SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
one big beautiful bill act
Trump Admin Argues Even Terminally Ill Patients Shouldn't Be Exempt From Medicaid Work Requirements
Under a new policy the administration is defending in court, low-income people with cancer, HIV, Parkinson's, and other life-threatening illnesses must prove they're too sick to work or risk losing their health insurance.
Jul 30, 2026
A federal judge on Thursday denied a request by more than two dozen Democratic states to halt a Trump administration policy announced last month that would require Medicaid recipients with terminal diseases to prove they are too sick to work in order to be exempt from new work requirements that go into effect this coming January.
While introducing over $1 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% of Americans, last year's massive GOP tax and budget bill also imposed new 80-hour-per-month work requirements that states must implement for Medicaid expansion recipients, who receive government-subsidized insurance coverage at or below 138% of the poverty line.
The law specified that those who are “medically frail or otherwise have special medical needs” are excluded from the work requirement, and specifically listed people with a “serious or complex medical condition.” But it remained unclear what exact conditions met these criteria.
Earlier this month, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) introduced a new rule stating that even if a person receives a terminal diagnosis for a disease like cancer, HIV/AIDS, or Parkinson's, that is still not enough for them to be exempt from the work requirements.
Beginning on January 1, 2028, it says they must also demonstrate to states that their condition “significantly impairs” their ability to meet the work requirement.
Democratic attorneys general in 25 states and the District of Columbia filed a preliminary injunction over the rule late last month, arguing that CMS had rewritten the law to introduce a vague and needlessly restrictive new hurdle that vulnerable people will face in obtaining desperately needed care.
“This is one of those cases where it’s really hard to overstate how dire the consequences could be,” North Carolina’s Democratic attorney general, Jeff Jackson, told Politico. “You’re going to have 50 states doing 50 different things, and we’re all going to have to create a whole new bureaucracy... You are talking about a lot more paperwork, more evaluations, more doctor visits, and a lot more work for doctors themselves.”
The Democratic AGs argued that implementation of the work requirements should be paused because they lacked the staff or capacity to meet the timeline set by CMS, which requires states to communicate to enrollees how they'll be affected by the changes by the end of August.
US District Judge Richard Stearns on Thursday denied their initial request to immediately halt the implementation of the requirements while the lawsuit proceeds, but also did not rule on the lawsuit's merits, which are scheduled to be decided before the requirements go into effect on January 1.
Several medical associations, including the American Medical Association, the American College of Physicians, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, have come out against the rule, arguing that it would have dire consequences for people who suffer from severe illness.
"One of the most significant factors in whether someone survives a cancer diagnosis is whether they have health insurance coverage," Lisa Lacasse, president of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, explained in June.
"The new restrictions link the definition of medical frailty to a person’s ability to work," she continued. "This would mean cancer patients and survivors who are suffering from debilitating side effects of the disease or treatment would have to officially prove they can’t work, in a process that is likely to be difficult and take a long time."
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has projected that over the coming decade, changes to healthcare policy introduced by Republicans would increase the number of uninsured Americans by about 11.8 million.
Around 5.7 million of them are projected to be Medicaid recipients who either do not meet the 80-hour work requirement or are otherwise eligible but tripped up by one of the newly imposed paperwork hurdles.
Taya Graham and Stephen Janis argued earlier this week in a piece for The Real News Network that eligible people losing coverage is not an unfortunate side effect of the law, but a goal of the Republicans who passed it, who sought a way to thin the ranks of those who qualify for Medicaid without having to take the politically unpopular step of actually clawing back benefits.
They wrote that what has happened to recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) illustrates how burdensome these new requirements may become.
As The New York Times reported earlier this month, in Arizona, 440,000 people have already been dropped from SNAP after it enacted a formidable regime of paperwork for low-income recipients to prove eligibility, including requiring some people with panhandling income to obtain documentation from donors who drop them a buck on the street.
"If this is what people receiving SNAP benefits have been subjected to," Graham and Janis wrote, "imagine what’s going to happen to people who will need to navigate the new [Medicaid] requirements while struggling with a debilitating or terminal illness."
Medical issues are a leading cause of bankruptcy in the US. According to one study, over 4 in 10 cancer patients over 50 had depleted all their assets within two years of diagnosis.
Melanie D’Arrigo, a campaigner for single-payer healthcare in New York, said that President Donald Trump "cut cancer research, cut healthcare,” and with new Medicaid restrictions, “wants to make sure Americans continue to work as they go broke battling cancer.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Celebrate Medicare and Medicaid—and Protect Them From Trump!
Trump and his allies in Congress have not so much dismantled these programs yet as chipped away at them; if this movement continues unabated, we may be left with the crumbling foundations of programs that were built to last.
Jul 30, 2026
There is reason to celebrate Medicare and Medicaid turning 61 years old. Both highly successful programs were signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on July 30, 1965 as a cornerstone of his Great Society agenda. But this year, our celebration is tempered by grave concern over the future of both programs under the Trump regime.
Let’s compare the words of the two presidents:
LBJ:
No longer will older Americans be denied the healing miracle of modern medicine. No longer will illness crush and destroy the savings that they have so carefully put away over a lifetime. No longer will young families see their own incomes, and their own hopes, eaten away simply because they are carrying out their deep moral obligations to their parents.
