AOC Tears Apart Republican “Math” on Medicaid Cuts

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called out Republicans’ proposed cuts to Medicaid in a congressional hearing on Tuesday.

“The math is not adding up. They’re trying to convince people that they are cutting millions of undocumented people from [Medicaid],” Ocasio-Cortez said. She noted that the GOP is claiming that one million undocumented immigrants are collecting Medicaid payments, but their cuts would result in 13.7 million people losing their health insurance.

“They’ve asked us to read this bill, and we have. This bill bans the people that they kick off of Medicaid from even buying their own insurance from the Affordable Care Act exchange,” Ocasio-Cortez continued, adding that the bill “increases costs for people they do deem eligible and who are low income and forces them to pay even more.”

Ocasio-Cortez noted that people on private insurance wouldn’t be escaping consequences either.

“And if you have a private insurer, don’t worry, you’re getting screwed over too. Because your health care premiums are going to skyrocket from the disaster that is happening from this bill,” the New York congresswoman added.

Ocasio-Cortez is correctly pointing out House Republicans’ budget plan will gut a social program that millions of Americans depend on, while also taking aim at the GOP boogeyman of Obamacare. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 8.6 million people will lose access to Medicaid, while millions more will lose health insurance by 2034 as other protections expire. Far from being a “big beautiful bill” as Trump claims, it will worsen the quality of life for Americans who don’t have any other health care options.

The bill also punishes single parents by making it harder to receive the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as food stamps, and gives President Trump unprecedented power over nonprofit organizations. The cuts to Medicaid in the bill already face opposition from within the Republican Party. Will Congress open its eyes to the rest of the issues in the bill and say no to the GOP and president’s cruel priorities?

Republicans contending with the prospective damage of their Medicaid cuts have decided to simply brush the protests of their constituents as “misinformation.”

Members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee went back and forth Tuesday on who exactly would be affected if conservative lawmakers trudged forward with $880 billion in cuts to the public health insurance coverage. At one point, a wheelchair-bound protester identifying herself as from Youngstown, Ohio, interrupted Alabama Representative Gary Palmer to express her fears.

“You will kill me, I’m HIV-positive,” she shouted as security rolled her out. “I have survived on my meds that are $10,000 a month.”

“If you [got] all these cuts, how the hell would I be able to shop at your store?” she added.

But Palmer was unswayed, quickly throwing aside her plea for help.

“It’s unfortunate that people are so enraged by the misinformation that they’ve been given,” he said after the protester had been removed from the room. “It’s a commentary on this Congress and how we treat people.”

The Republican bill would kick 8.6 million Americans off of Medicaid over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. (Republicans offered their own numbers, revealing shortly before the Committee meeting was scheduled to begin that at least 7.6 million Americans would be affected.)

Republicans claim that the bulk of people who would be booted off the program include undocumented immigrants and non-disabled, jobless Americans. That could happen by way of adding a work requirement to Medicaid, which would ask recipients to navigate work-reporting and verification systems on a monthly basis—a detail that would require significant federal funding. The plans would also negate coverage for individuals who find themselves temporarily unemployed, such as those who were recently fired or laid off.

But critics of the Republican measure argue that eligible Medicaid recipients could get strung up in these increasingly frequent eligibility checks, potentially lapsing their coverage and benefits. A February report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that introducing work requirements to the insurance program could strip upwards of 36 million Americans of their health coverage—half of Medicaid’s 72 million enrollees.

Republicans have spent months attempting to pencil out an $880 billion cut to the program in order to extend Donald Trump’s 2017 tax cuts for corporations and billionaires in an effort to make the tax cuts’ estimated $6.8 trillion deficit hike more palatable to their base.

“Republicans are trying to say this is kind of a moderate bill,” Energy and Commerce Ranking Member Frank Pallone told reporters Monday. “Nothing could be further from the truth.

Republicans on the House Agriculture Committee may make it harder for single parents to access the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.

A new provision in Republicans’ 97-page bill, rolled out Monday evening, allows for exceptions to the program’s work requirements for some able-bodied adults, including certain married parents, without making the same considerations for single parents.

The general work requirements for SNAP benefits include registering for work, participating in SNAP Employment and Training, or E&T, taking a suitable job if offered, and not voluntarily quitting or reducing work hours below 30 a week without a good reason, according to the USDA Food and Nutritional Service.

Republicans’ new bill includes a work-requirement exception for an individual who is “responsible for a dependent child 7 years of age or older and is married to, and resides with, an individual who is in compliance” with the work requirements, but contains no equivalent exception for single parents.

