What Sen. Josh Hawley Wants from the One Big Beautiful Bill (for Medicaid)
Some would call it another perfect call.
And as soon as Sen. Josh Hawley hung up the phone, the Missouri Republican rushed to social media to report on the "great talk" he just had and the promise President Trump made about the One Big Beautiful Bill, the cornerstone of his second term domestic policy agenda: "NO MEDICAID BENEFIT CUTS."
Trump has said as much publicly, but the message still reassured the senator as Republicans on Capitol Hill search for savings to make up for federal revenue lost to tax cuts. Quickly emerging as the most vocal GOP opponent to Medicaid cuts, Hawley has warned his business-friendly colleagues that their mega bill amounts to a referendum: They can be either the party of the working class or the corporate C-suite.
The president put it more bluntly. "People who cut Medicaid and Medicare lose elections," Trump told Hawley according to the senator. "My advice," he said in an interview with RealClearPolitics, "listen to the guy who won the popular vote."
Asked about the conversation, White House spokesman Kush Desai repeated Trumps long stated policy preference. "The President has been clear-no cuts to Medicare, Social Security, or Medicaid," Desai said in a statement to RCP, adding that the bill "addresses waste, fraud, and abuse in government spending."
Normally this would be the final word. Trump has remade the party in his image, and he gets his way more often than not. But the battle over Medicaid reform comes when the federal debt exceeds $36 trillion, and after Moodys downgraded the U.S. sovereign debt rating, and as interest payments to service that debt exceed federal spending on national defense. According to Congressional Budget Office estimates, Medicaid, the largest health U.S. insurance program, will cost nearly a trillion dollars annually within the decade.
Hence the mocking all-caps rebuttal from Rep. Chip Roy.
The Texas Republican wrote that he had his own "great talk," not with the president, but his children, who said, "STOP BORROWING MONEY TO PROP UP WASTEFUL SPENDING & TO SUBSIDIZE THE ABLE-BODIED OVER THE VULNERABLE." Replied Utah Sen. Mike Lee, one of the few remaining GOP fiscal hawks, "Your kids arent wrong."
Such is the split that defines the modern GOP, as the old fiscal conservatives battle the new-right populists for control of the movement. The dry text of the tax bill doesnt make compelling reading. The intricacies of the legislation, and then all the outside analysis attempting to explain those details, can certainly be confusing. But the result of the fight, the direction the GOP takes, will be telling.
"Were about to learn whether or not Republicans want to be a majority party," Hawley insisted.
While the White House insists the mega bill "is the most essential piece of legislation currently under consideration in the entire Western World," the proposed spending cuts to Medicaid are starting to overshadow the new border security and tax cuts they were designed to pay for. Republicans now have the most consequential fight over health care since Obamacare repeal on their hands. And just like 2017, the margins are again slim; Majority Leader John Thune can afford to lose only two votes.
But the party has changed considerably since then. With Trump at the helm during the last election, Republicans increased their voting share with every major demographic. The "multiethnic, multiracial, working class" coalition that former Florida Sen. Marco Rubio once envisioned seems within the GOPs grasp. Screwing it up by "considering" cuts to the social safety net, Hawley said, wouldnt only be "insane." He warns his party that it is "suicidal."
This befuddles the likes of Speaker Mike Johnson, who defended the cuts in an interview with NBCs "Meet the Press" earlier this month by arguing that "4.8 million people will not lose their Medicaid unless they choose to do so." It isnt a cut, the speaker argues, so much as a structural reform to root out waste, fraud, and abuse.
The House bill that Johnson shepherded requires able-bodied adults without dependents to work, study, or volunteer for at least 80 hours per month to keep their coverage. It also includes new eligibility requirements which Republicans say are meant to keep illegal immigrants off Medicaid. Another big reform, the bill would freeze so-called provider taxes, a practice employed by 49 states that the New York Times describes as a "Medicaid loophole" which allows individual states to use taxes to inflate their spending, thus increasing their federal reimbursement.
The populist isnt opposed to everything House Republicans passed over to the Senate. Work requirements - Hawley said he supports them "wholeheartedly." And making illegal immigrants ineligible for benefits, he added, "Im absolutely for that 100%." The provider tax, however, he finds "problematic" and worries it could lead to the closure of rural Missouri hospitals.
Congress has not yet reached the beginning of the end of the sausage-making (a fact that makes pinning lawmakers down difficult). The House version of the bill can and will change. Rather than picking apart that text, Hawley said he is focused on influencing the Senate bill and ensuring that "it is in line with the commitments that the president has consistently articulated."
