Senate Rejects Measure to End Medicaid Coverage for Illegals, 56–44
“Fourteen states currently offer health coverage to people in the U.S. regardless of immigration status, including undocumented migrants.”
The Senate began what is known as a vote-a-rama on Monday morning — a rapid series of votes on dozens of proposed amendments to Trump’s big, beautiful spending bill. As of 5:00 a.m. on Tuesday, the vote-a-rama was still ongoing.
One of the most disappointing results came on a measure seeking to block illegal immigrants from receiving Medicaid benefits, which failed by a vote of 56–44.
Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough had previously determined that the “Byrd Rule” applied in this case. Because a reconciliation bill — a type of budget bill — requires only a simple majority of 51 votes for passage, the Byrd Rule imposes restrictions on what provisions can be included. Measures deemed to be “extraneous” to the budget must secure a supermajority of 60 votes to pass. As a result, the proposal to remove undocumented immigrants from Medicaid failed by just four votes.
🚨NEW: The Senate just failed a vote (56-44) on President Trump’s OBBB to remove Medicaid benefits from illegal aliens.
If it weren’t for the Senate Parliamentarian’s interference, this vote would’ve succeeded with just 51 votes. pic.twitter.com/7eztg2RicE
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) June 30, 2025
Many Americans, myself included, believe it is unfair to force taxpayers to subsidize the medical costs of individuals who are not legally authorized to be in the country. Doing so diverts limited resources away from programs intended to serve those who have paid into the system and drives up the overall cost of healthcare. As I see it, Medicaid should be reserved exclusively for citizens and lawful residents.
During a June 2019 MSNBC Democratic presidential primary debate, co-moderator Savannah Guthrie asked the candidates to raise their hands if their healthcare plans would cover undocumented immigrants. All ten candidates on the stage, including former President Joe Biden and former Vice President Kamala Harris, raised their hands.
It was a shocking moment to say the least and it demonstrated just how far left the party had drifted.
Unfortunately, six years later, taxpayer-funded healthcare for illegals is a reality in many states. Newsweek reported in May that “14 states currently offer health coverage to people in the U.S. regardless of immigration status, including undocumented migrants.”
According to Newsweek, “These programs promote public health, reduce long-term costs, and align with moral obligations to care for vulnerable populations.”
These programs are also straining state and local budgets and giving foreigners one more reason to enter the U.S. illegally.
Many of us would have preferred that Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) challenge the parliamentarian’s decision on this matter, but he chose not to act.
@LeaderJohnThune needs to override parliamentarian on this. If Obamacare was given to us by Reconciliation then certainly it makes since that medicaid can be taken from non-citizens via same.
Thune has no excuse!
— Marty (@MartyMoore659) June 30, 2025
ENJOY AMERICA! Work HARD so you can fund illegals healthcare!
— Austin Rogers (@MrAustinRogers) June 30, 2025
How is it that a person who has not been elected tell the people that we have elected what they and cannot do? It doesn’t seem very democratic
— Michael Jester (@MichaelJester) June 30, 2025
Nobody will be completely satisfied with every provision included in this massive, sweeping bill. However, nearly everyone will find something in it that aligns with their priorities or delivers tangible benefits.
As contentious and messy as the legislative process can be, and as much as we may disagree with some parts of it, passing this bill is absolutely critical. It is the cornerstone of President Trump’s entire domestic agenda. It includes his most important policy goals and (most of) the promises he made to the American people. Despite the inevitable compromises, this legislation represents a decisive step forward. Failure to pass it would not only stall his agenda; it would deliver a devastating blow to Trump’s presidency.
Elizabeth writes commentary for Legal Insurrection and The Washington Examiner. She is an academy fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Please follow Elizabeth on X or LinkedIn.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Apparently republicans wasted good money actually running for office to become senators when all policy is really controlled by the highly partisan democrat appointed unelected parliamentarian.
spot on
I am with my fellow Republicans when I say I don’t want my tax dollars used to pay for medical care for illegal immigrants.
As a doctor, I will tell you that every city hospital I’ve worked in as at least 50% and more like 60 to 90% illegal alien women in the labor and delivery suite giving birth.
If the government doesn’t give hospitals money for this care, I can guarantee that every hospital in a large city will be bankrupt in one year
I appreciate your view but I think you are too close to it.
Those hospitals could get more grant money from the government repurposing this money.
Much better and more efficient things could be done with that money than getting pennies on the dollar to fund Medicaid patients while we overpay for the same service to balance the books AND get taxed to get the privilege of overpaying and funding the care of people who came here illegally.
amother incentive for Trump to speed up deportations
We really need to speed up self deportations by orders of magnitude, that will require scaring the crap out of them.
Funnily enough, not only is the office of Parliamentarian not found in the Constitution, it didn’t exist for the first 150+ years of this Republic.
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings
Article I, Section 5
Still wasn’t “necessary” until 1935, and its introduction was controversial. The clause you cited is the pretext, but not the justification.
Many Americans, myself included, believe it is unfair to force taxpayers to subsidize the medical costs of individuals who are not legally authorized to be in the country.
I’m ok with providing them free healthcare the same way we provide criminals with free healthcare – in prison. You came here illegally and you want subsidized healthcare? Fine, turn yourself in. We’ll give you urgent or emergency care – heck, even routine – and get you on your way back home. Unless you’re a second-timer, in which case, you will get emergency care and a trip. And, yes, if you’re a felon, you’ll get prison care until we send you home.
I honestly don’t know how something could be more about the budget than this is. For WHAT, on WHO and HOW MUCH we spend each year is PRECISELY what the purpose of a budget is. It interesting that some Democrats voted with Republicans (and I heard Collins voted against). Does anyone have a link to the final tally?
“budget”
we have no (need) for a stinkn budget
Fix this problem fast by any means necessary Thune.
The parliamentarian is an employee of the Senate. Thune can fire and replace her.
The current problem of course is the partisan senate parliamentarian inconsistently applying the Byrd rule to promote a democrat agenda when they controlled the senate and thwart the republicans when they have the majority. But the real underlying cause to the dysfunction of the senate is the 17th amendment. If senators were responsible to their states we would have a lot healthier federal union. That progressive disgrace of an amendment sabotaged the original constitutional framework with 2 popularly elected assemblies.
Yeah, I know, try getting anyone in Gen Z, Alpha or whatever to understand that. Not gonna happen.
Yes. Direct election of senators thwarts the original intent of having the House represent the people and the Senate represent the states. It skews things in favor of mobocracy.
More bullshit. the senate does represent the states. A legislature is not a state; the people of a state are the state. The legislatures and the senators both represent the people of the state, not each other. So it only makes sense that the people whom the senators are supposed to represent should elect them.
Senators represent the sovereignty of their individual states, so yes they do represent the state government. Districts within states represent the people.
No, they do not and never have represented the state governments. They have always represented the state’s people, but were elected by the legislators, who were themselves elected by the people.
They were never “responsible” to the legislators except in the sense that towards the end of their term, if they wanted reelection, they could either conform to the legislators’ expectation, or (as became common) campaign directly to the people to elect legislators who would vote for them.
It’s not “bullshit” just because you deem it so. The senators were not popularly elected, they were elected by state legislatures because they were to represent the states. There’s a reason why the number of Representatives in the House is based on population while the number of senators is two per state, and it’s not because the FF decided to mix things up a little to prevent boredom.
The best you can say is that the senators were elected indirectly by the people since it was the state legislature’s duty to elect them, but that’s not the same as direct election of senators. The FF intended were certainly capable of spelling it out direct election if that’s what they had intended.
You’re an idiot. No one suggested that they were originally elected directly by the people. You’re just making that up as a straw man.
The point is that they always represented their state’s people, not the legislators who voted for them. The 17th just cut out the middleman, and let the state’s people choose their own representative. The senators continue to represent their states, i.e their people, exactly as they always did.
This is bullshit. Senators are responsible to their states in exactly the same way that they were since the beginning of the republic — they face the voters every six years, and if the voters don’t like them they can elect someone else.
That is the only way senators have ever been responsible, and the only way they were ever intended to be responsible. All the 17th amendment changed was to allow the people whom the senators are supposed to represent to elect them directly, cutting out the middleman, and thus making the senators more responsible to them than they had been.
And of course a senator who is not seeking reelection can do whatever he likes, as was always the case. The 17th didn’t change that at all.
My 2 AZ Senators don’t represent me. In fact they probably hate me for my political stance.
Ditto for my two MA senators.
Yes, they do represent you, just as your House member represents you even if you voted against them. I live in NYC; my senators, representative, state senator, assemblyman, mayor, city councilor, and borough president all hate me for my political stance, but they still represent me whether I like it or not. Repealing the 17th amendment wouldn’t change that. On the contrary, it would make it harder for a Republican to ever be elected senator from NY, since to do that they’d first have to get the state’s people to elect a Republican legislature.
OK Milhouse – IF Senators TRULY only represent their States then WHY are so many people from OUT OF STATE allowed to CONTRIBUTE and CAMPAIGN for those STATE representing Senators?? WHY should anyone in CA be ALLOWED to influence who gets elected in NY? or FL? or ND?? THEY SHOULDN’T!! So this puts your soros troll crap to bed – Senators are elected by the PEOPLE but are beholden to the BIG DONORS! And stop with the insults!! Oh, hope you don’t consider a JOB description an insult!
Milhouse….do you ever get out of the weeds long enough to see the bigger picture of what’s worth fighting for???
I just can’t stand it when people spout utter ignorant bullshit, or outright deliberate lies. Such as that suppressors are “silencers” that are useful only to criminals, and are really weapons of war.
No, you just enjoy being a contrarian asshole.
I think it’s quite troubling that former KKK leader Robert Byrd is able to reach out of the grave and dictate how the Senate may vote. On the bright side, we have campaign commercials written for the 44 Democrats who prefer giving free stuff to illegals to fiscal responsibility.
Frankly, the filibuster needs to go. The Democrats have promised to end it (and they will the moment they’re similarly situated to where the Republicans are today). The big difference is that they’ll use their small majority to “fundamentally change America” with their bad ideas (Supreme Court packing, amnesty for illegals, bailouts for blue states, and statehood for DC and PR) while the Republicans would use their small majority to pass legislation favored by a large majority of Americans (deport illegals, voter ID, same day voting, no bailouts of blue states). What are we waiting for? Make the filibuster a constitutional requirement (put up or shit up time for the Dems) or blow it up now and pass laws that will excite not only the Republican base–but everyone not in the Democrat base.
The best proof that the Democrats will not end the legislative filibuster is that they didn’t when they had the numbers. They won’t do it for the same reason we don’t; because they know that once it’s gone it can’t ever be brought back, and one day they will need it.
They already deeply regret getting rid of it for nominations; the one-time benefit they got was not worth the long-term damage it did them.
202-224-3121
Congressional offices
http://www.senate.gov
Not hopeful that contacting Thune will do much, but it can’t hurt and will allow you to let off some steam.
If Liz wants to represent Guatemala she should get out of the US Senate
This is an example of why extending the debt ceiling as a way to gain ‘space to negotiate/craft a budget’ doesn’t work. The counter party we’re trying to ‘negotiate’ with doesn’t operate in good faith. By removing the immediacy of the pressure of a shut down (which DJT would control by designation of what stays open v non essential) it removes incentives to make meaningful changes. Voting to raise the debt ceiling is like a debt ridden borrower voting themselves a new credit line and promising to rein in future spending and get their finances in order b/c they might get a raise at work
Better by far to bite the political bullet and cut current spending. Just using the FY 2019 budget as the cap would bring is down to $4.5 Trillion v last year’s spending of $6.7 Trillion. Heck adjust the FY 2019 budget to inflation but use that as the ‘Cap’ on top line spending.