In 2022, children in single-parent families made up a 53 percent majority of SNAP recipients, according to a report from the Institute for Family Studies. A whopping 49 percent of those children are living with their mothers, 4 percent reside with their fathers, and 6 percent reside with relatives or foster parents.

On top of that, E&T requirements have created something of a catch-22 within the SNAP benefits program. Congress’s 2018 farm bill, which permitted paid training to be a component in E&T, inadvertently resulted in significant reduction or total loss of food assistance for beneficiaries because the earnings they made ended up counting against their eligibility.

The new legislation would tighten eligibility requirements for SNAP and place a greater financial burden on states instead of the federal government, which is looking to shed millions of dollars in spending as part of the Trump administration’s cost-cutting efforts. Republicans on the House Agriculture Committee have been directed to find $230 billion in potential cuts.

Trump is holding hostage the emergency disaster relief and transit funding of states that don’t agree with his immigration demands, according to two lawsuits filed by several states Tuesday.

The lawsuits claim that the White House is using cuts to federal aid to threaten states into supporting President Trump’s mass deportations, putting their infrastructure and emergency response abilities at risk.

“By hanging a halt in this critical funding over states like a sword of Damocles, defendants impose immense harm on states, forcing them to choose between readiness for disasters and emergencies, on one hand, and exercising their judgment about how to best use scarce resources to investigate and prosecute crimes on the other,” a draft of one of the complaints states.

One of the parties to the lawsuits, New York, claims that it could lose hundreds of millions of dollars in funding for bomb squads, hazmat units, emergency relief services, and SWAT teams that were vital in the state’s response to hurricanes and the Covid-19 pandemic.

Other states joining the lawsuit include California, Rhode Island, Illinois, and more than 12 others. In one of the complaints, they cite the Department of Homeland Security’s new “Standard Terms and Conditions,” which state that emergency relief grants to states depend on them providing help with deportation efforts and ending any program that “benefits illegal immigrants or incentivizes illegal immigration.”

The other lawsuit, filed by many of the same states, is directed at the Department of Transportation over the agency’s declaration last month that it would halt funding for any state that doesn’t cooperate with the Trump administration on immigration.

“On April 24, 2025, United States Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy issued a letter to all recipients of U.S. DOT funding announcing its policy, for the first time, of imposing an immigration enforcement condition on all U.S. DOT funding,” the lawsuit draft states.

In both lawsuits, the states claim that their funding had already been approved by Congress without conditions, making the White House’s attempt to withhold funds illegal. It also seems to be an attempt by Trump to impound funds already appropriated by Congress, setting up a constitutional crisis.

But these two lawsuits aren’t even the first examples of Trump trying to withhold funds from states going against his deportation agenda: A federal judge found last month that the White House tried to secretly withhold disaster relief funds from states with immigration policies counter to Trump’s agenda. It seems that Trump is trying to strongarm state governments by using needed funding against them.

Donald Trump announced Tuesday he will lift all U.S. sanctions on Syria, but the timing of the lifted international penalties was remarkably suspicious.

“I will be ordering the cessation of sanctions against Syria in order to give them a chance at greatness,” Trump told an auditorium in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, describing the apparently unnecessary sanctions as “brutal and crippling.”

“In Syria, which has seen so much misery and death, there is a new government that will hopefully succeed in stabilizing the country and keeping peace. That’s what we want to see,” he continued. “In Syria, they’ve had their share of travesty, war, killing many years. That’s why my administration has already taken the first steps toward restoring normal relations between the United States and Syria for the first time in more than a decade.”

American caution toward Syria has spanned half a dozen administrations. Syria has been designated as a state sponsor of terrorism by the U.S. since 1979, when Syrian forces occupied Lebanon. The Bush administration slammed Syria with more sanctions in 2004, condemning Syria’s “pursuit of weapons of mass destruction” and its support for Hezbollah and Hamas, U.S.-designated terrorist organizations. The Obama administration imposed more sanctions on Syria in 2011, denouncing the country’s dictator, former President Bashar Al Assad, for human rights abuses against its protesting citizens.

“We’re taking them all off,” Trump said Tuesday.

But the decision to strip what had effectively become an embargo of Syrian goods followed another important development for the Trump family: the possibility of building a Trump Tower in Syria’s capital, Damascus.

“[Syrian leader Ahmed Al Sharaa] wants a business deal for the future of his country,” pro-Trump activist Jonathan Bass—who met with Sharaa for hours in late April—told Reuters Monday.

Sharaa is working to meet face-to-face with Trump, but his priorities include economic revival, regional stability, and healed relations with Israel, according to Bass.

“He told me he wants a Trump Tower in Damascus. He wants peace with his neighbors. What he told me is good for the region, good for Israel,” Bass told the newswire.