It’s not possible for us to take care of… Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual things. They can do it on a state basis. You can’t do it on a federal. We have to take care of one thing: military protection. We have to guard the country.
The comparison speaks volumes. One is a leader who understood that the federal government has a crucial role in the protecting the health and well-being of our most vulnerable citizens—including the poor, disabled, and the elderly. The other is a president who claims to support Medicare and then says that the federal government can’t afford it because of his illegal war in Iran. So much for supporting Medicare.
But this goes deeper than Trump’s rhetoric. The Medicare program, like Social Security, is at a pivotal point in its history. The Part A hospital) trust fund must be fortified so that it doesn’t run dry in the 2030s. (There are reasonable solutions that Congress could enact without hurting seniors.) So far, though, we have heard no constructive ideas from Trump.
More urgently, though, the Trump administration is actively undermining the "traditional Medicare" program that LBJ signed into law. The administration has begun a pilot program to use AI bots to determine whether traditional Medicare patients will be covered for procedures their doctors have ordered. This appears to be an attempt to cut costs by erecting obstacles to medically necessary care—with decisions made by bots instead of human beings.
It could be the first step in a scheme to corrupt traditional Medicare and make it more like the privatized Medicare Advantage program run by for-profit insurers, which is a glorified HMO (with frequent denials of care, limited provider networks, and surprise out-of-pocket costs for beneficiaries). Unfortunately, thanks to deceptive but pervasive advertising, Medicare Advantage has now captured more than 51% of the market, leaving traditional Medicare with a shrinking share of enrollees.
The problem is that Medicare Advantage (MA) puts profits over patients. Participating insurance companies have been overbilling the federal government by billions of dollars a year. Ironically, this privatized program was supposed to save taxpayers money. Instead, Medicare Advantage plans cost the government an average of 14% more per patient than traditional Medicare. That translates into an additional $76 billion in federal spending this year alone.
The bottom line: Medicare Advantage puts taxpayers’ money into the hands of large insurance companies while failing to deliver superior or more cost-effective care. It is fair to say that this is not what LBJ had in mind when he created the public Medicare program. (Medicare Advantage arrived—in nascent form—in 1997, after considerable pressure from the insurance industry.)
When we talk about the financial shortfall facing the Medicare program, we must look at Medicare Advantage as an aggravating factor. Reining-in MA would go a long way toward restoring the overall program to fiscal health—along with other commonsense reforms. Unfortunately, the Trump administration has been inconsistent on this issue, initially floating strict curbs on MA overpayments but ultimately rewarding insurance companies with higher payouts.
Traditional Medicare is far from perfect. It should have caps on patients’ out-of-pocket medical costs. It should cover vision, dental, and hearing care. (President Joe Biden attempted to expand coverage in the ill-fated Build Back Better Act.) These are improvements that we have long urged Congress and the White House to enact.
Medicare also faces compound financial challenges—including the overall rise in healthcare costs and soaring prescription drug prices. The Biden administration and Democrats in Congress took a major step in the right direction with the Inflation Reduction Act, which empowered Medicare to negotiate drug prices with Big Pharma. This process is expected to save the government more than $230 billion by 2031.
For the most part, the Trump administration has adhered to the law and continued negotiating with drugmakers—but it also expanded the list of cancer drugs that won’t be eligible for negotiations. The president has largely relied on smoke and mirrors to make it appear that the administration is "tough on Big Pharma," using gimmicks like TrumpRx. Meanwhile, in a move that will make medications less affordable for seniors, the Trump administration has just announced it is ending Biden-era subsidies in the Medicare Part D prescription drug program.
Of course, it’s also Medicaid’s 61st anniversary. The damage that Trump and the Republicans have done to Medicare’s sister program would take up another entire article. Suffice it to say that more than 3 million Americans have already lost health coverage since Trump and the GOP enacted their Big, Ugly Bill, which slashed nearly $1 trillion from Medicaid. (This also hurts older people dually enrolled in both Medicare and Medicaid.) It was correctly labeled the biggest cut in healthcare in US history—to pay for tax cuts largely benefiting the wealthy.
The political right has always been wary of the New Deal and Great Society legacy programs that lifted people out of poverty and provided older and lower-income Americans with basic retirement and health security. Some on the right have outright committed themselves to dismantling these programs, despite their distinguished histories. Trump and his allies in Congress have not so much dismantled these programs yet as chipped away at them under the guise of fighting "fraud and abuse." If this movement continues unabated, we may be left with the crumbling foundations of programs that were built to last, for the good of the American people.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Republicans Want to Dismantle Medicare; Democrats Must Fight for Medicare for All
While America’s current healthcare system is painfully vulnerable to Republican attacks, there is an opportunity to create a better future where all Americans can rely on guaranteed healthcare.
Jul 30, 2026
Sixty-one years ago, President Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare and Medicaid into law, while former President and long-time national health insurance champion Harry Truman watched. What Johnson and Truman understood was that the fight for guaranteed healthcare for everyone has been a generations-long struggle. The creation of Medicare and Medicaid was a key victory in that struggle. Importantly, though, Medicare and Medicaid are—to paraphrase what President Franklin Roosevelt said about the signing of Social Security into law—“a cornerstone in a structure which is being built but is by no means complete.”