The general Hawley redline: "What I don't want to see, and what Im not going to vote for, is anything that will result in benefit cuts to folks who are otherwise eligible, and for working people, in my state."
Even with slim majorities, Republicans have a free hand to pass the bill using budget reconciliation, a parliamentary process that requires 51 votes rather than the normal 60-vote supermajority. All the same, they are tied up in knots by a new more populist coalition. Warned Steve Bannon, an early architect of Trumpism, "MAGAs on Medicaid because theres not great jobs in this country."
A familiar fracas has ensued. "The current budget is a rare, maybe once in a generation, chance for a significant Medicaid policy victory," opined the Wall Street Journal editorial board earlier this year. But to the horror of that business-friendly paper, Hawley and his Medicaid redline threatened to tie up the GOP. Wasnt this the same senator who as Missouri attorney general once joined a 2018 lawsuit to repeal the Affordable Care Act and its Medicaid expansion, they asked, dubbing the evolution "the Josh Hawley Medicaid Switcheroo."
"This is not about Obamacare," Hawley replied when asked about that criticism. "This is about protecting working people and Medicaid."
More than a million Missouri citizens rely on the program for insurance, and despite strong opposition from Republicans particularly in rural areas, the state voted through a ballot measure to amend the Constitution and expand Medicaid. "I represent the state of Missouri. I dont represent Wall Street," Hawley said referencing that recent history, "and I certainly dont represent the Wall Street Journal editorial board." He then added, "I'm sure that those who are in the business of making money by strip mining this country would love to gut Medicaid."
Conservatives have long hoped to trim the social safety net. Some want steeper reductions. All in all though, there is a feeling in more orthodox corners of the GOP, like the conservative National Review, that the House bill represents a good compromise. In a recent editorial, that magazine opined that the cuts were more akin to "a modest series of tweaks" which will "not do much to alter its spending trajectory." According to the Congressional Budget Office, the House reforms will reduce Medicaid spending by about $723 billion over the next decade and reduce total enrollees in the program by 7.6 million.
Hawley isnt deaf to those debt arguments. If Republicans really want to save money on healthcare, though, he said that his party ought to look to the president. More specifically, the senator pointed to Trumps proposed policies to cap the cost of prescription drugs and to close the so-called carried interest loophole. Those he says, "would save a bunch of money."
Of course, as Hawley well knows, those proposals would kick up their own firestorms on the right. But his point remains: There are other avenues. "If people are serious about wanting to actually save money, theres all kinds of ways to do it," Hawley said. "But my point is, lets not tell working people that we just cant help them. 'Sorry! Were going to have to take away your benefits because theres a corporate guy out here who wants his thing to be permanent!"
That is the old GOP way of doing things, and in his estimation, it leads to political obscurity.
"If were not interested in being a majority party, then we'll keep doing the things that the partys done for decades," Hawley concluded, "And you know, well bow to corporate interests and let them write the bill." His suggestion, the one giving Republican brass fits right now, is instead to "just go back and listen to what Donald Trump said on the trail over the last year."
Philip Wegmann is White House correspondent for RealClearPolitics.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's Vetting Official Hasn't Been Fully Vetted for His Own Security Clearance
President Donald Trump's man in charge of vetting staff has not yet been fully vetted himself for a security clearance five months into the second Trump administration. Sergio Gor is the director of the White House Office of Presidential Personnel. He is tasked with vetting thousands of executive branch employees. However, Gor has not yet submitted paperwork on his own background for a permanent clearance, according to a report from the New York Post which cited multiple sources. Gor's office is responsible for assessing candidates for approximately 4,000 political appointees including recruiting and screening candidates as well as dealing with security clearances and conflicts of interests. Some 1,600 of the positions require Senate confirmation. The powerful Trump aide has yet to turn in his Standard Form 86, or SF-86, the more than 100-page background investigation form required for a security clearance, three administration sources said. The extensive form covers citizenship, employment history, relatives, foreign contacts and travel, financial activities, drug use and more. Gor, 38, is reportedly from Malta. However, an official there could not confirm his birthplace, and Gor declined to provide it to the Post besides to say it was not Russia. Gor is a close MAGA ally of Trump and his son Don Jr. with whom he co-founded Winning Team Publishing in 2021. The top Trump aide also once worked as a booker for Fox News and as a spokesperson for Sen. Rand Paul. He also served as officiant and DJ at Matt Gaetz's wedding in 2021, according to Vanity Fair. While his work largely takes place behind the scenes at the White House, Gor made headlines earlier this month for being the person behind the move to withdraw Jared Isaacman's nomination to lead NASA and clashing with While he does not have a permanent security clearance, the Trump staffer does have an interim security clearance. Gor opposed the use of the SF-86 during the presidential transition and was concerned with Trump picks being weeded out by the 'deep state.' A source told the Post that he was 'actively working to convince everyone' that the form wasn't necessary and Trump could provide the clearance through executive authority. A White House official claimed Gor had completed the form and noted his interim clearance, which is given while background checks are completed. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt accused the Post of 'engaging in baseless gossip.' White House counsel David Warrington also told the Post that Gor is 'fully compliant with all applicable ethical and legal security clearance is active, any insinuation he doesn't maintain a clearance is false.'
