RFK Jr. Halts Medicaid Funds to Blue States Despite No Proof of Fraud

The Trump administration announced that it’s pausing $1 billion in Medicare and Medicaid payments to California and Minnesota, accusing the states of widespread fraud. 

Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz made the announcement in a press conference Tuesday, accusing recipients of the programs in the two states of “suspected fraud and noncompliance.” 

“If those ​states want that money they need to provide ​documentation that these payments are legitimate,” Kennedy said. 

But as Reuters reported, neither Kennedy nor Oz offered new evidence of fraud. 

President Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and multiple administration officials have attacked Democratic-run states in the last few months, accusing them of engaging in widespread fraud when it comes to public services. In May, the White House blocked $1.3 billion in Medicaid reimbursements for California, claiming that the state was not tackling fraud in its home and hospice health agencies. 

Last month, Trump reportedly directed federal agencies to look into how they could block funding for the state of California, and the Federal Emergency Management Association was caught holding up disaster aid to blue states earlier this year. Less than a week ago, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin threatened not only to block federal grants but also to jail state officials in Democratic states that refuse to hand over voter registration to the Trump administration. 

In the past, states have appealed these cuts in court and won. Minnesota and California will likely sue to get their funding back, and they’ll have plenty of evidence that the White House is targeting them for vindictive reasons.  

Within days of pledging that Donald Trump’s $1.8 billion slush fund was dead, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has changed his mind.

In written answers provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee following his congressional hearing, Trump’s former personal attorney refused to rule out the possibility that taxpayer funds could, at some point, be redirected as a form of reparations to Trump’s aggrieved political allies.

“Will you issue a memorandum directing DOJ not to enter into any settlement that would result in paying money or issuing an apology to any person convicted of assaulting law-enforcement officers during the January 6 attack on the Capitol?” prompted one question.

“Every claim submitted pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act is reviewed on the merits and addressed by the Torts Branch of the Civil Division,” responded Blanche. “The compromise and/or settlement of any claim is made only in the best interest of the United States.”

But what Blanche chose not to answer on the Senate’s “Questions for the Record” was just as remarkable.

In one exchange, Blanche refused to expound on whether Justice Department officials had discussed potential payouts with convicted January 6ers. Blanche also refused to answer a point-blank question on whether it was “appropriate” to grant Trump and his family criminal immunity. He similarly declined to answer whether he or the Justice Department had pressured officials at the IRS to sign a settlement agreement with the president.

Of course, Blanche’s opinion doesn’t supersede that of a federal judge who found the whole enterprise wildly unlawful. Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams nixed the settlement underlying Trump’s slush fund, ruling that the settlement parties—Trump’s IRS and Trump’s attorneys—were never actually at odds when they opted to forgo the president’s $10 billion lawsuit in favor of a massive, taxpayer-funded honeypot.

“The nature of the suit itself and the conduct of the Parties and counsel from its filing make plain that this was an attempt to use the Court to provide some legitimacy to an agreement to confer immunity to people and entities affiliated with the President and to earmark billions of dollars from American taxpayers to redress grievances not defined in the law,” Williams wrote.

More than 4.5 million people across the country have lost access to federal food assistance since the passage of President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill, according to a recent report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, or CBPP.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, was one of the social safety net programs gutted by Trump’s budget, which narrowed eligibility for food aid and foisted the costs associated with SNAP onto states. As a result, CBPP estimates that 11 percent of SNAP participants—including 1.5 million children—were knocked off their food assistance between July 2025 and April 2026.

The “big, beautiful bill” marked the most significant cuts in SNAP history. This included the expansion of work requirements for homeless people, veterans, and all able-bodied adults without children up to age 65, although people over age 54 were previously exempt. The bill also ended eligibility for many people with lawful immigration status and required states with high error rates to pay significantly more in benefit costs.

Some parts of the country are being hit harder than others. Arizona in particular has seen a decline of more than 50 percent, as more than 440,000 Arizonans receiving SNAP benefits have been dropped from the program in less than a year. These new cuts have snowballed with bureaucratic red tape, anxieties around error rates, and problems in the state’s SNAP offices, including cuts to staff.

Arizona’s approach to SNAP has been praised by federal officials, however, for “leading the way” in carrying out Trump’s changes and cutting “waste, fraud and abuse.”

“Arizonans losing SNAP say they are skipping meals, quarreling over food, and missing rent payments to restock pantry shelves,” The New York Times reported Monday. “For the first time, monthly visits to the state’s food banks—private charities—have exceeded enrollment in SNAP.”

In its report, the CBPP wrote that Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” poses a “great harm to families, including higher food costs, poverty, and hunger.… We expect these harms to grow as states fully implement eligibility restrictions and take actions to lower their error rates.”

But hey, at least the White House is getting a new ballroom.

President Trump is now downplaying the election fraud accusations he made in a prime-time address to the nation last week.

On Tuesday, Trump was asked by a reporter if he was planning to impose consequences on China, which he blamed for interfering in the 2020 presidential election, during his nationally televised address on Thursday. His answer was dismissive.

“Well, we talked to them about it. It took place a long time ago, I think China is maybe a little bit different today than it was then. But look, they do things, and we do things to them, I’ll be honest. We do things to them too, it’s not a one-way street. But we’ll be talking to them, yeah,” Trump responded.

It was a rather nonchalant answer, considering that Trump took over Americans’ televisions to rail against voting fraud and foreign interference in elections. He singled out China for its efforts in the 2020 election, and the White House released declassified documents that supposedly backed up Trump’s claims but in reality exposed his lies.

The files said that China attempted to sway public opinion without interfering with ballots or voting machines. Any information presented in the files didn’t support the points Trump was making in his speech. The remarks were panned for fearmongering with meager evidence, and even conservatives, including Trump’s friends at Fox News, didn’t take it seriously. Based on Trump’s remarks Tuesday, he didn’t believe his own words, either.

President Trump blew a gasket when he was asked if he had a concrete plan for the escalating war on Iran.

“Mr. President, there are no signs that Iran is ready to stop fighting, so what is the plan?” a reporter asked Trump on Tuesday morning while he met with Lebanese President Joseph Aoun in the Oval Office. “Is the plan to just keep bombing until they give up?”

“How would you know that there are no signs? Why, do you know something I don’t know?” Trump replied.

“Well, they continue to attack our allies and kill Americans.”

“You don’t know what the dialogue is behind the scenes, that they wanna meet desperately to try and end it because they’re getting decimated. You don’t get that when you listen to your fake station,” Trump responded defensively. “You don’t know anything.”

“So talks are still possible?” the reporter pressed.

“Do you know something I don’t know?” Trump asked again.

“Well, tell us.”

“I will tell you: They wanna desperately meet. And until they’re ready to meet in a meaningful way, we have no interest in meeting.”

So the answer is yes—the plan is to keep bombing Iran until something changes. It’s been 10 days of back-and-forth strikes between the two countries as Iran continues to hold tight to the Strait of Hormuz, with help from the Houthis reportedly on the way. Three U.S. service members have been killed since Friday, and Iran has demonstrated that it doesn’t need a massive Air Force or Navy to make U.S. efforts to control the region look futile. This comes as Trump continues the tough talk, threatening death and destruction while oil prices rise and the Pentagon runs out of money and weapons.