After President Truman was unable to achieve his goal of guaranteed healthcare for all Americans, healthcare advocates decided to move incrementally. They began by pushing to cover seniors. Older Americans have the highest medical costs, the hardest time affording private health insurance, and need care the most often. The signing of Medicare achieved this important milestone, alongside the creation of Medicaid to cover healthcare for low-income Americans.
In 1972, Medicare was expanded to cover people with disabilities. But that is where progress stopped. It is well past time that we expand Medicare to cover children and everyone in between. We must also improve Medicare to cover such vital services as hearing, vision, dental and, perhaps most importantly, long-term care. And we must, in this age of abhorrent income and wealth inequality, require the wealthiest to contribute more while eliminating all premiums, co-payments, co-insurance, and deductibles.
Currently, we are at a crossroads. While America’s current healthcare system is painfully vulnerable to Republican attacks, there is an opportunity to create a better future where all Americans can rely on guaranteed healthcare.
With Republicans doing everything they can to disrupt and dismantle the current healthcare system, it is the perfect time to fight for a more durable and universal alternative.
Shamefully, Republicans are chipping away at both Medicare and Medicaid. The attacks take many forms. They include the effort to confuse Americans with the inferior, propagandistically named “Medicare Advantage;” the Trump administration giving AI the power to overrule doctors and block care for Medicare patients; the $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act in the so-called Big Beautiful Bill (beautiful for billionaires, ugly for everyone else) passed by Republicans; and new Republican rules for Medicaid that would force cancer patients to get back to work and would cause millions of Americans to lose their healthcare coverage. Though Republican politicians would deny it, their hostility to Medicare and Medicaid is overwhelming.
Meanwhile, Democrats are working to expand and improve Medicare and Medicaid. They have taken concrete steps to lower prescription drug prices. The Inflation Reduction Act, which gives Medicare the power to negotiate for lower prices, was signed into law by a Democratic president, Joe Biden. Democrats are fighting to provide those same savings to those with commercial insurance and lower prices in other ways as well. Importantly, a growing number of Democrats are supporting and fighting for improved and expanded Medicare for All.
It may seem daunting and overwhelming to think about achieving improved and expanded Medicare for All in the current political environment, but it is within sight. Indeed, I have written a book-length road map to achieving improved and expanded Medicare for All, which will be released this September. It is called The Road to Medicare for All: A Call to Action (Routledge Press, forthcoming, 2026).
What would improved and expanded Medicare for All mean? It would mean this: no premiums, co-pays, co-insurance, or deductibles. It would mean comprehensive healthcare coverage for everyone in America, automatically. It would mean going to the doctor of your choice, without worrying whether your provider is in your insurer’s network. The vision of improved Medicare for All would include all services being covered automatically, including dental, vision, and hearing coverage. Medicare should also be expanded to cover long-term care, both at home and in nursing homes.
This November’s election will determine the future of Medicare and Medicaid. Will Republicans make Medicare and Medicaid work even worse for Americans? Will even more hospitals and nursing homes close? Or will Democrats be able to fight back and not only defend Medicare and Medicaid from Republican attacks, but enact a bold vision of improved and expanded Medicare for All?
With Republicans doing everything they can to disrupt and dismantle the current healthcare system, it is the perfect time to fight for a more durable and universal alternative: improved and expanded Medicare for All. Instead of a precarious and shaky patchwork system where a disruption to your healthcare is one job loss or plan change away, it is time to fight for a world where healthcare is truly a right, not a privilege.
Keep ReadingShow Less
For 61 Years, We Protected Medicare—Now, Trumpublicans Are Trying to Destroy It
We can fight back to defend and secure our health access, but it will take all of us.
Jul 30, 2026
On the eve of Medicare/Medicaid’s 61st birthday, the Trumpublican administration took its next swipe at those millions of American seniors who rely on their Medicare benefits to survive. The announcement of cuts to the Biden administration’s Medicare drug subsidies was made on Tuesday, July 27th, 2026, allegedly because the insurance companies don’t need the subsidies anymore. But guess what? The health insurance companies that market, sell, and profit from the Medicare-Part D drug plans won’t be the ones paying the difference. Patients, their families, and all those cool GoFundMes will pay the higher Part D premiums, any at the pharmacy counter differences, or they will ration doses or go without. You doubt that? I sure don’t.
Just a few days ago, I chatted with some younger folks I know who are employed and getting their health benefits from their employers. Both are with major employers; both have major health insurance carriers. And both have health issues that need to be checked out and treated appropriately before those issues become worse and even more costly. Why don’t these working professionals with insurance go to the doctor—or even have a primary care doctor? They fear the out-of-pocket costs. Deductibles. Co-pays. Co-insurance. Then to the lab, the radiologist, and maybe the pharmacy. All the same costs might be in play again for more cash out-of-pocket. Why pay premiums at all? Why stay at a job they cannot stand for years on end to keep the benefits they rarely if ever use?