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Musk Savages ‘Snake' Trump Aide as Their White House Feud Erupts
Elon Musk publicly ripped into a top White House aide who fueled his falling out with President Donald Trump. Tensions had already been building between Musk and Trump before the SpaceX chief left the White House. Things got ugly, however, after Sergio Gor, the director of the presidential personnel office, encouraged Trump to rescind his nomination for Jared Isaacman—Musk's personal friend—to lead NASA. The New York Post revealed this week that even though Gor is in charge of vetting thousands of executive branch employees, he himself hasn't been fully vetted. Five months into the second Trump administration, he hasn't even submitted the paperwork for his own permanent security clearance. 'He's a snake,' Musk wrote on his social media platform X late Wednesday in response to the Post's report. According to the Post, Gor, 38, developed a grudge against Musk, 53, after the Tesla chief—who as head of the government cost-cutting task force DOGE was a de facto member of Trump's Cabinet—'humiliated' him in front of other Cabinet members for not staffing the administration quickly enough. 'Sergio was upset about Elon dressing him down at the meeting and said he was going to 'get him,'' a source told the paper. At the time, Musk and Trump were still on friendly terms, but Gor was openly gleeful whenever Tesla stock plunged, according to the report. After Musk's special government employee status expired, forcing him to leave the White House, Gor reportedly got his revenge on Musk by convincing Trump to pull Isaacman's nomination just days before the Senate was scheduled to vote on the appointment. The administration blamed the move on Isaacman's previous donations to Democrats, but the billionaire financial technology executive said he didn't think that was the real reason, considering his donation history had long been in the public domain. After the nomination was pulled, Musk—who poured more than $250 million into the president's re-election campaign—began publicly trying to tank the president's flagship 'big beautiful' budget bill. Surprisingly little is known about Gor, including his birthplace, according to the Post. He declined to tell the paper where he was born, except to say that it wasn't Russia. It's previously been reported that he was born in Malta, but an official there couldn't confirm that information, the paper said. Together with Donald Trump Jr., Gor co-founded a publishing company that published several of Trump's books following the end of President Trump's first term, according to the New York Times. In a statement to the Daily Beast, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said, 'Sergio Gor is a trusted adviser to President Trump and he has played a critical role in helping President Trump staff the most talented administration in history.' Gor's office is responsible for assessing candidates for about 4,000 political appointees, including handling security clearances and conflicts of interest. Gor, however, has yet to turn in Standard Form 86, the 100-page background investigation form required for a security clearance, according to the Post. The form covers citizenship, employment history, relatives, foreign contacts and travel, financial activities, drug use, and more. Despite three sources saying otherwise, a White House official claimed Gor had completed the SF-86 form and noted that he has an interim security clearance, which is given while background checks are completed. Leavitt accused the Post of 'engaging in baseless gossip.'
