By Ben Zdencanovic, University of California, Los Angeles

The Medicaid system has emerged as an early target of the Trump administration’s campaign to slash federal spending. A joint federal and state program, Medicaid provides health insurance coverage for more than 72 million people, including low-income Americans and their children and people with disabilities. It also helps foot the bill for long-term care for older people.

In late February 2025, House Republicans advanced a budget proposal that would potentially cut US$880 billion from Medicaid over 10 years. President Donald Trump has backed that House budget despite repeatedly vowing on the campaign trail and during his team’s transition that Medicaid cuts were off the table.

Medicaid covers one-fifth of all Americans at an annual cost that coincidentally also totals about $880 billion, $600 billion of which is funded by the federal government. Economists and public health experts have argued that big Medicaid cuts would lead to fewer Americans getting the health care they need and further strain the low-income families’ finances.

As a historian of social policy, I recently led a team that produced the first comprehensive historical overview of Medi-Cal, California’s statewide Medicaid system. Like the broader Medicaid program, Medi-Cal emerged as a compromise after Democrats failed to achieve their goal of establishing universal health care in the 1930s and 1940s.

Instead, the United States developed its current fragmented health care system, with employer-provided health insurance covering most working-age adults, Medicare covering older Americans, and Medicaid as a safety net for at least some of those left out.

Health care reformers vs. the AMA

Medicaid’s history officially began in 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the system into law, along with Medicare. But the seeds for this program were planted in the 1930s and 1940s. When President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration was implementing its New Deal agenda in the 1930s, many of his advisers hoped to include a national health insurance system as part of the planned Social Security program.

Those efforts failed after a heated debate. The 1935 Social Security Act created the old-age and unemployment insurance systems we have today, with no provisions for health care coverage.

Nevertheless, during and after World War II, liberals and labor unions backed a bill that would have added a health insurance program into Social Security.

Harry Truman assumed the presidency after Roosevelt’s death in 1945. He enthusiastically embraced that legislation, which evolved into the “Truman Plan.” The American Medical Association, a trade group representing most of the nation’s doctors, feared heightened regulation and government control over the medical profession. It lobbied against any form of public health insurance.

During the late 1940s, the AMA poured millions of dollars into a political advertising campaign to defeat Truman’s plan. Instead of mandatory government health insurance, the AMA supported voluntary, private health insurance plans. Private plans such as those offered by Kaiser Permanente had become increasingly popular in the 1940s in the absence of a universal system. Labor unions began to demand them in collective bargaining agreements.

The AMA insisted that these private, employer-provided plans were the “American way,” as opposed to the “compulsion” of a health insurance system operated by the federal government. They referred to universal health care as “socialized medicine” in widely distributed radio commercials and print ads.

In the anticommunist climate of the late 1940s, these tactics proved highly successful at eroding public support for government-provided health care. Efforts to create a system that would have provided everyone with health insurance were soundly defeated by 1950.

JFK and LBJ

Private health insurance plans grew more common throughout the 1950s.

Federal tax incentives, as well as a desire to maintain the loyalty of their professional and blue-collar workers alike, spurred companies and other employers to offer private health insurance as a standard benefit. Healthy, working-age, employed adults – most of whom were white men – increasingly gained private coverage. So did their families, in many cases.

Everyone else – people with low incomes, those who weren’t working and people over 65 – had few options for health care coverage. Then, as now, Americans without private health insurance tended to have more health problems than those who had it, meaning that they also needed more of the health care they struggled to afford.

But this also made them risky and unprofitable for private insurance companies, which typically charged them high premiums or more often declined to cover them at all.

Health care activists saw an opportunity. Veteran health care reformers such as Wilbur Cohen of the Social Security Administration, having lost the battle for universal coverage, envisioned a narrower program of government-funded health care for people over 65 and those with low incomes. Cohen and other reformers reasoned that if these populations could get coverage in a government-provided health insurance program, it might serve as a step toward an eventual universal health care system.

While President John F. Kennedy endorsed these plans, they would not be enacted until Johnson was sworn in following JFK’s assassination. In 1965, Johnson signed a landmark health care bill into law under the umbrella of his “Great Society” agenda, which also included antipoverty programs and civil rights legislation.

That law created Medicare and Medicaid.

From Reagan to Trump

As Medicaid enrollment grew throughout the 1970s and 1980s, conservatives increasingly conflated the program with the stigma of what they dismissed as unearned “welfare.” In the 1970s, California Gov. Ronald Reagan developed his national reputation as a leading figure in the conservative movement in part through his high-profile attempts to cut and privatize Medicaid services in his state.