The answer to my questions is the basis for the incredible profit margins enjoyed—dearly and completely enjoyed—by the private health insurance industry. Selling a product everyone buys through work or earns through decades of loyal service yet never uses is really a sweet business arrangement. Medicare may seem like a completely different kind of coverage because it has been and could be again—but as the Trumpublicans work to make Medicare even more privatized via Medicare Advantage plans, supplemental plans, and outright cuts to coverage like these drug subsidies, Medicare beneficiaries will make the same ill-advised and often risky decisions as those clinging to their employer-based coverage before they reach the Medicare age of eligibility (or two years after they are determined disabled at younger ages). It was never the insurance companies that needed subsidies or expansion of benefits. It was always all of us who needed less private insurance and more coverage—all of us.
The Trumpublicans already had help from their congressional minions in cutting Medicaid access for millions of families—children, babies, mothers, dads. Medicaid work requirements cost more to follow through admin efforts than the coverage did, but Trumpublican minions want those lazy, poor people milking the system on Medicaid to be punished. This was never about program integrity or catching the minimal fraud with Medicaid or Medicare that is done (fraud is mostly done by providers, not patients or beneficiaries). The cuts to Medicaid came with the “Big, beautiful bill,” H.R.1, last year, and the Medicare cuts are rolling along in the background. When open enrollment is looming large in late fall and early winter, the Trumpublicans must announce changes with enough time for the insurance companies to adjust or raise premiums, of course. How do the rest of us adjust? The patients and families? Take another job to pay? Keep working until we are 80 or more?
The only reason not to move confidently to full health coverage for us all is that the profits are so dear with the status quo. We are better than this.
Social Security Works, Progressive Democrats of America, Healthcare-NOW!, and many other groups have great ways to get involved for all of us too. Do it today before the fight grows even more dire—we can secure our health access, but it will take all of us.
So, get over to your elected officials offices on July 30, 2026. Celebrate with nurses, doctors, friends, and neighbors. In Colorado, we’re going to tell Republican Rep. Gabe Evans to reverse the damage and protect his constituents or we plan to “Give Gabe the Boot” in November. Add yourself to the growing chorus of Americans calling for a celebration of Medicare and Medicaid programs and expansions of that gorgeous insurance pool to include all of us. Because if all of us cover all of us then all of us spend less and our employers do too. Another amazing chance to secure healthcare justice rests with electing Sam Forstag in Montana’s 1st Congressional District.
The only reason not to move confidently to full health coverage for us all is that the profits are so dear with the status quo. We are better than this. We proved it 61 years ago, and we will prove ourselves ready to advance when we stop allowing so much greed to control Trumpublicans in DC and demand our own self-preservation to be honored.
Keep ReadingShow Less
MAGA Eugenics Should Alarm Us All
The end result of GOP cuts to the domestic social safety net and to foreign aid will be the cleansing of people defined by the Trump regime as being useless, needy, and inferior.
Jul 29, 2026
Throughout history, malicious regimes have risen to power and, thinking they are superior, have targeted groups of people they have decided are a threat to their economy, their society, or their race. These governments then proceed to disenfranchise and eliminate those they decree as inferior, the “out-groups.” This is eugenics, the discredited beliefs and practices that claim to improve the genetic quality of a specific group by eliminating the propagation of the “out-groups.” This has been accomplished in the past by forced sterilization, inhumane institutionalization, or outright euthanasia. In reality, the practice of eugenics is about preserving the power of the dominant group or government, not genetics.
The United States has a dark history of eugenics targeting people of color and those with disabilities. Though it may be less glaringly obvious today, eugenic thought and policies have been empowered by the MAGA movement. In 2024 the Trump administration defined “out-groups” both nationally and internationally, with massive funding cuts to social programs, healthcare, and research directed at reducing health disparities—efforts that they call “woke.” As ever, these actions will have the deadliest effects on their designated “out-groups”: immigrants, the elderly, the poor, those with disabilities, people with mental illness, retirees, and Black and brown people. These are all groups that the administration and MAGA Republicans see as using the social services they want to eliminate, or as not being important to the economic growth of the US. The end result is the eugenic cleansing of US citizens defined by the regime as being useless, needy, and inferior.
How did they do this? In the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” Republicans succeeded in undermining social programs such as Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). This greatly affects the health of those they disfavor, such as those who experience poverty and struggle for adequate healthcare and nutrition. These actions also directly harm people with disabilities, who are more likely to live in poverty and to require food assistance. Additionally, people with mental health conditions, as well as people who are unhoused, are being targeted by administration policies aimed at institutionalizing them. Institutionalization has a dark history in the US and is just one step from state-mediated sterilization and elimination.
To further assure poor health for the “out-groups” the administration, in league with Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and his HHS cronies, has methodically weakened the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Vital disease monitoring programs have been halted, lifesaving research has been crushed, vaccine uptake has been attacked, and fact-based science and medical practices have been exchanged for conspiracy theories and the promotion of unproven supplements. All of these actions will most severely damage the health of the most vulnerable, the “out-groups.”
The administration, right-wing politicians, and the MAGA movement seem to have taken it upon themselves to eugenically cleanse the Earth of poor, non-white people.
And it doesn’t stop in the United States. Immediately after the inauguration, the Trump administration began with severe cuts to foreign aid through the elimination of US Agency for International Development (USAID) and other destructive policies. It has been predicted that this will ultimately end in the deaths of millions across the globe. It is already happening.
