With the House narrowly passing a budget plan that includes at least $1.5 trillion in spending cuts, there’s growing concern that essential programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid could face reductions.
While the Trump administration insists it has no intention of touching these programs, many Americans remain worried, especially those who depend on Medicaid.
House Speaker Mike Johnson has stated the White House made a “commitment” to protect social programs, telling CNN that the focus will instead be on eliminating “fraud, waste, and abuse” within those programs.
A White House press release from March 11 echoed that message, declaring that “President Trump will always protect Social Security [and] Medicare,” and again confirmed no plans to cut Medicaid either.
Still, analysts warn that such deep cuts can’t be made without affecting core programs like Medicaid. The numbers simply don’t add up.
Medicaid, which helps more than 70 million low-income Americans — including children, seniors, and people with disabilities — cost nearly $872 billion in 2023.
Although the budget blueprint doesn’t directly call for Medicaid cuts, the House Energy and Commerce Committee has been directed to trim $880 billion from programs under its control.
Since Medicare has been ruled out for cuts, Medicaid, which makes up 93% of the committee’s remaining spending, is the most likely target.
Research from both the Congressional Budget Office and the nonpartisan KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation) supports this conclusion.
Medicaid spending under the committee’s authority totals $8.2 trillion out of $8.9 trillion, making it almost impossible to achieve the proposed budget cuts without cutting into Medicaid itself.
While fraud in Medicaid is real, the savings from cracking down on fraud won’t come close to the target. In 2023, Medicaid Fraud Control Units recovered just $1.2 billion through fraud investigations — a tiny fraction of the $880 billion in proposed cuts.
“The math is conclusive,” KFF wrote in its analysis. “Major cuts to Medicaid are the only way to meet the House’s budget resolution requirements.”
Past proposals have included capping federal Medicaid funding per person or turning it into a block grant, both of which would push more financial responsibility onto state governments.
That could result in states cutting services or tightening eligibility, which would affect millions of Americans.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has warned that such changes could leave many people without access to essential medications, treatments for chronic conditions, and care for serious illnesses. Johnson has said per capita caps are “off the table,” but details on alternatives remain unclear.
If Medicaid funding is reduced, the fallout could be widespread. Low-income families, seniors, and people with disabilities would feel the most direct impact, especially in Republican-leaning states where Medicaid participation is highest.
Financial stress on hospitals and clinics could also grow, since Medicaid is a key source of federal funding for state health systems.
Polls show strong public support for Medicaid. A recent KFF survey found that 42% of Americans think Medicaid funding should be increased, and 40% say it should stay the same.
Only 17% support funding cuts. Over half of respondents said they or a family member have benefited from Medicaid, and nearly all (97%) agree that it plays an important role in their communities.
Even people who don’t rely on Medicaid could feel the effects of budget cuts. According to nonprofit group Partners in Health, Medicaid helps keep local hospitals and clinics running and supports state budgets. If that funding is reduced, states might have to raise taxes or cut other services.
The political impact of cutting Medicaid could be significant, especially with an election approaching. Many of the states most affected by any reductions are Republican-leaning, adding pressure on lawmakers like Speaker Johnson to proceed carefully.
As budget negotiations continue, Americans are left wondering whether promises to protect social programs will hold up against the pressure to cut costs.
Disclaimer- Our team has thoroughly fact-checked this article to ensure its accuracy and maintain its credibility. We are committed to providing honest and reliable content for our readers.