As a reminder, it’s actually unconstitutional for presidents to profit from or receive compensation from foreign governments—but that hasn’t stopped Trump one bit. The Trump family’s Middle East real estate plans include a Trump-branded golf course in Qatar (as part of a $5.5 billion development project), a $1 billion Trump hotel and residence in Dubai, and a $2 billion cryptocurrency investment by an Abu Dhabi firm into one of Trump’s cryptocurrency projects, the World Liberty Financial coin.

The family also revealed in December that it would be expanding its presence in Saudi Arabia, announcing Trump Tower Jeddah. The price tag for the building has not been made public, but one of the developers on the project, Dar Global, compared it to another $530 million Trump Tower in the city, reported Reuters.

Donald Trump got back into his hobby of sucking up to autocratic dictators Tuesday, when the U.S. president made several effusive comments about Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

During a rambling address at a Saudi investment forum in Riyadh, the president showered the head of the country’s royal family with praise, touting the crown prince as an “incredible man.”

“We have great partners in the world, but we have none stronger, and nobody like the gentleman that’s right before me, he’s your greatest representative, your greatest representative,” Trump said, as MBS beamed up at him from the audience.

“And if I didn’t like him, I would get out of here so fast. You know that don’t you? He knows me well,” Trump said. “I do, I like him a lot. I like him too much, that’s why we give so much, you know? Too much. I like you too much!”

But who exactly does the president like so much? The 39-year-old prince rules over a modern surveillance state, where political dissent is not tolerated, and human rights standards are abysmal. MBS also serves as the chairman of Saudi Arabia’s massive sovereign wealth fund that has both facilitated and benefited from rights violations.

But still, a drowsy-sounding Trump couldn’t help from gushing over the kingdom.

“We are rockin’, the United States is the hottest country—with the exception of your country, I have to say, right?” Trump joked, addressing MBS in the crowd.

“I’m not going to take that on. No, Mohammed, I’m not gonna take that on. Wouldn’t that be a terrible thing if I made that full statement. I will not do it. You’re hotter! At least as long as I’m up here, you’re hotter.”

Trump also announced that he would be lifting sanctions against Syria to “give them a chase at greatness.” After the audience got through cheering, the president sighed, acknowledging that he’d just made a major U.S. policy shift at the behest of a foreign leader.

“Oh, what I do for the crown prince,” he said.

House Republicans’ draft budget bill includes a clause to give Donald Trump the ability to revoke the tax-exempt status of any group the Treasury Department says is a supporter of terrorism. 

The move appears to be a revival of the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act, which the House passed in November under President Biden. The Senate had not taken up the measure, which drew criticism for granting dangerous powers to the president. Now those powers have resurfaced deep within the GOP’s “big beautiful bill”: on page 380, to be exact. 

Last year, 15 Democrats joined Republicans in the House to pass the anti–free speech bill, which was originally intended to help clamp down on pro-Palestinian protesters, particularly those on college campuses. Even though the bill has languished since then, Trump has still attempted to target nonprofit institutions that refuse to kowtow to him, including institutions such as Harvard University.

If the clause isn’t excised from the final bill and passes, Trump can target any nonprofit that he and the Republicans don’t like, whether they are focused on reproductive rights, climate change, refugee support, or anything else. The budget bill is going through the reconciliation process, meaning that it only requires a simple majority in the House and Senate to be passed. 

If party lines hold on this bill, the nonprofit clause can pass without a single Democratic vote. Will Democrats hold the line and try to mobilize to remove the anti-nonprofit clause? Or will the caucus once again be divided, with some Democrats supporting the measure? 

Elon Musk announced Tuesday that Saudi Arabia had approved the use of Starlink, as part of his mounting efforts to use Donald Trump’s trip abroad to boost his many businesses. While speaking with Saudi Minister of Communications and Information Technology Abdullah Alswah on the White House–led trip, the billionaire bureaucrat thanked Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman for approving his SpaceX–owned and operated satellite internet service for aviation and maritime use.

But Starlink wasn’t the only one of Musk’s businesses that got a plug to the president’s foreign friends. Musk said that he had shown Trump and MBS several of Tesla’s Optimus humanoid robots, which are still undergoing development. Musk warned last month that China’s suspension of rare earth metals exports, amid Trump’s slowly deescalating trade war, could potentially delay manufacturing.

Musk also discussed his ambitions to bring Tesla’s robotaxis to Saudi Arabia.