This is eugenics—many of the millions who die, or become permanently disabled, will be children, who will be eliminated before they can reproduce. And the greatest effects of the withdrawal of aid are directed against Black and brown people, the “out-group” who, according to the crude language of the US president, live in “shit-hole” countries—as if these countries and the human beings who live there are worthless and expendable, a burden to the US and the world.
The administration, right-wing politicians, and the MAGA movement seem to have taken it upon themselves to eugenically cleanse the Earth of poor, non-white people. Apparently, they believe they have the power and the right to reduce the world’s population by promoting terrible suffering through fatal diseases and starvation in places far out of their view.
Let’s say it outright—this is state-sponsored eugenics and it is happening in the America which was “conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” The actions of the current administration have disgraced those principles. Even hard-core MAGA followers should be opposed to the behavior of their chosen leaders, who are resorting to eugenics, using the infliction of terrible suffering, pain, diseases, and starvation for political power, economic gain, and supremacy. And MAGA followers should remember you are not immune; a small change in status will bring you into the crosshairs of state-sponsored eugenics. We should all be alarmed.
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Frankly Sickening’: Reports Highlight Brutal Impact of Trump-GOP Cuts to Food Aid
"States are absolutely contemplating a world in which SNAP isn’t available."
Jul 21, 2026
Several reports published this week highlight the brutal impact cuts made to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in Republicans' 2025 budget law are having on Americans' access to food.
A lengthy Tuesday report in The New York Times zeroed in on the bill's impact in Arizona, where roughly 440,000 people have been dropped from the program even though many of them are still eligible to receive assistance.
The GOP-passed One Big Beautiful Bill Act established severe penalties for states that have high error rates when awarding SNAP benefits, and Arizona has responded by vastly increasing the paperwork applicants must file to qualify for the program in order to avoid making mistakes that could result in the loss of federal funding.
According to the Times, this has created "bureaucratic chaos" that has caused many otherwise eligible people to lose aid.
"It can take months to reach besieged caseworkers, and offices have gone as far as asking people with panhandling income for verification from strangers dropping cash in their jar," reported the Times. "Arizonans losing SNAP say they are skipping meals, quarreling over food, and missing rent payments to restock pantry shelves."
One former SNAP beneficiary featured in the Times story was Dee McDonald, a 65-year-old cancer survivor who reported skipping meals to ensure that the three grandsons she's raising have enough to eat.
According to the Times, McDonald has been scrambling from one local food pantry to another to ensure there is enough food in the house for the whole family, a process she told the paper has left her "exhausted."
“I go to sleep thinking about what are we going to have,” McDonald said.
Michael Wisehart, director of the Arizona Department of Economic Security, told the Times that it's "frankly sickening to me the number of individuals" who are suffering due to the bureaucratic hurdles the state is enacting.
However, Wisehart said that if Arizona doesn't add these bureaucratic layers, it could risk seeing its SNAP program completely destroyed.
“It’s an existential threat,” he explained. “States are absolutely contemplating a world in which SNAP isn’t available."
Another state facing this dilemma is Arkansas, which the local news station KATV reported on Monday is scrambling to lower its SNAP error rate that, under new rules, could cost the state $55 million per year.
Keesa Smith-Brantley, executive director of Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families and former deputy director of the Arkansas Department of Human Services, told KATV that the financial penalties imposed on the state could create a downward spiral in which state officials have fewer resources to effectively lower the SNAP error rate.
"It is very concerning that we may not have a SNAP program in years to come if the state can't come up with the funding," said Smith-Brantley.
A Tuesday report in Axios examined how the GOP's SNAP cuts have impacted Virginia, where 100,000 fewer residents are now enrolled in the program compared to a year ago.
Aaron McClung, chief development officer at Feed More, an umbrella organization for food banks in the central part of the state, told Axios that visits to food pantries have increased by more than 20% since the passage of the GOP budget law last year.
While food banks have tried to fill the gap, McClung said, they are no substitute for SNAP, which he described as "the nation's most effective, dignified, and scalable tool for reducing food insecurity."
Jacqueline Mott, Virginia state manager for the Save the Children Action Network, expressed a similar sentiment, telling Axios that "charitable food assistance was never designed to replace SNAP."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Medicaid Cuts Put All Children's Health at Risk—I Would Know
Cuts to Medicaid don’t only hurt the poor, disabled, or seniors—as my family and I learned, they hurt all of us.
Jul 12, 2026
I was 13 years old. We’d just returned from Christmas vacation, and I was asleep in my room.
My mother tells me she heard a noise and found me in my bed, twisted up like a clam, frothing at the mouth. She was in shock. The paramedics came and took me to the ER. I don’t remember anything about it.
That night, I had a CT scan and an MRI. They found an abnormality in my brain called a cavernoma, and I needed surgery right away to correct it. Because it was a delicate operation, I needed not only a pediatric surgeon but a sub-specialist—a pediatric neurologist.
Little did my family know, there is a nationwide shortage of pediatric sub-specialists.
Medicaid and CHIP must be protected. Congress must invest in pediatric care so that no other children are told to wait months for necessary care.
The surgeon on-call that night assured us that I could be cured with surgery, but we needed to get it done as soon as possible to avoid another seizure and more damage. But when my mom called the hospital, they said the next available appointment was more than three months away due to a lack of pediatric neurosurgeons.