Upon assuming the presidency in the early 1980s, Reagan slashed federal funding for Medicaid by 18%. The cuts resulted in some 600,000 people who depended on Medicaid suddenly losing their coverage, often with dire consequences.

Medicaid spending has since grown, but the program has been a source of partisan debate ever since.

In the 1990s and 2000s, Republicans attempted to change how Medicaid was funded. Instead of having the federal government match what states were spending at different levels that were based on what the states needed, they proposed a block grant system. That is, the federal government would have contributed a fixed amount to a state’s Medicaid budget, making it easier to constrain the program’s costs and potentially limiting how much health care it could fund.

These efforts failed, but Trump reintroduced that idea during his first term. And block grants are among the ideas House Republicans have floated since Trump’s second term began to achieve the spending cuts they seek.

The ACA’s expansion

The 2010 Affordable Care Act greatly expanded the Medicaid program by extending its coverage to adults with incomes at or below 138% of the federal poverty line. All but 10 states have joined the Medicaid expansion, which a U.S. Supreme Court ruling made optional.

As of 2023, Medicaid was the country’s largest source of public health insurance, making up 18% of health care expenditures and over half of all spending on long-term care. Medicaid covers nearly 4 in 10 children and 80% of children who live in poverty. Medicaid is a particularly crucial source of coverage for people of color and pregnant women. It also helps pay for low-income people who need skilled nursing and round-the-clock care to live in nursing homes.

In the absence of a universal health care system, Medicaid fills many of the gaps left by private insurance policies for millions of Americans. From Medi-Cal in California to Husky Health in Connecticut, Medicaid is a crucial pillar of the health care system. This makes the proposed House cuts easier said than done.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Ben Zdencanovic, University of California, Los Angeles

Read more:

• GOP lawmakers commit to big spending cuts, putting Medicaid under a spotlight – but trimming the low-income health insurance program would be hard
• Cutting Medicaid and federal programs are among 4 key Trump administration policy changes that could make life harder for disabled people
• From FDR’s food stamps to Trump’s harvest boxes: The history of helping the poor get enough to eat

Ben Zdencanovic does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Feature Image: President Lyndon B. Johnson, left, next to former President Harry S. Truman, signs into law the measure creating Medicare and Medicaid in 1965. AP Photo

The post Trump administration targets Medicaid, a cornerstone of healthcare for millions appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

By April Ryan, BlackPressUSA

As this nation observes the 60th anniversary of Bloody Sunday in Selma, Alabama, the words of President Trump reverberate. “This country will be WOKE no longer, an emboldened Trump offered during his speech to the recent a joint session of Congress night. Since then, Alabama Congresswoman Terri Sewell posted on the social media platform formerly known as Twitter that “Elon Musk and his DOGE bros have ordered GSA to sell off the site of the historic Freedom Riders Museum in Montgomery.” Her post of little words went on to say, “This is outrageous and we will not let it stand! I am demanding an immediate reversal. Our Civil Rights history is not for sale!”

Also, in the news, the Associated Press is reporting they have a file of names and descriptions of more than 26,000 military images flagged for removal because of connections to women, minorities, culture, or DEI. In more attempts to downplay Blackness, a word that is interchanged with woke, Trump supporters have introduced another bill to take down the bright yellow letters of Black Lives Matter Plaza in Washington, D.C., in exchange for the name Liberty Plaza. D.C. Mayor Morial Bowser is allowing the name change to keep millions of federal dollars flowing there. Black Lives Matter Plaza was named in 2020 after a tense exchange between President Trump and George Floyd protesters in front of the White House. 

There are more reports about cuts to equity initiatives that impact HBCU students. Programs that recruited top HBCU students into the military and the pipeline for Department of Defense contracts have been canceled.

Meanwhile, Democrats are pushing back against this second-term Trump administration’s anti-DEI and Anti-woke message. In the wake of the 60th anniversary of Bloody Sunday in Selma, several Congressional Black Caucus leaders are reintroducing the Voting Rights Act. South Carolina Democratic Congressman James Clyburn and Alabama Congresswoman Terry Sewell are sponsoring H.R. 14, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. Six decades ago, Lewis was hit with a billy club by police as he marched for the right to vote for African Americans. The right for Black people to vote became law with the 1965 Voting Rights Act that has since been gutted, leaving the nation to vote without the full protections of the Voting Rights Act. 

Reflecting on the late Congressman Lewis, March 1, 2020, a few months before his death, Lewis said, “We need more than ever in these times many more someones to make good trouble- to make their own dent in the wall of injustice.”

The post Trump supporters push for removal of Black Lives Matter Plaza appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Ill.) delivered a sharp and relentless rebuttal to former President Donald Trump’s chaotic address to Congress on Tuesday night, warning that his economic policies and erratic leadership will leave everyday Americans footing the bill for a billionaire-friendly agenda. Slotkin, the newly elected senator from Illinois—one of the key states Trump flipped in 2024—blasted the former president’s approach to governance, calling his economic promises “a reckless and chaotic gamble” that would “walk us into a recession.” “Trump is on the hunt to find trillions of dollars to pass on to the wealthiest of Americans, and to do that, he’s going to make you pay,” she said, tearing into his trade policies, rising prescription drug costs, and ballooning national debt.

Slotkin also aimed the Trump administration’s sweeping federal layoffs, which she called a “mindless” purge of critical workers. “The firing of people who protect our nuclear weapons, keep our planes from crashing, and conduct life-saving research—only to rehire them two days later? No CEO in America could do that without being summarily fired,” she said. Speaking from Wyandotte, Michigan, Slotkin positioned herself as a voice for working-class Americans frustrated by rising costs and political dysfunction. She called out Trump’s coziness with billionaires like Elon Musk, warning that their unchecked influence could jeopardize everything from Social Security to private financial data. “Is there anyone comfortable with Musk and his gang of 20-year-olds using their own servers to poke through your tax returns, your health information, and your bank accounts?” she asked.

Slotkin didn’t hold back on foreign policy either, skewering Trump for his embarrassing Oval Office clash with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. “That wasn’t just a bad episode of reality TV,” she said. “It summed up Trump’s whole approach to the world. Cozy up to dictators like Vladimir Putin, kick our allies like the Canadians in the teeth, and call it strategy.” The Illinois senator, a former CIA analyst, framed the stakes as a choice between responsible leadership and reckless upheaval. “America wants change, but there’s a responsible way to make change and a reckless way,” she said. “We can make that change without forgetting who we are as a country and as a democracy.” Closing her remarks with a call to action, Slotkin urged Americans not to disengage. “Hold your elected officials, including me, accountable,” she said. “Go to town halls. Demand action. Doom scrolling doesn’t count—I’m putting that on a pillow.”

The post Senator blasts Trump’s economic plan as reckless and chaotic appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

Just before President Donald Trump took the podium to deliver his address to a joint session of Congress, Democratic Texas Rep. Jasmine Crockett sent a message loud and clear: He is “not like us.” Crockett, dancing and lip-syncing to Kendrick Lamar’s culture-defining hit, later punctuated her defiance with a pointed jab. “Well… the State of the ‘DisUnion’ will begin shortly,” Crockett noted. “I’m gonna be in attendance.” It was just one of many signs of resistance from Democrats who braced for what they predicted would be an address filled with misinformation and political grandstanding. Undeterred, Crockett implored her millions of social media followers, “Do not watch.”

The defiance extended beyond rhetoric. House Democratic leadership refused to participate in the traditional escort committee that brings the president into the House chamber, a symbolic rebuke of Trump’s presidency. A spokesperson for Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York said the move “speaks for itself.” It was a notable departure from the morning’s strategy session, during which Jeffries and his leadership team urged House Democrats to focus on Americans suffering under Trump’s policies. However, when Trump took the stage, unity gave way to unfiltered outrage. Trump entered the chamber, flanked by Speaker Mike Johnson, determined to present his administration as a sweeping success. The reality outside his rhetoric told a different story.

Days before the address, Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance engaged in a heated and globally embarrassing Oval Office confrontation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, rocking the international community. The exchange reinforced concerns that Trump is abandoning Ukraine in favor of his well-documented admiration for Russian leader Vladimir Putin. On the domestic front, his administration has dismantled civil rights protections, slashed federal jobs, and thrown millions into uncertainty. Yet, standing before Congress, Trump claimed that more Americans believe the country is on the right track for the first time in modern history. “Now, for the first time in modern history, more Americans believe that our country is headed in the right direction than the wrong direction,” Trump declared. That was false.

Of the eighteen “right track/wrong track” polls archived by RealClearPolitics since Trump took office, only two showed more respondents believing the country was moving in the right direction—one by Rasmussen with a one-point margin and another by Emerson College with a four-point edge. Meanwhile, sixteen other polls showed the opposite, some revealing double-digit margins. The RealClearPolitics average showed a nearly nine-point lead for “wrong track.” Yet Trump stood before the American people and claimed victory. The speech had barely begun when Rep. Al Green of Texas stood in the aisle, waving his cane at the president. Lawmakers responded with cheers and boos, forcing Speaker Johnson to issue repeated warnings for decorum.

