A bill that a congressman says protects Medicaid doesn't — and would likely require its elimination

“On February 25, I voted yes on a budget resolution that protects Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid while reducing some spending elsewhere.”

Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.), in a YouTube video posted on March 4, 2025

Read more"Dreams play a role in emotional regulation"

On February 25, Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.) voted in favor of a House budget resolution which calls for drastic spending cuts across a wide range of government areas. Medicaid is among the programs that could be threatened, catapulting it to the center of the political debate.

President Donald Trump insisted that he would not cut Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security benefits, saying his administration was seeking to root out fraud. But Democrats pushed backclaiming that the sheer magnitude of the proposed cuts would harm the Medicaid program, its enrollees, and medical providers.

Read moreDos Hermanos Taco Truck Brings Authentic Mexican Cuisine to Polaris Fashion Place

A KFF follow-up survey revealed broad public support for Medicaid, suggesting that efforts to cut the program could face political headwinds. KFF is a nonprofit health information organization that includes KFF Health News.

LaLota, who represents part of Long Island, posted a video to his constituents explaining his position: "I voted for a budget resolution that protects Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid while reducing some spending elsewhere." Since his video focused primarily on Medicaid, we did the same. We found his statement on the subject to be riddled with misinterpretations and inaccuracies. Yet, in his video, LaLota advises his constituents to seek information directly from him, stating, "I will always be honest with you."

We asked LaLota's office for the information he used to support his statement. The budget resolution does not include any cuts to these programs, he wrote in a statement emailed by his communications assistant, Mary O'Hara. "Rather, it paves the way for protecting Medicaid with common-sense solutions that ensure access for eligible Americans, including removing undocumented immigrants from the voter rolls, requiring able-bodied adults to work, and eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse."

Let's analyze what the resolution says and does, and what changes it might bring to Medicaid.

Explanation of the basics

Budget resolutions are not laws, but rather plans that guide lawmakers on budget-related legislation. The resolution passed by the House—approved with 217 Republicans voting for and 214 Democrats and one Republican against — is only part of the budget process. The Senate also has a say, so changes are possible.

As drafted, the resolution calls for broad spending cuts across a range of areas overseen by various committees. It specifically calls on the House Energy and Commerce Committee to submit proposals "to reduce the deficit by at least $880 billion for the period from fiscal years 2025 to 2034."

It doesn't say it would protect Medicaid. The word Medicaid is nowhere in the document. It doesn't prescribe any specific actions on the program, such as establishing work requirements for beneficiaries. Lawmakers are separately drafting legislation to make adjustments to the program to meet spending reduction goals.

A little background: Medicaid is a federal-state program that provides health coverage to low-income residents, as well as payments to nursing homes for the care of the elderly and disabled residents. Medicaid and the closely related Children's Health Insurance Program cover more than 79 million people.

Medicare is the federal program which provides health insurance to some people with disabilities and most people over 65. More than 68 million people are enrolled.

The resolution directs the committee to draft legislation that would reduce spending in areas under its jurisdiction, which include Medicaid and about half of Medicare.

Social Security is primarily overseen in the House by the Ways and Means Committee. The panel also shares jurisdiction over Medicare with Energy and Commerce.

Political experts and the Congressional Budget Office said that after removing Medicare from consideration, there were not enough resources under the committee's jurisdiction to cut $880 billion without substantially reducing Medicaid spending. (Medicare is generally considered a third rail because its beneficiaries are a powerful voting bloc.)

Indeed, of the $8.8 trillion in spending projected under the committee's jurisdiction for the 10-year period, Medicaid accounts for $8.2 trillion, or $93 billion.

“Even if the committee eliminated all non-Medicare, non-Medicaid spending, it would still have to cut Medicaid by well over $700 billion,” said Alice Burns, associate director of KFF’s program on Medicaid and the Uninsured.

Adding work requirements—most Medicaid recipients already have jobs—would not produce that level of savings, and could increase state costsOther budget cuts suggested by Republicans, including capping federal spending per enrollee, reducing federal matching contributions, and eliminating provider taxes, which states use to finance their share of Medicaid spending, could force states to reduce spending or find new sources of revenue.

“Medicaid budget cuts could result in eliminating coverage for children, parents, working adults, or those who may need long-term care; limiting benefits; or reducing reimbursement rates for health plans or providers. These choices could come at a time when state revenue growth is slowing and most states are required to adopt balanced budgets,” according to an analysis by Robin Rudowitz, vice president of the KFF Program on Medicaid and the Uninsured.

The downstream consequences of the House's budget resolution would be far-reaching and would significantly alter the welfare program, said Edwin Park, a research professor at Georgetown University's Center for Children and Families.

He noted growing opposition to such large-scale cuts to Medicaid from "beneficiaries and parents of children with disabilities, families whose parents are in nursing homes, and health care providers."

“The Medicaid cuts are very unpopular, even among Trump voters,” he said.

Opposition to Medicaid cuts helped defeat the 2017 attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act during the first Trump administration, noted Joseph Antos, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Antos believes the current spending cut target is unrealistic and likely won't survive the effort to merge the House budget proposal with what the Senate wants to do.

"Ultimately, the problem is you can't take that much out of Medicaid," Antos said.

LaLota's focus on immigrants without legal status as a means of reducing federal spending on Medicaid is also misleading.

A number of statesincluding New York, offer coverage to children or adults regardless of immigration status, but they can only use state money to fund these programs.

“States cannot use federal funds to cover undocumented immigrants,” Burns said. Therefore, cutting them “will do nothing for deficit reduction goals.”

Our decision

LaLota said: "On February 25, I voted yes on a budget resolution that protects Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid while reducing some spending elsewhere."

His statement is inaccurate and misrepresents the laws and language used in the budget resolution, creating a false impression of what his vote supported.

The 32-word sentence that directs the Energy and Commerce Committee to cut $880 billion over 10 years from the programs it authorizes includes no specific protections, safeguards, or instructions for the committee to follow.

We consider this statement to be false.