I was already isolating myself. Scared, missing school, I withdrew from sports and hid from my friends. At 13, you don’t want to be different, and you definitely don’t want anyone to know there’s something wrong with your brain. The depression and anxiety deepened. And I would have to go on like this for months?
My family was financially comfortable, we had private insurance, and we lived in Manhattan. Yet even someone as fortunate as I was had to wait because there’s a severe shortage of pediatric specialists.
What if it happens to a girl from a poor or middle class family without good insurance, or who lives farther away from good care? How long would her wait be? Would her family be able to afford it all?
Thankfully, I was lucky. I was able to get the surgery sooner before three months passed, and I’m cured now. But having gone through this experience, my mom and I wanted to find out the cause of the deficit in pediatric care—and how it can be fixed.
With the help of a bipartisan advocacy organization that works on these issues, First Focus On Children, we found out that most pediatric specialties are reimbursed largely through Medicaid and its state-tailored companion program, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP).
Half of the nation’s children receive health coverage through Medicaid or CHIP, and even children with private insurance rely on Medicaid when they need specialized care. So most pediatric specialists and sub-specialists have to rely on these government programs for reimbursement.
But unlike Medicare and private insurance, which reimburse adult and senior care specialists at much higher levels, Medicaid reimbursements are significantly smaller for pediatric care—though the doctors go through the same expensive training and have the same qualifications. Because of this, far fewer medical specialists go into pediatric care because it’s financially untenable.
As a result, there is a crisis in pediatric care. To make it worse, Congress’s partisan “Big Beautiful Bill” slashes almost $1 trillion from Medicaid over 10 years. At a time when we desperately need more investment in Medicaid, we are going in the opposite direction.
Cuts to Medicaid don’t only hurt the poor, disabled, or seniors—as my family and I learned, they hurt all of us. Healthcare in this country isn’t sufficiently serving those in need. If things continue this way, what will pediatric care look like for my own children one day?
We must do better. Medicaid and CHIP must be protected. Congress must invest in pediatric care so that no other children are told to wait months for necessary care. It’s not only about the “haves” and the “have-nots.” It’s about all of us.
Keep ReadingShow Less
A Year After Trump Package, Report Shows Rich 'Got a Handout, and Working Families Got the Bill'
"I've never seen a more dangerous and purposeful attempt to make people sick and hungry," said one Pennsylvania state lawmaker.
Jul 10, 2026
Last week marked the first anniversary of President Donald Trump signing H.R. 1, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
But a new report from the progressive advocacy group Defend America Action, obtained exclusively by Common Dreams, demonstrates that while the bill has indeed been beautiful for the richest households, it has been anything but for working-class Americans.
"Republicans sacrificed the American people's financial future, healthcare, and food security to pay for massive tax breaks for big corporations and the ultrawealthy," the report said. "The richest people on the planet got a handout, and working families got the bill."
According to an analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), the richest 1% of Americans will see $117 billion in net tax cuts in 2026, an average windfall of roughly $66,000 each and more than the entire bottom 60% will receive combined.
At the same time, the law contained the largest cuts to federal healthcare funding in US history, slashing over $1 trillion from Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) over the next decade.
The report found that as of March 2026, less than a year after the bill passed, enrollment in Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) had already fallen by 3.8 million.
And after Republicans allowed ACA marketplace subsidies to expire, insurance premiums are projected to increase 114% on average, leading one in five enrollees—over 4.2 million people—to drop their coverage entirely.
Additionally, 11 million low-income Americans no longer receive zero-dollar premiums through the marketplace, while deductibles rose an average of 37% for those buying insurance on their own.
In total, more than 8 million people are estimated to have lost insurance coverage due to cuts to these programs, according to Protect Our Care. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has projected that as many as 15 million could lose insurance by 2034 as a result of the law and other policy changes over the next decade.
US Rep. Dina Titus (D) said that the cuts have hit her state of Nevada especially hard, as many people work in the service industry and don't receive employer-sponsored insurance.
"An estimated 100,000 Nevadans are impacted by this, [could be] kicked off Medicaid, including 22,000 just in my one congressional district, and it's children, it's seniors, and it's people with disabilities who are going to be impacted so directly."
"The failure to continue the [ACA] tax credits... has knocked more people off," she said. "Then people who do have it pay higher rates to cover that. So it doesn't just impact the people who are on Obamacare. It impacts everybody."
According to an analysis by Protect Our Care, more than 1,000 hospitals, nursing homes, maternity wards, and other critical care facilities around the country have either shut down, are at risk of closing, or have cut essential services since the law went into place.
"In my more than 25 years as a practicing physician and now a legislator for the last four years, I've never seen a more dangerous and purposeful attempt to make people sick and hungry," said Pennsylvania state Rep. Arvind Venkat (D-30), an emergency physician who represents the suburbs outside Pittsburgh.
"There are a number of hospitals in Pennsylvania that have closed or are under threat to close as a result of the devastation that's being caused by this legislation," he said.
After $187 billion was cut from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), more than 4 million low-income people—10 % of enrollees—no longer receive food assistance, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Millions more are expected to also lose benefits as stringent new work requirements go into effect. This includes 3 million people aged 18-24, according to a report from the Urban Institute, which noted that young adults often have greater difficulty finding stable jobs that allow them to meet the work requirements.
An analysis from ProPublica last month found that across just 12 states that break down data based on age, at least 776,000 children are no longer appearing on SNAP rolls.
"I think when we're talking about SNAP, we should start from the fact that the average benefit per person is [less than] $3 per meal," said Jared Bernstein, who served as the chair of the United States Council of Economic Advisers under former President Joe Biden.
"Nobody's getting rich off of SNAP," he said. "What's happening is people, including a lot of children, are getting fed."
"There's a long line of careful research showing long-term benefits for not just the beneficiaries themselves, but for the broader society," he said, noting that receiving benefits early in life is associated with "better academic performance, long-run health, educational attainment, and economic self-sufficiency."
The report from Defend America Action also said the Trump budget law squashed "an unprecedented American clean energy and manufacturing boom" that began during the Biden years, which created hundreds of thousands of jobs.
The law eliminated clean energy tax credits and led hundreds of projects to be canceled. Citing an analysis by Climate Power, the report said that over 140,000 clean energy jobs have been lost, are at risk, or have been delayed due to H.R. 1, stemming from 382 canceled or delayed projects that represented $69 billion in investment.
This has also contributed to the $92 billion spike in energy bills since Trump took office, the report said. Those canceled projects could have powered more than 17 million homes.
The law also killed the $7,500 electric vehicle (EV) tax credit, which has locked consumers into driving gas-powered cars that cost more to power, especially as Trump's war with Iran has sent gas prices soaring.
Bernstein noted that EV sales "fell off a cliff" after the tax credits were canceled.
"I can't begin to describe how shortsighted this is," he said. "Not just in terms of the environment, but also in terms of the US ever having a chance to capture market share in what I believe already is a do-or-die product development for the auto sector."
He noted that the US abandonment of clean energy, even as its use grows worldwide, has led China to dominate the market.
"This isn't China just eating our lunch," Bernstein said. "This is us serving our lunch to them."
Defend America Action's report notes that at the time of its passage, H.R. 1 was the most unpopular piece of legislation to pass through Congress since at least 1990, with just 31% approving and 55% disapproving, according to an average of four major polls.
Just months before the midterm elections, the bill remains equally unpopular, with only 33% of Americans saying they favor it and 48% opposing it, according to a recent survey by Navigator Research.
Titus told Common Dreams that one year ago, her colleagues in the GOP were very excited to pass H.R. 1.
Now, she said, "They don't really talk about it."
"They always are up for cutting programs," Titus said. "They call it fraud, waste, and abuse, but it's not. It's benefits that people needed."
"I think as you get closer to the election, there will be more concern about it," Titus said. "You know they cleverly made some of these cuts not go into effect until after the election, so they had to have been aware that they weren't very popular."
"I think we need to get the message out as much and as often as we can," she said, "and that's been kind of focused on affordability because all these different programs that we mentioned tie together."
"It's not just one little hit," Titus said. "It's across-the-board hits."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump's Anti-Clean Energy Policies Set to Cost US Consumers $650 Billion by 2040
"The fossil fuel industry and this administration's policies are adding fuel to the fire, and ordinary ratepayers are the ones getting burned," said one campaigner.
Jul 08, 2026
The Trump administration's rollback of clean energy policies will cost American consumers $650 billion in additional energy bills by 2040, according to an analysis published Wednesday by a nonpartisan think tank.
Energy Innovation, a San Francisco-based energy and climate policy think tank, said in its report that "federal policy changes since January 2025 will increase energy prices, slow economic growth and job creation, increase air pollution and healthcare costs, and worsen grid reliability."
The analysis examines seven major policy shifts during the second term of President Donald Trump, who—for the third time—ran on an aggressively pro-fossil fuel and anti-clean energy platform:
- Passage of the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA);
- The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) reconsideration and repeal of Clean Air Act Greenhouse Gas Standards, Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, and Clean Water Act Effluent Limitations Guidelines for electric power plants;
- EPA's repeal of the endangerment finding and federal tailpipe emissions standards;
- Passage of Congressional Review Act resolutions overturning approvals for state-level tailpipe emissions standards;
- Actions to limit renewable energy development—especially onshore and offshore wind plants—including limitations on issuance of new permits;
- Department of Energy cancellations of hydrogen hub funding and easing of 45V tax credit qualification for natural gas-based hydrogen; and
- EPA's cancellation of the $7 billion Solar for All grant program.
According to the analysis, "Households will pay an additional $650 billion for energy—an average of $460 per household in 2035 and $490 in 2040."
Additionally, the report states that "cutting policies that drive innovation and efficiency in the transportation sector will inflate gasoline prices 14% in 2035 and 26% in 2040, atop near-term upward pressure from the Iran War and other market forces."
"OBBBA and reduced federal support for domestic manufacturing and innovation will cost the US economy 820,000 jobs per year on average over the next decade, in addition to the 144,000 clean energy jobs lost within the past 18 months," the publication forecasts.
"Slowing down electrification and domestic energy manufacturing will lower [gross domestic product] in all years, totaling $2.3 trillion cumulative lost GDP, with effects flowing into other economic sectors," the study warns. "The US economy will lose $150 billion in GDP in 2030, peaking at a $250 billion net loss in 2032, then reverting to losses of $200 billion in 2035 and $120 billion in 2040."