“Members are engaging in willful and continuing breach of the quorum, and the chair is prepared to direct the Sergeant at Arms to restore order to the joint session,” Johnson declared. He then ordered Green’s removal from the chamber. While Republicans erupted in applause throughout Trump’s speech, Democrats sat stone-faced. Some took it further, removing their jackets to reveal messages emblazoned in white on their backs. Some read, “Resist.” Florida Rep. Maxwell Frost’s shirt said, “No More Kings.” At the start of Trump’s speech, Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan held up a whiteboard with the words, “That’s a Lie.”

Some Democrats refused to attend the address altogether. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York announced her absence on social media. “I’m not going to the Joint Address. I will be live posting and chatting with you all here instead. Then going on IG Live after,” she wrote. Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut also dismissed Trump’s speech as a “MAGA pep rally” and chose to spend the evening at an event with MoveOn. “We have to fight every single day, every single day,” Murphy proclaimed. Rep. Becca Balint of Vermont also made her position clear. “I watched him take an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution, and all he did was spew lies, stoke division, and make no effort to unify our country. I won’t sit and watch him lie to the American people again,” she asserted. Despite his claims, Trump failed to offer any real economic plan.

He blamed Biden for inflation while ignoring that his tariffs on China, Canada, and Mexico are set to raise prices even further, a reality already confirmed by economists. Yet he promised “dramatic and immediate relief” while enacting policies that would do the opposite. At one point, Trump took credit for ending the so-called “weaponized government,” portraying himself as the victim. “And we’ve ended weaponized government where, as an example, a sitting president is allowed to viciously prosecute his political opponent. Like me,” he said. Republicans cheered. Beyond the speech’s theatrics, the real story remains the fallout of Trump’s second term. Civil rights protections have been dismantled. Federal workers have been fired en masse. Veterans and people with disabilities have been left scrambling. MAGA loyalists have received unchecked power. And yet, the president stood before Congress and told Americans everything was fine. Rep. Crockett, however, was not having it.

She fired back without hesitation when asked if she had anything to say to Trump. “Grow a spine and stop being Putin’s hoe,” Crockett railed, using language that proved common in an earlier meeting between CBC members and Black journalists. The apparent divide in the chamber became more undeniable as television cameras panned across the room. Republicans stood, grinning, basking in Trump’s promises. Democrats, many dressed in bright pink as a deliberate display of protest, sat in silence. Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández of New Mexico, chair of the Democratic Women’s Caucus, explained the color choice. “Pink is a color of power and protest.,” she said “It’s time to rev up the opposition and come at Trump loud and clear.” By the time Trump’s speech ended, one thing was clear. Democrats aren’t backing down. They aren’t standing idly by as Trump and his enablers attempt to rewrite reality. They aren’t going to pretend that what’s happening to this country is normal. As Trump walked out of the chamber, the message left behind by Democrats and on the backs of those standing in defiance said it all. “Resist.”

The post Democrats defy Trump’s address as chaos erupts in Congress appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

By April Ryan

“You are playing cards” and “you’re gambling with World War III” scolded President Trump to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy before he kicked Zelenskyy out of the White House. The Oval Office visit was meant to ease tensions in the Russian war against Ukraine. However, it ended in a shouting match. The verbal sparring pit President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D, Vance, in a tag team of sorts, against Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Both Trump and Vance kept telling Zellenskyy he should be working towards a peace agreement and be grateful for the United States equipment to fight against Russia in this war that Trump believes Ukraine would have lost within two years without the United States’ help. A former Senior U.S. National Security official who wished to remain anonymous said, “Zelenskyy has acknowledged his gratitude.”

That same former NSC official also said, “This means the United States is aligning itself with Russia that we set him [Volodymyr Zelenskyy] up and this was a play to appeal to Trump’s base and Putin and to blame Zelenskyy which is to throw Ukraine and NATO under the bus.” Ranking Democratic member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Congressman Gregory Meeks says he is “incensed and ashamed over the actions of the president of the United States.” During the televised contentious public negotiations, President Trump told Zelenskyy, “Your people need to make a deal. If you don’t make a deal you will have to fight it out.”. Meanwhile, the February 2020 Russian invasion of Ukraine continues. Monday was the third anniversary of the war. Meeks says, “Trump has not asked anything of Russia and said nothing about it on the anniversary” as Ukraine saw one of the worst drone attacks that day.

After that public disagreement, Zelenskyy was told to leave the White House. He rushed into his waiting van outside of the West Wing where President Trump greeted him with a handshake when he arrived at the door. His departure was minus the presidential escort to the door. Zelenskyy and Trump were also expected today to sign a mineral deal and conduct a joint press conference. Those two events did not happen after that Oval Office conflict. Meeks adds that our European partners “want us to support Ukraine.” President Trump immediately went on social media with his thoughts. That tweet was followed by President Zelenskyy

 @realDonaldTrump

We had a very meaningful meeting in the White House today. Much was learned that could never be understood without conversation under such fire and pressure. It’s amazing what comes out through emotion, and I have determined that President Zelenskyy is not ready for Peace if America is involved, because he feels our involvement gives him a big advantage in negotiations. I don’t want an advantage, I want PEACE. He disrespected the United States of America in its cherished Oval Office. He can come back when he is ready for Peace.

The post Trump and Zelenskyy clash in Oval Office over Ukraine peace appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

By Matthew Borus, Binghamton University, State University of New York

An estimated 20% to 25% of Americans have a disability of some kind, including physical, sensory, psychological and intellectual disabilities.

Disability experts, myself included, fear that the Trump administration is creating new barriers for disabled people to being hired at a job, getting a quality education and providing for basic needs, including health insurance.

Here are four key areas of disability policy to watch over the coming years.

1. Rights at work

The Americans with Disabilities Act, which became law in 1990, requires that employers with more than 15 employees not discriminate against otherwise qualified candidates on the basis of their disability. It also requires that employers provide reasonable accommodations to disabled workers. This means, for instance, that a new or renovated workplace should have accessible entrances so that a worker who uses a wheelchair can enter.

Despite these protections, I have spoken to many disabled workers in my research who are reluctant to ask for accommodations for fear that a supervisor might think that they were too demanding or not worth continuing to employ.

Trump’s actions in his first days in office have likely reinforced such fears.

In one of the many executive orders Trump signed on Jan. 20, 2025, he called for the relevant government agencies to terminate what he called “all discriminatory programs,” including all diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility policies, programs and activities that Trump deems “immoral.”

The next day, Trump put workers in federal DEIA and accessibility positions on administrative leave.

The following week, a tragic plane crash outside Washington, D.C., killed 67 people. Trump, without any evidence, blamed the crash on unidentified disabled workers in the Federal Aviation Administration, enumerating a wide and seemingly unrelated list of disabilities that, in his mind, meant that workers lacked the “special talent” to work at the FAA.

Advocates quickly pushed back, pointing out that disabled workers meet all qualifications for federal and private sector jobs they are hired to perform.

2. The federal workforce

Many government disability programs have complex rules designed to limit the number of people who qualify for support.

For instance, I study supplemental security income, a federal program that provides very modest cash support – on average, totaling US$697 a month in 2024 – to 7.4 million people who are disabled, blind or over 65 if they also have very low income and assets.

It can take months or even years for someone to go through the process to initially document their disability and finances and show they qualify for SSI. Once approved, many beneficiaries want to make sure they don’t accidentally put their benefits at risk in situations where they are working very limited hours, for example.

To get answers, they can go to a Social Security office or call an agency phone line. But there are already not enough agency workers to process applications or answer questions quickly. I spoke in 2022 with more than 10 SSI beneficiaries who waited on hold for hours while they tried to get more information about their cases, only to receive unclear or conflicting information.

Such situations may grow even more severe, as Trump and billionaire Elon Musk try to eliminate large numbers of federal employee positions. So far, tens of thousands of federal workers have been laid off from their jobs in 2025. More layoffs may be coming – on Feb. 12, 2025, Trump instructed federal agency heads to prepare for further “large-scale reductions in force.”

At the same time, multiple Social Security Administration offices have also been marked for closure since January 2025. An overall effect of these changes will be fewer workers to answer questions from disabled citizens.

3. Educational opportunities

Students with disabilities, like all students, are legally entitled to a free public education. This right is guaranteed under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, passed in 1975. IDEA is enforced by the federal Education Department.

But Trump is reportedly in the process of dismantling the Education Department, with the goal of eventually closing it. It is not clear what this will mean for Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act enforcement, but one possibility is laid out in the Project 2025 Mandate for Leadership, a policy blueprint with broad support in Trump’s administration.

Project 2025 proposes that Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act funds “should be converted into a no-strings formula block grant.” Block grants are a funding structure by which federal funds are reduced and each state is given a lump sum rather than designating the programs the funds will support. In practice, this can mean that states divert the money to other programs or policy areas, which can create opportunities for funds to be misused.

With block grants, local school districts would be subject to less federal oversight meant to ensure that they provide every student with an adequate education. Families who already must fight to ensure that their children receive the schooling they deserve will be put on weaker footing if the federal government signals that states can redirect the money as they wish.

4. Health care

Before President Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law in 2010, many disabled people lived with the knowledge that an insurer could regard a disability as a preexisting condition and thereby deny them coverage or charge more for their insurance.

The ACA prohibited insurance companies from charging more or denying coverage based on preexisting conditions.

Republicans have long opposed the ACA, with House Speaker Mike Johnson promising before the 2024 election to pursue an agenda of “No Obamacare.”

About 15 million disabled people have health insurance through Medicaid, a federal health insurance program that covers more than 74 million low-income people. But large Medicaid cuts are also on the Republican agenda.

These deep cuts might include turning Medicaid into another block grant. They could also partly take the form of imposing work requirements for Medicaid beneficiaries, which could serve as grounds on which to disqualify people from receiving benefits.

While proponents of work requirements often claim that disabled people will be exempt, research shows that many will still lose health coverage, and that Medicaid coverage itself often supports people who are working.

Medicaid is also a crucial source of funding for home- and community-based services, including personal attendants who help many people perform daily activities and live on their own. This helps disabled people live independently in their communities, rather than in institutional settings. Notably, Project 2025 points to so-called “nonmedical” services covered under Medicaid as part of the program’s “burden” on states.

When home- and community-based services are unavailable, some disabled people have no options but to move into nursing homes. One recent analysis found that nursing homes housed roughly 210,000 long-term residents under age 65 with disabilities. Many nursing facilities are understaffed, which contributed to the brutal toll of the COVID-19 pandemic in nursing homes.

In response to both the pandemic and years of advocacy, the Biden administration mandated higher staffing ratios at nursing homes receiving Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement. But Republicans are eyeing repealing that rule, according to Politico’s reporting.

Daunting task

Tracking potential changes to disability policy is a complicated endeavor. There is no federal department of disability policy, for example.

Instead, relevant laws and programs are spread throughout what we often think of as separate policy areas. So while disability policy includes obvious areas such as the Americans with Disabilities Act, it is also vitally relevant in areas such as immigration and emergency response.

These issues of health care, education and more could impact millions of lives, but they are far from the only ones where Trump administration changes threaten to harm disabled people.

Different programs have their own definitions of disability, which people seeking assistance must work to keep track of.

This was a daunting task in 2024. Now it may become even more difficult.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Matthew Borus, Binghamton University, State University of New York

Read more:

• Why including people with disabilities in the workforce and higher education benefits everyone
• Trump’s claims of vast presidential powers run up against Article 2 of the Constitution and exceed previous presidents’ power grabs
• Parents with disabilities have faced discrimination for years in the US, but new rules will help ensure that child welfare systems treat them more fairly

Matthew Borus received funding in the past from ARDRAW, a small grant program for graduate students working on disability research. The program was run by Policy Research, Inc. and funded by the Social Security Administration. The opinions and conclusions expressed here are solely the author’s.

Feature Image: Disabled people’s employment rights and access to free health care are among the policy issues that the Trump administration is aiming to change. Catherine McQueen/Moment/Getty Images

The post Trump’s changes to federal disability policy: A threat to millions appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

By Rabiah Burks, National Legal Aid & Defender Association 

The National Legal Aid & Defender Association (NLADA), founded in 1911, is America’s oldest and largest nonprofit association devoted to excellence in the delivery of legal services to those who cannot afford counsel. Our membership is comprised of civil legal aid and public defense attorneys, community advocates, and clients. NLADA has pioneered access to justice at the national, state and local levels. A leader in the development of national standards for civil legal aid and public defense, NLADA also provides advocacy, training, and technical assistance for equal justice advocates across the country.

The following guide is intended to help explain some of the nuances of the impact of stop-work orders on civil legal aid and public defense. Today’s explainer builds on more than 114 years of NLADA’s work in the public defense and civil legal aid space. 

The impact of the attempted Federal Funding freeze on Civil Legal Aid and Public Defense Institutions

NLADA’s community of advocates—including civil legal aid, public defense, and representatives of low-income and marginalized communities—work daily to uphold the government’s commitment to safety and stability. This community both receives federal funding to provide services and in turn provides services to help clients access vital federally-funded supports.

At the heart of NLADA’s mission are individuals directly impacted by government policies who can not afford legal services. Civil legal aid and public defense stand in the gap providing those critical legal services and have been historically underfunded. And this is despite a glaring need for their services. The Bureau of Justice Statistics in the U.S. Department of Justice states that approximately 66% of felony federal defendants and 82% of felony defendants in large state courts were represented by public defenders or assigned counsel. According to the Legal Services Corporation, which administers federal funding to nonprofit legal aid organizations across the country, around 92% of low-income Americans are forced to address civil issues without proper legal assistance. Federal funding cuts will decimate an already fragile system and impact people’s ability to access legal representation and secure essential resources.

Federal funding is essential to fulfilling the government’s obligation to ensure safety and stability for people across the country.  This funding serves three primary functions:

• Direct Federal Purchases: The government acquires services and products to meet its responsibilities to the public.
• Direct Assistance to Individuals: Programs like Medicaid and Veterans benefits directly benefit individuals and families. Civil legal aid and public defenders ensure that people are not wrongfully denied access to these entitlements.
• Support for External Service Providers: Funds enable organizations (like civil legal aid and public defenders) to support community development, veterans’ services, and other essential programs.

NLADA’s legal advocates receive funding through direct grants or as sub-grantees of state and local government agencies. Various federal agencies provide millions of dollars in funding to support life-saving legal services including:

• Department of Justice
• Department of Veterans Affairs
• Department of Housing and Urban Development
• Health and Human Services
• Department of Education
• Social Security Administration
• And many more…

This funding helps ensure:

• Family stability through child welfare and family reunification services
• Holistic legal services that provide alternatives to incarceration
• Access to safe and affordable housing
• Education support, including special education plans and ending the school-to-prison pipeline
• Access to veterans’ benefits, food security, and employment assistance
• Critical healthcare, including opioid crisis intervention
• Protection against illegal debt collection

Impact of Other Recent Government Actions:

Recent executive orders and funding freezes have had a chilling effect on legal services nationwide. Without federal funding, offices nationwide would have to close, leaving millions of people without legal help.

These actions have:

• Disrupted Critical Services: We have heard from a veteran’s services program who had people coming in who were not able to access medication because healthcare access was frozen. The inability to access mental health services is critical, even one missed dose or consultation at its most devastating, can result in loss of life. But it also can set off a downward spiral that causes loss of employment, housing, and stability – you could view this also as a loss of life.”
• Impacted Legal Representation: Legal services providers, both civil and criminal, were unable to use funds that support time-sensitive and life-saving services. For example: acquiring protective orders in domestic violence cases, assisting with access to treatment services, and halting evictions and pursuing housing stability. They also were flooded with the need to help clients access direct support (SNAP, health care, housing), which reduced their ability to provide other life-saving services.
• Created Operational Uncertainty: Offices struggled to stay open, retain staff, and continue assisting clients amid funding freezes.
• Threatened Criminal Prosecution of Legal Professionals: Public defenders and legal aid attorneys face an environment of legal and ethical uncertainty in serving their clients. This country has decided that people are entitled to legal counsel in certain cases – in cases where someone is facing the full force of the state, in order to ensure fairness in the legal system.

Public defenders cannot refuse to represent people, regardless of immigration or any other defining characteristic that may be singled out. This is a constitutional right. This country also has decided that people facing immigration proceedings are entitled to legal representation, and for decades, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) has provided funding for those services. Our legal advocates do not discriminate in choosing clients; they are bound by a code of ethics and commitment to serve millions of people in need of legal help in every part of this country.

The post Legal aid and public defense offices at risk due to federal funding freeze appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

By Jay L. Zagorsky, Boston University

In the middle of Super Bowl LIX, President Donald Trump posted on social media that he was getting rid of the penny. Since the lowly penny in 2024 cost about 3.7 cents to make – meaning the government loses money on every coin – the announcement might seem practical at first glance. But does the president have the power to kill off the penny?

I’m a business school professor and a longtime advocate for physical money who has written op-eds supporting the penny in The Wall Street Journal and CNN. My forthcoming book, “The Power of Cash,” explores the many advantages of using old-fashioned currency. Yet inflation has slashed the value of the penny by a third in just the past decade, and even I now admit that its time is up.

But eliminating the penny via a social media post isn’t just legally dubious. It could cause more problems than it solves.

The penny problem

Critics see the penny as a shining example of government waste. Last year, the U.S. Mint lost US$85 million making pennies, according to the bureau’s annual report. It also lost about $18 million minting nickels. Now, to be clear, just because the mint didn’t make money on pennies or nickels doesn’t mean it’s losing money overall. In 2024, the mint earned a profit of about $100 million making the country’s pocket change. Still, $85 million is no small sum.

Meanwhile, public opinion on the penny is split. Some surveys show support for it, but it has plenty of opponents. Many of my students cite carrying around “nuisance coins” like the penny as a reason for switching away from using cash.

The good news, for those who dislike the penny, is that the coin is disappearing on its own. The U.S. Mint has made about 5 billion pennies annually throughout the 2020s — down from about 11 billion each year in the 1990s. So far in 2025, it has only made about a quarter of a million pennies.

But is it legal?

Setting aside people’s feelings toward the penny, the problem with the president’s order, I think, is that only Congress can change the type of coins the mint produces.

