduce the prevalence of online abuse but also shift cultural norms around masculinity, making empathy and accountability part of the standard.
Of course not all boys and men endorse or participate in misogynistic behavior online, and many already stand as strong allies in promoting gender equality. However, the pervasive nature of online misogyny calls for a collective response. While male engagement is essential, it is not enough on its own. Tech companies also play a critical role, as their platforms often become spaces where misogynistic content thrives. These companies must take responsibility by implementing robust policies, monitoring harmful behavior, and holding users accountable. Without the active involvement of tech companies in combating online misogyny, even the most well-intentioned male allies will face an uphill battle.
The fight against misogyny requires active engagement from all corners of society, including those who have the privilege and responsibility to challenge these harmful ideologies. By standing up and speaking out, men can help disrupt the cycle and create a safer, more inclusive online environment for everyone. We need increased funding for initiatives that engage men in preventing online misogyny. We also need media literacy education in schools that arm young people with tools to recognize and challenge harmful online behaviors. Men's active involvement in challenging misogyny is more than supportive, it's revolutionary. When boys and men confront sexist remarks, push back against harmful gender stereotypes, or simply opt out of disrespectful conversations, they break the cycle that normalizes misogyny in everyday life.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Most Popular