We can’t grow our way out of this mess b/c eventually the d/prog will regain power and/or big spending GoP politicians will look at increased revenue from economic growth as an untapped pot of $ to spend on their pet projects. Any increased tax revenue from a stronger more productive economy won’t be used to balance the budget and pay down the National debt it will be wasted on boondoggles.
Confiscate money transfers to their country of origin to pay for their care, plus 10% for administration and an additional 50% punitive damages.
Thinking a couple moves ahead, this will migrate the remittance business from Western Union to the cartels, who will get fat taxing it at any rate less than 100%. They will get it across the border, too, because CBP isn’t well situated to detect contraband going OUT of the country, and Mexican customs has a perverse incentive.
I was advocating a 50% levy on transfers years ago.
And MacDonough will continue to add to the over $2 million USD we have paid her to reject bills seeking to remove provisions which were passed as financial issues (e.g. Medicaid funding for illegals, National Firearms Act [NFA} sold as not an infringement on the Second Amendment, but rather simply a tax). MacDonough was foisted on the people by Harry (it’s no problem to lie to win) Reid and the Republicans continue to prove they have little to no spine sufficient to confront Democrat imposed problems.
Thune needs to get a spine and fire that Democrat activist parliamentarian. People wonder why Social Security and the like are going bankrupt, this is why. The Republicans should ignore that twit.
For MediCAID you are correct. It’s going broke b/c of foolishly wide eligibility that allows able bodied adults without young children (under 14) to qualify without any work requirements. Same for stupid expanded eligibility allowing enrollment with incomes 138% of poverty line.
The better fix IMO is complete overhaul of how we tax and pay for healthcare. End the tax deduction for health insurance over $4K. That puts everyone on an equal tax footing. Then require HSA. Redirect 80% of the current Medicare spending to every US Citizen’s HSA…sorry Aliens legal or illegal y’all don’t qualify. Let folks buy catastrophic care policies, end mandated coverage and require risk based pricing; smokers, the obese and other higher risk categories pay more due to their higher risk profile. Redirect 5% to help folks with preexisting issues pay their insurance. Take the remaining 15% and direct it to rural hospitals to ensure that enough can stay open on some sort of reasonable geographic basis.
Too many vested interests to do that until the entire system collapses. Pretty much the same for SSA and Medicare as all reform efforts have been scuttled by AARP the Silent gen and Boomers. On a path to exhaust those trust funds in a decade +/- and have cuts of 25% ish to beneficiaries. Raising taxes on younger generations to make up the shortfall is not gonna be acceptable without some cuts for older generations. Gen X and younger have paid the current higher SSA taxes their entire working lives while older generations blocked any reforms. No way we gonna sign onto a plan where the boomers are rewarded for obstruction and younger generations punished with higher taxes and lower benefits for the folly of older generations.
I pay over $1200 monthly for healthcare. Illegals pay zero, on my dime. Screw these perpetually WORTHLESS Republicans.
As someone else said, it is really crazy that this was ‘deemed’ inappropriate for reconciliation because it violated the ‘Byrd Rule.’
“The Byrd Rule defines “extraneous” provisions as those that don’t produce a change in outlays or revenues, increase the deficit beyond the “budget window” (usually 10 years), or make changes to Social Security”
Not spending money on the healthcare of illegal aliens clearly changes outlays. Also, someone should ask JD Vance why he simply didn’t overrule the parliamentarian. If there was ever a hill to die on, it’s this hill. Trump actually campaigned on ending government provided health care for illegal aliens. It’s one of the biggest magnets for illegal immigration.
Thune seems useless and, if what was said about Vance being able to overrule the parliamentarian, he as well. However, I think the issue is a bit phony. We have stopped new people coming into the country. Cutting Medicaid for illegals here will INCREASE the total cost to the health care system, as medical issues will be addressed later and/or in more expensive settings. This increase in costs would be shifted to uncompensated care, with hospitals, etc going out of business. (Reduce supply of something and its price goes up.)