To be fair, some defenders of the president’s order believe his actions are legal. But the U.S. Constitution’s Article 1, Section 8 – which gives Congress the power to do important things like levy taxes, pay debts and declare war – also authorizes Congress “to coin money.”

Now the phrase “to coin money” is vague. To fix that, the United States’ second Congress passed the Coinage Act of 1792, which was signed into law by President George Washington. The act, which lays out how the mint operates and what it produces, says it must produce “Cents – each to be of the value of the one hundredth part of a dollar, and to contain eleven penny-weights of copper.”

Congress can modify this act anytime it wants – and it has. The 1792 act also required the mint to produce “Half Cents – each to be of the value of half a cent.” These coins were eliminated in 1857 by an act of Congress. Similarly, before 1965, many U.S. coins were made out of silver. After a 1965 congressional amendment to the act passed, they were made out of a cheaper composite.

And lawmakers have tried several times to eliminate the penny. In 1989, for example, Arizona Rep. Jim Hayes proposed the Price Rounding Act, which called for cash purchases to be rounded to the nearest nickel. It didn’t pass. More recently, in 2017, Republican Senator John McCain introduced the COINS act, which would have eliminated the minting of pennies. The bill also proposed switching the paper one-dollar bill to a metal coin. It, too, didn’t pass.

What happens if pennies go?

Since Congress has failed to eliminate the penny in the past, Trump is trying to do so via a direct order to the Treasury secretary. However, many of Trump’s actions are being challenged in court. For the sake of argument, let’s assume no one challenges the order to kill off production of the penny.

A big problem remains. Even if the U.S. stopped making pennies, they’d remain legal tender and people would still need them as change. In simple terms, the supply would change, but not the demand.

Past efforts to phase out the penny have tried to deal with this problem by requiring rounding, but Trump’s effort doesn’t do this. I think it’s entirely possible that people opposed to Trump would organize national “Demand your penny in change” days in an attempt to embarrass the president.

The U.S. government loses less than $10 million a month minting pennies. In theory, Congress could pass legislation eliminating the penny and requiring rounding within a month or two. The cost to the government for doing things legally is low. If the penny has to go, let Congress do it the right way.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Jay L. Zagorsky, Boston University

Read more:

• ‘No cash accepted’ signs are bad news for millions of unbanked Americans
• I tried to pay my taxes in cash – here’s what happened, and why the IRS should make it easier to do so
• In defense of cash: why we should bring back the 0 note and other big bills

Jay L. Zagorsky does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

The post Can the president really kill off the penny – and should he? appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

By Alexa Helwig, alexa.helwig@mail.house.gov

Congressman Greg Landsman (D-OH-01) while President Trump’s proposal for the United States to “take over” the Gaza Strip may or may not be serious, he still is an unserious person and it’s an unserious plan. 

“There are three huge problems with his ‘proposal,’ Landsman said. “First, he’s added a third list of places he would send American troops without any real consideration – Greenland, Panama and now Gaza.

“Second, the path to peace is through Saudi Arabia and other Arab Nations who will not work with us or Israel if this is the plan. The effort to normalize relations with Saudi Arabia and Israel, bring a coalition of Arab nations together to help rebuild Gaza and establish a legitimate governing authority in Gaza, is essential. Trump’s rhetoric undermines this path to peace.

“Third, we’re in the middle of a ceasefire and need that to hold so every single hostage, including Americans, are brought home.”

Landsman has traveled to Israel and the Middle East over a dozen times, including four times in his first term as a member of Congress. He also worked in Israel from 2015-2020, prior to becoming a member of Congress, supporting philanthropic efforts.

The post Rep. Landsman comments on President Trump’s proposal for Gaza  appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

Contributed

According to news reports, an order from Donald Trump‘s administration has ordered the Pentagon to stop Black History Month activities and many more celebrations. In a memo to the Pentagon’s intelligence agency, the White House revealed that all activities related to Black History Month are now banned.    According to MSNBC, the Defense Intelligence Agency followed up with a statement, saying the department is pausing all activities related to 11 “special observances” in compliance with Trump’s ban on diversity, equity and inclusion programs.

The agency has also made plans to eliminate several other celebrations dedicated to minority groups. That includes banning Asian American Pacific Islander Heritage Month, National American Indian Heritage Month, LGBTQ Pride Month, Women’s History Month, Juneteenth, Martin Luther King Jr. Day and Holocaust Remembrance Day.

Martin Luther King III responded to the Trump administration in a statement he made on X, saying he will fight to protect his father’s legacy now more than ever.

The post Trump’s bans Pentagon’s Black History Month activities, sparks backlash appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .