FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
June 30, 2025
FARGO – The U.S. Senate is currently debating amendments to the “One Big, Beautiful Bill Act”, which if enacted, will be the largest cut to Medicaid in history. The North Dakota Legislative Council estimates that the state will lose $1.42 billion in Medicaid funding over the next 10 years.
North Dakota Democratic-NPL chair Adam Goldwyn said, “Hoeven, Cramer, and Fedorchak could stock up on all the lipstick in the world, and there still wouldn’t be enough to make this pig of a bill look beautiful. They can obfuscate, they can equivocate, and they can lie, but we know the truth. Nearly two-thirds of Americans know this bill is bad. North Dakota is still reeling from Trump-Vance storm of cuts to mental health care and FEMA grants, and we’re bracing for more. Every billionaire who attended Jeff Bezos’ $50 million dollar Venice wedding this weekend is set to get an extended tax handout paid for on the backs of working North Dakotans. Why on God’s green Earth would they vote to cut $1.42 billion in Medicaid for North Dakotans? When the Great Plains Food Bank is pleading with them to stop the cuts to SNAP, why are our lawmakers ignoring them?”
North Dakota House Minority Leader Zac Ista (D-Grand Forks) said, “Where’s Senator Hoeven? Where’s Senator Cramer? Where’s Congresswoman Fedorchak? Stand up for North Dakota. Our state will lose nearly $1.5 billion in Medicaid funding in the next decade if this bill passes, and some 19,000 North Dakotans will lose their health care coverage. That’s more people than live in Jamestown dropped from their health insurance thanks to our Republican senators and congresswoman. North Dakota taxpayers will be left holding the bag when our elected officials rubber stamp this disastrous bill.”
Don’t just take it from us:
Budget and Fiscal Policy Organizations
North Dakota Legislative Council reported, “An analysis of the Congressional Budget Office estimates by the Kaiser Family Foundation indicated North Dakota’s share of this reduction would be approximately $1.42 billion, or 12 percent of projected federal Medicaid spending in the state, compared to baseline projections. The provisions currently in the bill are estimated to reduce Medicaid enrollment in North Dakota by 18 percent by 2034, compared to baseline levels. Approximately 45 percent of the funding reduction would be attributable to a mandatory work requirement of 80 hours per month for able-bodied adults aged 19-64 without dependents, beginning December 31, 2026, for Medicaid expansion enrollees.”
Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget wrote,“The Senate bill would borrow almost $1 trillion more than the House bill. It would also fail to comply with the House reconciliation instructions requiring $2 trillion of gross spending cuts or offsetting tax cuts changes, falling nearly $500 billion short. Even these numbers understate the potential costs of the bill, since the legislation relies on a number of arbitrary expirations. Borrowing could rise by another $1 trillion – to $5 trillion or more – if temporary provisions were made permanent. The Senate should reject this bill and work toward a fiscally responsible alternative that reduces rather than explodes our high and rising debt.”
Taxpayers for Common Sense President Stephen Ellis wrote, “With this year’s deficit expected to approach $2 trillion and the national debt already at $36.2 trillion—up more than $30 trillion since 2000—we simply cannot afford to pile on trillions more. We urge you to reject this legislation and pursue a fiscally responsible approach to the expiration of tax provisions in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.”
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities President Sharon Parrott said, “Proponents of this destructive agenda have tried every trick in the book to claim falsely that the deep and harmful cuts to food assistance and health coverage would somehow not hurt people. They’ve done all they can to portray the people it would hurt as anything but who they are — people in communities throughout the country who need help to afford the basics, most of whom work or are children, seniors, or people with disabilities. Despite obfuscation, the truth is clear — this bill will hurt people in every state if enacted.”
Advocacy Groups
AARP said, “More than 9 million Medicaid enrollees ages 50 to 64 would likely be subject to the work requirements, an analysis by the AARP Public Policy Institute (PPI) estimates, and could be at risk of losing their health insurance. And it’s not because enrollees can’t meet the standards — 92 percent of enrollees to whom the House’s requirements would apply are either already working or would likely qualify for an exemption, the health policy nonprofit KFF found — but because proving compliance could be too complex. As the coauthors of the AARP PPI analysis put it, ‘Work requirements will tangle older adults in red tape.’”
The American Association of People with Disabilities wrote, “the proposal’s requirement that Medicaid recipients re-certify their eligibility every six months is a particularly burdensome barrier to care. Many people with disabilities lack consistent access to the identification and medical documents needed to meet such requirements. Additionally, many Medicaid recipients do not have a computer, smartphone, broadband internet, or reliable transportation to assist with navigating complex administrative systems. These requirements will lead to widespread disenrollment from Medicaid, not because people are no longer eligible, but because the system makes it too hard to stay enrolled.”
The Arc CEO Katy Neas said, “For millions of people with disabilities, Medicaid and SNAP aren’t just safety nets—they’re survival. New administrative barriers aren’t about stopping waste, fraud, and abuse. They are about denying access to essential health care to as many people as possible. Families will skip check-ups, critical surgeries, and medications. Parents will go hungry so their kids don’t have to. People will be forced to choose between paying rent or seeing a doctor. This is the brutal reality for the millions who will lose health coverage and food assistance under this plan.”
Health Care Associations
National Rural Health Association said, “The unprecedented cuts in Medicaid coverage and financing in Congress’ reconciliation proposals, will have a major impact on rural communities—on the people covered by Medicaid, the rural health providers who serve them and the rural communities that will see more health facilities close, with associated impacts on access to care and local economies.”
Children’s Hospital Association President and CEO Matthew Cook said, “Cutting programs that support the health of our next generations does not reduce spending. It borrows from tomorrow and ensures that today’s kids will need more care down the road. That’s an expensive bet, and it only kicks the costs to the next generation.”
The National Association of Community Health Centers said, “Even a small shift in patients from Medicaid to uninsured status could force clinics to reduce services or close locations, jeopardizing access to cost-effective primary care and medical services in communities. Rural communities would lose critical access points for primary care, dental services, and behavioral health. When CHCs close, communities lose not just healthcare but also jobs and economic stability. Terminating Medicaid coverage for gig workers, freelancers, caregivers, and those who have been laid off will not only compromise their health but also make it harder for them to work.”
American Medical Association President Bobby Mukkamala wrote, “By changing Medicaid and CHIP eligibility criteria, reducing their funding, and eliminating the Medicare payment provision included in the House-passed reconciliation bill, this legislation risks making matters worse for an exceptional number of people including seniors, pregnant women and persons with disabilities. Limiting access to a physician does not make patients healthier; in fact, it increases the risk of turning acute, treatable issues into costly chronic conditions. As work continues on this bill, we urge senators to listen to patients and physicians before making changes that reduce access to care.”
American Hospital Association President and CEO Rick Pollack said, “This legislation will put at risk the 72 million Americans who rely on Medicaid for their health care and jeopardize the hospitals that serve them. It will adversely impact critical care for children, pregnant women, the elderly, disabled and millions of working Americans. The sheer magnitude of these cuts, the largest ever proposed by Congress, will dramatically increase the number of uninsured and undermine the ability of hospitals across America to provide critical services to everyone. We are disappointed that the Senate bill goes in the wrong direction and is substantially worse than its House counterpart.”
America’s Essential Hospitals President and CEO Bruce Siegel said, “This bill would destabilize hospitals across the nation, jeopardizing the health of millions of Americans. We urge the Senate to strengthen and support our hospitals, not destroy them.”
The American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network said, “Research consistently shows that access to health insurance coverage through Medicaid increases cancer screenings rates, early-stage cancer diagnoses, and improves access to timely cancer treatment and survival rates. Further, access to health insurance coverage is one of the most significant determining factors in an individual’s chance to survive cancer. Medicaid protects individuals and families from medical debt, helps keep rural hospital doors open, creates jobs in our communities, and helps our nation become healthier and more prosperous. The result of these proposed Medicaid cuts will be devastating – lives will be lost, and state economies will suffer greatly. ACS CAN urges members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee to vote against these shortsighted, life-threatening cuts to Medicaid, regardless of the form they are presented in. There is simply too much to lose for the millions that rely on Medicaid to prevent, detect, treat and survive cancer.”
The Association of American Medical Colleges said, “The proposed policies do not exist in silos. Many patients beyond Medicaid enrollees would be affected by these actions. Patients would experience the consequences of intensifying the physician shortage by limiting access to student loans, not just medical students. These policies would put undue pressure on the ability of our nation’s academic health systems, teaching hospitals, and medical schools to perform their core missions: providing patient care, educating and training the next generation of physicians and other health professionals, conducting life-saving medical research, and strengthening their communities. Additionally, these policies would undermine institutions’ ability to continue driving local economic growth and employing millions of people nationwide. Those enrolled in Medicaid and many more would feel those effects.”
Food Security Organizations
Melissa Sobolik, CEO of the Great Plains Food Bank said, “The state of North Dakota for instance could have to pay an additional 11 million dollars a year or more just to cover 10 percent of the SNAP costs in our state.”
Feeding America CEO Claire Babineaux-Fontenot said, “Based on preliminary estimates, the proposed cuts would reduce critical SNAP support by up to 6 billion to as much as 9 billion meals each year. By comparison, the entire Feeding America network of over 200 food banks and 60,000 faith-based and charitable partners provided 6 billion meals last year. Additionally, Medicaid cuts could leave 8 million people without health care, potentially resulting in 800,000 more people without adequate resources to access enough nutritious food.”
Farming Organizations pushing for a bipartisan, comprehensive Farm Bill
Mark Watne President of North Dakota Farmers Union wrote, “The demise of the Farm Bill began when we chose to extend it, not only once but twice. As a result, we are seeing a bill drafted through a reconciliation process that only allows changes pertinent to a partisan push. Cutting SNAP and small enhancements to the farm safety net while leaving most other programs in limbo will widen the rural-urban divide and make the bill less bipartisan. This approach of reconciliation rather than the regular order of drafting a Farm Bill, where the merits and challenges of programs are debated, misses the point of a government of and for the people. It risks everything we have built as a nation — from leading the world in food production to the U.S. becoming a residual supplier of food for the world. It takes the U.S. further down the path of becoming a food importer rather than having a surplus in agricultural trade. This is a poor choice when it comes to logical food policy for our nation, for farmers and consumers.”