We need to get rid of the illegals here (reducing demand for health care services) and to have a bill that takes a $2T annual deficit seriously, which this one does not. Any elderly person can remember living in middle class neighborhoods where the mother could stay home with the children on the middle class job of the “breadwinner” father. No more and IMO primarily the consequence of decades of government overspending driving down the purchasing power of the dollar (now requiring both parents to work).
“Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough had previously determined that the “Byrd Rule” applied in this case.”
Why is there a parliamentarian hall monitor in our triune, republican form of government that has an elected chief executive? Can someone explain it to me like I’m in middle school??
Because the lagislative chambers are empowered by the Constitution with making the rules for their chambers.
Whatever the reason, it’s a 20th century creation. For the first 150+ years of the Republic’s history, there was no ‘parliamentarian.’ We’re 25-years into a new century and i believe we’re only on our fifth or maybe sixth one in total, that’s how new it is.
So is reconciliation itself. The senate created the office of parliamentarian precisely to police accommodations like this, to prevent them being abused. Someone has to decide what’s allowed in a reconciliation bill and what isn’t, and that someone has to be independent of both parties, so that both parties will accept her decisions. If a bare majority can ignore her and ram its wishes through, then the minority has no reason to continue to allow this exception to the normal rule.
“and that someone has to be independent of both parties, so that both parties will accept her decisions”
I think I see where the cotter pin fell out.
I expect there is plenty of pork the liberals would like to see passed by July 4th and it could come down to working through the holiday. President has not signed it yet and I guess it’s headed back to the house even now.
oh when the saints
come marching in
oh lord when the saints come marching in
moral obligations to care for vulnerable populations
No, the government does NOT. Period. And, particularly, for those who have imposed their duty by illegally being here.
We’re the vulnerable population, the American citizens.
Well they don’t count. Didn’t you get the memo?
if the welfare system stopped
how many jobs would be filled by the able bodied who collect welfare as one form of income?
its time we found out
What is this idiot talking about? 0bamacare was not given to us by reconciliation. It was passed by 60 senators.
It was later modified by reconciliation, which was precisely why the Dems could not get the bill they wanted through. They had to stick to the bill the senate originally passed, with only those modifications that qualified for reconciliation. Most of the amendments the Dems wanted to put in did not qualify, and thus couldn’t pass.
Nor is reconciliation, which also didn’t exist for the first 150+ years of this Republic. The whole point of reconciliation is that it’s an exception the senate graciously allows to its usual rule of requiring 60 votes to end a filibuster, subject to strict conditions as to what measures can fit through this loophole. If the rule is abused by shoving through extraneous measures then the senate is likely to refuse to allow the exception any more, and insist that every measure can be filibustered.
This is stupid; No need to state the reasons. Emergency care for illegals ok- then eject. Anything else – no. They can take their sniffles back to their home countries,
The parliamentarian position doesn’t hold any actual authority. She can make her recommendations, but that is all they are is recommendations, the Senate can ignore those recommendations if it wishes.
Since the bill is now passed what the senate leader should do is wait a couple of weeks and then thank the parliamentarian for her service, hand her a pink slip and find someone who is more friendly to the presidents agenda. Yep, I realize that is partisan, I don’t care.
The people that were elected, the senators, appoint the parliamentarian. This one was appointed by Harry Reid.
This was the time for the Republicans to wish her well and replace her. They didn’t. They don’t really want to win. But oh well, that’s how it goes in this country. I have no suggestion on how to improve Republicans and make them play to win. They are what they are, John Thune included.
What is really galling is the leftist rino’s voted DOWN the bill even after getting their Amendments put IN the bill! That kind of HYPOCRISY is inherent in the left! It will be a GLORIOUS day in the USA when Murky and Collins are voted OUT!!
Leave a Comment