“I think it would be very exciting to have autonomous vehicles here in the kingdom, indeed, if you’re amenable,” Musk said. The U.S. National Highway Safety Administration is still probing Tesla on how well these autonomous vehicles will function in poor weather conditions, including sun glare and dust, which could potentially decrease their utility in a city like Riyadh, which experiences frequent sand storms.

But it seems Musk had a solution for this: He pitched that the Saudi government construct tunnels with the help of his Boring Company. “In order to solve traffic, you really need to go 3D with roads,” Musk said, describing tunnels as a novel kind of “wormhole” and not a classic feature of public infrastructure.

Musk began to plug his infrastructure and tunnel service after being prompted by Alswah to discuss yet another one of his companies, xAI. He described the goal of that project as to produce a “maximally truth-seeking” artificial intelligence.

“What questions do we not know to ask? Once you know the question, the answer is the easy part,” Musk said.

Alswah called Musk a “lifetime partner” to the kingdom, and said they were “joining hands” on “XAi, Starlink, robotics, and Tesla.”

Meanwhile, Trump’s first day in Saudi Arabia was off to a sleepy start. The president was filmed falling asleep during a briefing with MBS, shutting his eyes and jerking awake.

The world record holder for oldest person to be sworn in as U.S. president can’t seem to keep up with the Saudis.

Donald Trump was filmed falling asleep during a briefing with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Tuesday. Trump could be seen shutting his eyes and jerking awake.

The meeting consisted of signing more than a dozen agreements between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, focusing on the governments’ economies, militaries, and cultural institutions, according to the Associated Press.

Podcaster Brian Allen torched the caught-on-camera faux pas as “surreal and frankly humiliating.”

“This isn’t jet lag—it’s a walking security risk with a nap schedule,” Allen posted on X.

The 78-year-old’s long-awaited medical report was released in April, describing Trump as being in “excellent health,” including neurological functioning.

“President Trump exhibits excellent cognitive and physical health and is fully fit to execute the duties of the Commander-in-Chief and Head of State,” the report read. Prior to the report’s release, the president said he took a cognitive exam and “got every answer right.”

Trump has an oddball history with reportedly “acing” cognitive exams. During the 2024 presidential election, Trump took several—but his recollections of the tests called into question whether he had actually taken them at all.

While bragging about his results to the press, Trump would invariably tweak the questions he allegedly received on the test, at times boasting that he had correctly recited five words and performed basic multiplication while at other times insisting that he had passed thanks to correctly identifying a whale. That is in spite of the fact that the test’s authors reported that none of the three versions in circulation actually had a whale on them.

And Trump has struggled with staying awake in public before—even when all eyes are on him. In April 2024, Trump was caught shutting his eyes during pretrial hearings for his criminal case involving porn star Stormy Daniels.

Donald Trump is paving the way for white South African “refugees” to come to the United States, but they’re not all that interested in taking him up on his offer, The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday.

The U.S. president falsely claimed Monday that Afrikaners, the white descendants of mainly Dutch colonizers in South Africa, are facing a “genocide” in their home country. So then why don’t they actually want to leave?

Maritz Grobler, a tenth-generation South African on his father’s side who owns a sprawling 1,000-acre farm in Settlers, wasn’t interested in the offer to relocate. “This is my country,” Grobler told the Journal.

“But it’s good to know that [Trump] will back us … if shit happens,” he added.

While white South Africans are the target of horrific crimes, they are killed in significantly lower numbers than Black South Africans, according to the Journal.

White people account for roughly 7 percent of South Africa’s population of 63 million people, and of that number, Afrikaners make up about two-thirds, so roughly three million people in total. Despite having a vastly smaller population, white commercial farmers—the majority of whom are Afrikaners—still possess about half of the country’s land and produce a whopping 90 percent of its agricultural products. In 2024, South Africa’s agricultural exports were worth a record $13.7 billion.

Afrikaners have therefore maintained a hefty chunk of the nation’s wealth. Only 1 percent of white South Africans live in poverty, compared to nearly two-thirds of Black South Africans. This accumulated land and wealth is the direct result of systemic historical racial oppression under South African apartheid.

Despite one Trump official’s claim that white South Africans have been given an exception to Trump’s refugee ban because they would be supposedly easier to assimilate into the majority-white U.S. population than refugees from other countries, Grobler said that the cultural difference was still too great.

“I don’t want to speak English for the rest of my life,” Grobler said. White South Africans typically speak Afrikaans, not English. But it seems that language barrier likely won’t incense Vice President JD Vance the way it did when the hypothetical immigrant children he was mad at were brown.

Grobler told the Journal that politicians “seek power and money and get it through playing the race card and hammering on historic events.

“South Africans on the ground will be able to move forward together if politicians get out of the way and go do their bloody jobs,” he added.