National Farmers Union said, “But this is not the best way to produce a meaningful farm bill. Our members know that the process matters. Pitting farm and nutrition priorities against one another creates unnecessary division and weakens the broader effort. A strong farm bill—however it comes together—must reflect the full scope of challenges facing agriculture and rural communities, and it must work for everyone it touches: farmers, ranchers, and families across the country.”
National Corn Growers Association President Kenneth Hartman Jr. said, “NCGA’s farmer leaders have long stood on the policy position that farm bills should be comprehensive and bipartisan, and that they should include farm programs and nutrition programs. Given that budget reconciliation provides only a partial pathway for select components of the farm bill, we would like return to a bipartisan, comprehensive approach to future farm bill debates.”
Trade Unions
North American Building Trades Union President Sean McGarvey said, “If enacted, this stands to be the biggest job-killing bill in the history of this country. Simply put, it is the equivalent of terminating more than 1,000 Keystone XL pipeline projects. In some cases, it worsens the already harmful trajectory of the House-passed language, threatening an estimated 1.75 million construction jobs and over 3 billion work hours, which translates to $148 billion in lost annual wages and benefits. These are staggering and unfathomable job loss numbers, and the bill throws yet another lifeline and competitive advantage to China in the race for global energy dominance.”
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers President Kenneth W. Cooper said, “This budget reconciliation bill is a direct attack on working families, shoveling tax breaks to the rich while turning its back on the people who power this country.”
AFL-CIO Government Affairs Director Jody Calemine wrote, “Beyond working moms and dads losing their jobs, it should be noted that the SNAP and Medicaid cuts hit working class children hard. Half of all children with working parents who never got a college degree are served by these programs. The bill’s purported ‘work requirements’ are in essence ‘paperwork requirements,’ needlessly complicating the process so that eligible people have a harder time obtaining benefits and simply give up. In other words, savings comes from using red tape to frustrate working people’s attempts to access the programs.
Faith Leaders
The Interfaith Alliance of North Dakota wrote, “Teachings across our faiths encourage us to help the least among us, care for those who are sick, shelter the homeless, welcome the stranger, and feed those who are hungry. Ideally, our federal budget reflects these priorities and our country’s shared moral values. That’s how programs like Medicaid and CHIP started – we sought to help those who needed a little help through our government. The “big, beautiful bill,” however, is cruel and immoral. It would have us turn our back on the teachings that guide us. We hope our elected officials can build a budget that reflects our values of decency and compassion – a budget that is indeed a moral document for all of us.”
Through the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, Archbishop Timothy P. Broglio wrote, “As Pope Leo XIV recently stated, it is the responsibility of politicians to promote and protect the common good, including by working to overcome great wealth inequality. This bill does not answer this call. It takes from the poor to give to the wealthy. It provides tax breaks for some while undermining the social safety net for others through major cuts to nutrition assistance and Medicaid. It fails to protect families and children by promoting an enforcement-only approach to immigration and eroding access to legal protections.
The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America said, “Proposed adjustments to SNAP and hunger programs could cause many low-income households to lose essential food assistance without improving their employment prospects. We are concerned by proposals to limit the Thrifty Food Plan, and to force states to shoulder benefit costs, which would hinder the future financial prospects of many families. Local food pantries and meal programs—many operated by Lutheran congregations—have indicated they are already stretched beyond capacity without any changes. Rather than reducing food assistance, we should be strengthening these vital programs.”
The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) said, “The bill passed by the House does not promote fiscal responsibility. Instead, it sacrifices the well-being of our neighbors on the altar of political expediency and economic inequity. Its economic impacts — delayed until after next year’s midterm elections — will reverberate for years, especially among those who rely on these essential services. As Presbyterians, our social witness policy affirms that balancing the federal budget on the backs of the poor while preserving tax advantages for the wealthy is morally indefensible. Access to food, health care, and shelter is not a privilege for the few, but a fundamental human right.”
Republicans
Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) said, “I did my homework on behalf of North Carolinians, and I cannot support this bill in its current form. It would result in tens of billions of dollars in lost funding for North Carolina, including our hospitals and rural communities. This will force the state to make painful decisions like eliminating Medicaid coverage for hundreds of thousands in the expansion population, and even reducing critical services for those in the traditional Medicaid population.”
Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) said, “You cannot take away health care from working people. And unless this is changed going forward, that is what will happen in coming years.” <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/12/opinion/josh-hawley-dont-cut-medicaid.html"Earlier, Hawley also said the bill is “both morally wrong and politically suicidal.”
CONTACT:
Laura Dronen
Communications Director
[email protected]