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Mysterious poll may shape Royals' stadium choice. No one will say where it came from
As Missouri lawmakers weighed an incentives package to keep the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals inside state lines, speculation about polling related to the Royals and Clay County circulated throughout the state Capitol. Top lawmakers involved in the debate, from the Republican bill sponsor to the top Democrat in the state House, have ascribed significance to the mysterious poll, mentioning its existence in legislative hearings, interviews and a press conference over the past several weeks. Any type of polling in Missouri could hold significant weight as the Royals decide whether to stay in the state or move to Kansas. The incentives plan in Missouri requires commitments from local governments and a poll in Clay County could help the team determine whether voters would support some form of tax increase to fund a new stadium in the Northland. Kansas City-area officials contacted by The Star say they heard the polling showed positive results for the likelihood of Clay County voters supporting a new Royals stadium in North Kansas City. But most who spoke with The Star expressed some level of skepticism about it. In interviews, most officials said that they have not actually seen the alleged poll, its full results or who paid for it. While very little has been shared publicly, nearly every official who spoke with The Star, from state lawmakers to a Kansas City councilman to a Clay County commissioner, said they had either heard of it or seen a small portion of its results. Clay County Commissioner Scott Wagner said in an interview that he received the top line results of the poll. However, he would not say who shared it with him, saying only that it didn't come from the Royals and that the poll was not commissioned by the county. 'The top line results that have been shared with us suggest that Clay Countians are very open to the Royals coming,' Wagner said, adding that he hasn't seen finer details about the poll. 'But, as you know, the devil's in the details. And, as was witnessed last year, the details can make or break a question like that.' Revelations about the mysterious poll come after Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe signed legislation that would allow the state to offer incentives to help pay for up to 50% of new stadiums for the Chiefs and Royals. But neither team has committed to staying amid a competing offer from Kansas that would potentially pay for up to 70% of new stadiums across the state line. The lack of firm commitment will likely put pressure on officials in Kansas City, Jackson County and Clay County to put together additional funding packages for the teams. The required local commitment in the Missouri plan would likely come in the form of a local tax vote, just more than a year after Jackson County voters rejected a similar tax. Rep. Chris Brown, a Kansas City Republican who handled the Missouri bill in the House, was also one of the officials who said he had heard about the poll. Brown, who hails from Clay County, said he would love to see the Royals move to the Northland. 'I have heard that it has been done. I heard that it was favorable,' Brown said. 'I would like to think that is something that people would not just imagine or put that out there, you know, without it being based in some sort of reality.' Brown said he heard that Axiom Strategies, a political campaign firm owned by GOP consultant Jeff Roe, conducted the poll. Representatives from Roe's firm did not respond to requests for comment for this story, but Axiom's involvement would not come as a major surprise. The firm previously managed the local tax vote campaign for the Royals and Chiefs, The Star previously reported. The teams and the campaign did not go out of their way to make it known that Axiom was involved at the time, either. A spokesperson for the Royals also did not respond to a request for comment about the poll. But others who spoke with The Star had heard about the poll as well. Kansas City Councilman Wes Rogers said he has seen a copy of it, but said it was not given to him. Sen. Kurtis Gregory, a Marshall Republican who sponsored the Missouri funding bill, and Sen. Maggie Nurrenbern, a Kansas City Democrat, said they had heard of its existence but have not seen it. 'What I had heard, it (polled) so high that I thought…it was a pretty far stretch, quite frankly,' Nurrenbern said in an interview, adding that she takes every poll with a grain of salt. However, she said that if Clay County decides to put a stadium-funding tax vote on the ballot, 'we can make the case to all of Clay County, northern Clay County as well, that this would be a good investment for our county.' In April, the FOX 4 TV station in Kansas City reported that a Royals poll had been sent out to Clay County residents. While it's unclear if this is the same polling circulating among lawmakers, the station reported that the poll asked if residents would support a half-cent sales tax increase to support a Royals stadium in North Kansas City. If the Royals decide to stay in Missouri, a potential fight over the teams between Kansas City and Clay County could be on the horizon. But, so far, the team has not shared where it would like to build a new stadium. A downtown Kansas City site at Washington Square Park and a spot in North Kansas City in Clay County have both been floated as potential sites in Missouri. But news of a recent real estate deal tied to an Overland Park site in Kansas has also intensified speculation about the Royals' intentions — and their preferred stadium location. It's also unclear when the team plans to make its decision and whether the decision to stay in Missouri would be based on polling in Clay County or Kansas City. Any local tax vote in Missouri would likely come in November at the earliest. The Kansas incentives offer expires at the end of June, which means the team could decide whether to cross state lines by the end of the month. But Kansas could also extend that deadline to give the teams more time to decide. Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas is one of the biggest supporters of the Royals moving downtown. When asked whether Lucas was concerned about the polling in Clay County, his spokesperson said that the mayor's 'focus remains on Kansas City's plan and providing the best option for the Royals in Downtown Kansas City.' 'With Missouri state support now secured, Kansas City will continue its work with the Royals to build a robust and responsible development plan,' the spokesperson, Megan Strickland, said in an email. 'The Mayor is committed to leveraging Kansas City's unique experience in large facility development to create the best venue and district for our community, our taxpayers, our future, and our team.' After Kansas and Missouri approved incentives packages for the Chiefs and Royals, officials who spoke with The Star now say they're largely waiting to see where the teams decide to end up. For Wagner, the Clay County commissioner, Clay County would respond if 'something comes our way.' But, 'we're not driving that ship,' he said, the Royals are. 'I have come to learn that anybody who says they know anything doesn't know anything,' Wagner said. 'Because, at the end of the day, there's only one decision-maker and that is the team.'