Furthermore, "worsening local air pollution will raise healthcare costs by $43 billion, with annual increases of $4 billion in 2035 and $4.5 billion in 2040, contributing to rising household costs alongside rising energy prices and goods inflation."
Energy Innovation stressed that states must act to mitigate the costs and harms of federal inaction. The report recommends helping wind and solar projects qualify for expiring tax credits under safe harbor rules, removing barriers to additional clean energy development, boosting electric vehicles, supporting energy efficient electrification, and stimulating investment in new clean industries.
The new analysis—whose findings are disputed by the Trump administration—comes amid an unabated affordability crisis that Trump vowed to tackle, and as electricity prices soar in much of the nation as a heat dome, fueled by human burning of fossil fuels, broils large swaths of the country in what many experts warn is the new normal in a worsening climate emergency.
Responding to the analysis, Candice Fortin, US campaigns manager at the climate action group 350.org, said: "This report puts numbers on something households are already feeling in their bills and their blackouts. We were told cutting clean energy would lower costs. Instead, we’re seeing the opposite: rates spiking, grids failing under record heat, and households paying more while data centers’ electricity use explodes."
"You can’t fix an affordability crisis by blocking the cheapest, fastest power we have to build," Fortin added. "The fossil fuel industry and this administration’s policies are adding fuel to the fire, and ordinary ratepayers are the ones getting burned.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Colorado Needs to Give Gabe Evans the Boot
An inspiring 4th of July parade in Colorado's 8th Congressional District proves that its people deserve better than Evans, who supports the Trump agenda and voted to gut the social safety net.
Jul 07, 2026
The Greeley Stampede 4th of July Parade is the largest Independence Day Parade in Colorado, and it is held deep in the soon-to-be-blue-again Congressional District 8. That is why I registered our walking unit in that parade. We wanted to make sure all the tens of thousands of people who turned out were reminded of the human and economic good our social safety net does in Colorado. It was an incredible experience fueled by love for one another and not love of Trump’s America. The 2026 Greeley Stampede Parade was the most uplifting and hopeful thing I have experienced in a long, long time. It proved to me that Republican Rep. Gabe Evans, of Colorado's 8th District, needs to get the boot in November’s general election.
Gabe Evans is currently barely representing his constituents in his diverse, incredibly beautiful district. And mostly, Evans seems to represent himself first and supports the Trump agenda. Immigrant rights? Are you kidding me? Stopping wars and the bombing President Donald Trump uses to distract everyone from those Epstein files? No, Gabe goes right along with the Trump agenda, the whole Project 2025 agenda, and mostly the me-first agenda. Greed and neglect are about to turn CD8 beautiful blue again, deep and lasting blue. And marching in this parade reaffirmed all those feelings of community and connection I know people hunger for in a post-pandemic world.
The crowd at the parade was so gorgeous. As we all saw in the stores for months, all that red, white, and blue was going to turn up somewhere. At the Greeley parade on the 4th of July, there were little tykes in adorable outfits, their older siblings in stars and stripes along with their parents and beyond. Many families had tents up for shade, and one creative group was misting their folks to stay cool. This was the sort of old-fashioned, community supported parade that once was so common in America. I saw US Navy sailors marching, local businesses, car clubs, cowboys and cowgirls, bands, floats, and people balancing on floats to see and absorb the whole moment. Life affirming community was on parade.
As we continued along the parade route, I kept thinking about how many of those beautiful people, how many at this celebration—how many of the children and how many of our disabled—will lose access to their healthcare because their Barely-Representative Gabe Evans thought voting for the Big, Beautiful Bill was cost cutting via the devastating cuts to Medicaid, SNAP benefits, and more, and has never told the truth about his lack of character and failure to represent his district. Evans knew he was hurting people with his vote, and his reality is that he did not care.
Barely-cares Evans cannot hide from his votes, and he cannot hide from his constituents.
People in his district see through his deep and abiding devotion to the cruel and community-killing, family-splitting and painful cuts to Medicaid coverage. After being a part of this parade, I know without a doubt that the people of Colorado’s CD8 are hardworking, decent, and kind people—and they will not stand for anyone destroying any part of what they are.
Evans needs to get the boot from these dear people before he does more damage by supporting huge, unnecessary cuts to Social Security when the change that needs making is to make sure billionaires pay their fair share in taxes—oh, and the almost-trillionaire too. It is ridiculous to have a representative like Barely-there Evans is this district since neighbors and friends rely on and deeply support Social Security—even the 9news announcer cheered when our unit passed by (maybe he is grateful his parents receive their earned benefits, I thought, since he was lots younger than me).
Barely-cares Evans cannot hide from his votes, and he cannot hide from his constituents. The patients, the nurses, the doctors, the healthcare techs, the housekeeping staff, the dietary crew, and all the lives impacted and damaged by his selfishness stand in stark contrast to what is alive and well in his own backyard—hardworking Colorado CD8 families and all the other residents who receive their earned benefits through Social Security and all who are lifted from despair and suffering through Medicare and Medicaid. We all showed up to celebrate 250 years as a nation. The ideal is still in sight in places like Colorado’s Congressional District 8, but only if we confirm that solidarity and give Evans the boot.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy