Medicaid reform in President Donald Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ has drawn a partisan line through Congress. 

Democrats have railed against potential Medicaid cuts since Trump was elected, while Republicans have celebrated Medicaid reform through the reconciliation process as an efficient way to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse in the welfare program. 

Fox News Digital asked lawmakers from both ends of the political spectrum to react to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act’s Medicaid reform. The results were as expectedly divided. 

‘This is all B.S., what the Democrats are doing,’ Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., told Fox News Digital. ‘They’re pushing the agenda that we’re cutting 10 million people off Medicaid. It’s people that actually shouldn’t be on it, illegals that shouldn’t be on it. We’re reforming it.’

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), a nonpartisan federal agency that has been ridiculed by Republicans, estimated this week that Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ would leave 10.9 million people without health insurance, including 1.4 million who are in the country without legal status in state-funded programs.

But Republicans are holding firm in their defense of Medicaid reform, which Republicans say only cuts benefits to illegal immigrants, those ineligible to receive benefits who are currently receiving benefits, duplicate enrollees in one or more states and those who are able but choosing not to work. 

‘The people who would not continue to get Medicaid benefits under this bill were not qualified to get them in the first place,’ Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., told Fox News Digital. 

Democrats continue to sound off on the healthcare threat of eliminating 10 million people from Medicaid. Not a single House Democrat voted to pass Trump’s championed legislation, which includes fulfilling key campaign promises like cutting taxes, immigration reform and American energy production. 

‘These burdensome regulatory requirements for proving that somebody has obtained or sought work are going to mean millions of people will go without healthcare, and the restrictions on food assistance are equally an obstacle to people meeting their everyday needs,’ Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said. 

Blumenthal added he is ‘very, very concerned about these seemingly cruel and unproductive ways of raising money simply to finance tax cuts’ for ‘wealthy billionaires.’

New Jersey Democratic Sen. Andy Kim said he is happy to have an ‘honest conversation’ about government efficiency and saving taxpayer dollars, but that’s not the reality of this bill. 

‘People are struggling, and I feel like, in the richest, most powerful country in the world, we should be able to make sure that people can have the basic needs they need to be able to survive,’ Kim said of Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. 

Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., told Fox News Digital there is ‘nothing beautiful’ about Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill.’

‘This is horrific, and it adds massive amounts to our debt, compromising our ability to [fund] the fundamentals in the future, foundations for families to thrive — health care, housing, education, good-paying jobs. That’s what we should be doing here, not doing massive tax cuts for billionaires and paying for them by tearing down programs for ordinary families,’ Merkley said. 

The national debt stands at more than $36.2 trillion as of June 5, according to the Fox Business, based on data from the Treasury Department.

The CBO’s report this week also estimated Trump’s bill will cut taxes by $3.7 trillion while raising deficits by $2.4 trillion over a decade. 

Fox News’ Anders Hagstrom and Eric Revell contributed to this report. 

The fallout between Elon Musk and President Donald Trump is an evolving situation marked by a public blowup on Thursday, but their relationship ties back to Trump’s first term and even earlier.

A November 2016 CNBC interview with the Tesla CEO, who’s now the richest man in the world, took a critical tone of the now president just days before he was elected president in an upset that signified the strength of the populist movement. 

‘Honestly, I think Hillary’s economic policies and her environmental policies particularly are the right ones, you know, but yeah. Also, I don’t think this is the finest moment in our democracy at all,’ Musk said.

‘Well, I feel a bit stronger that probably he’s not the right guy. He just doesn’t seem to have the sort of character that reflects well on the United States,’ he later added in the interview.  

During Trump’s first term, Musk was part of some of his economic advisory councils, which often includes CEOs, but ultimately left his post because he disagreed with the president’s move to exit the Paris Climate Accords.

‘Am departing presidential councils. Climate change is real. Leaving Paris is not good for America or the world,’ Musk posted at the time.

The two continued to have an on-and-off relationship, but there were some positive signs in May 2020.

‘Elon Musk, congratulations.  Congratulations, Elon. Thanks, Elon. For Elon and 8,000 SpaceX employees, today is the fulfillment of a dream almost two decades in the making,’ Trump said at the Kennedy Space Center in May 2020.

And at the SpaceX Demo-2 launch, Trump said he and Musk communicate regularly.

‘Well, I won’t get into it.  But, yeah — but I speak to him all the time.  Great guy.  He’s one of our great brains.  We like great brains.  And Elon has done a fantastic job,’ he said.

Fast forward to 2022, when Musk purchased Twitter and renamed it X, and brought back Trump’s account that November, after it was suspended after the events of Jan. 6, 2021. In 2022, Musk also announced that he would vote Republican, but indicated he would back Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis if he opted to seek the nomination.

DeSantis launched his campaign on X in a ‘space,’ a virtual public event forum, with Musk, who also reportedly significantly financially backed the Florida governor, according to The Wall Street Journal.

However, a major turning point was in July 2024, after the assassination attempt of Trump at a rally in Butler, Penn.

‘I fully endorse President Trump and hope for his rapid recovery,’ Musk posted.

Musk then campaigned for the president, including a famous moment when he was jumping on stage at his comeback rally in Butler.

‘I want to say what an honor it is to be here and, you know, the true test of someone’s character is how they behave under fire, right?’ Musk said at the rally. ‘And we had one president who couldn’t climb a flight of stairs and another who was fist pumping after getting shot.’

‘This is no ordinary election,’ the tech CEO continued. ‘The other side wants to take away your freedom of speech.’

‘Just be a pest to everyone,’ he added. ‘You know, people on the street everywhere: Vote, vote, vote!’

The tech billionaire spent roughly $300 million through America PAC to boost swing state voter efforts, including Pennsylvania. 

By the time the presidential election rolled around, Trump and Musk appeared to be close friends as the Tesla CEO was with Trump in Mar-a-Lago on election night. Over the next few days, Musk remained in Florida and was reportedly advising Trump on appointments and policy as the transition to a new administration kicked off. 

A week later, shortly before Musk and the new president appeared at a SpaceX launch together in Texas, Trump announced that Musk and tech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy would be heading up the Department of Government Efficiency in an effort to rid the government of waste, fraud, and abuse. 

Trump described the pair as ‘two wonderful Americans’ and although Ramaswamy left that post in January and is now running for governor in Ohio, Musk stayed on and quickly became the face of an agency that made him the main target of attacks from Democrats pushing back on spending cuts that they argued were too drastic.

Protests erupted nationwide against Musk and DOGE including violent outbursts at his Tesla dealerships that tanked the company’s stock and were labeled as acts of ‘domestic terrorism’ by the Justice Department. 

During the first few months of the year, Musk and Trump were spotted together at several viral events including a UFC fight, an Oval Office meeting where Musk’s son ‘Little X’ stole the show, and a cabinet meeting in late February where Musk was the main focus. 

In March, Trump hosted Elon at a Tesla showcase in front of the White House amid a dip in Tesla stock where the president told reporters he was purchasing a Tesla while touting the company.

As Musk’s time at DOGE began to wind down, his employee classification allowed him to serve for 130 days, the newly formed agency had become the poster child of anti-Trump sentiment from Democrats who consistently attacked the $175 billion in spending cuts that DOGE estimated it delivered.

Signs of fracture in the relationship began showing in late May when Musk took a public shot at Trump’s ‘big beautiful bill’ as it made its way through Congress. 

‘I was disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly, which increases the budget deficit, not just decreases it, and undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing,’ Musk said.

Two days later, Musk announced his official departure from DOGE.

‘As my scheduled time as a Special Government Employee comes to an end, I would like to thank President @realDonaldTrump for the opportunity to reduce wasteful spending,’ Musk said, adding that the effects of DOGE ‘will only strengthen over time as it becomes a way of life throughout the government.’

DOGE, which fell short of Musk’s initial goal of slashing $1 trillion in spending which Musk said he still remains optimistic will happen in the future, will continue its work without Musk, who said, ‘I look forward to continuing to be a friend and adviser to the president.’

That optimistic tone shifted drastically on June 3 when Musk took to X, the platform he owns, and blasted the budget reconciliation bill calling it ‘a disgusting abomination’ and criticizing the Republicans who voted for it. 

‘KILL THE BILL,’ Musk said the next day.

A day after that, on Thursday, the feud hit a fever pitch.

While speaking with reporters in the Oval Office, Trump said that he was ‘very disappointed’ by Musk’s vocal criticisms of the bill. The president claimed that Musk knew what was in the bill and ‘had no problem’ with it until the EV incentives had to be cut.

On X, Musk called that assessment ‘false.’

Trump turned to social media to criticize Musk, who he appointed to find ways to cut $2 trillion after forming the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

‘Elon was ‘wearing thin,’ I asked him to leave, I took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted (that he knew for months I was going to do!), and he just went CRAZY!’ Trump said in one post.

In another post, Trump said, ‘I don’t mind Elon turning against me, but he should have done so months ago. This is one of the Greatest Bills ever presented to Congress. It’s a Record Cut in Expenses, $1.6 Trillion Dollars, and the Biggest Tax Cut ever given.’

‘If this Bill doesn’t pass, there will be a 68% tax increase, and things far worse than that. I didn’t create this mess, I’m just here to FIX IT. This puts our Country on a Path of Greatness. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!’

At one point, Musk referenced late pedophile Jeffrey Epstein in relation to Trump as part of the larger tirade in a comment that several Republicans told Fox News Digital went ‘too far.’

Other posts from Musk included a claim that Trump would not have won the election without his help while accusing Trump of ‘ingratitude.’ In another post, Musk suggested that Trump should be impeached and replaced by Vice President Vance. 

It is unclear if a resolution to the feud is coming in the next few days. Fox News Digital reported on Friday morning that Musk wants to speak to Trump and that White House aides could possibly broker a meeting.

Trump told Fox News on Friday that he isn’t interested in talking to Musk, adding that ‘Elon’s totally lost it.’

Trump also said to Fox News’ Bret Baier that he isn’t worried about Musk’s suggestion to form a new political party, citing favorable polls and strong support from Republicans on Capitol Hill.

The massive Ukrainian drone strike on Russia has strong implications for the future of all warfare. The sophisticated operation taught us that the use of low-cost, highly scalable, lethal drone technology is here to stay. Our leaders must pay attention, because the Ukraine-Russia war is a blueprint for not only how we will fight future wars but how we will have to defend ourselves from a more sophisticated and capable enemy than ever before.   

America’s defense leaders need to start reflecting on the realities of modern warfare and fully understand that, as a country, we are not ready. Some people still want to try and deny these very small, handheld first-person view (FPV) drones that cost only a few hundred dollars are not the future of warfare.  

They need to wake up. That’s the wrong mentality, and it makes the U.S. less prepared. In the case of the Ukraine operation, they utilized a few good sources, some cheap trucks, and low-cost drones with munitions that managed to destroy over 40 strategic bombers worth billions. Not millions, billions.  

The U.S. government, on the other hand, will spend $10 billion dollars on an aircraft carrier that takes a decade to build and likely now could be destroyed by a modern-day swarm of unmanned surface vehicles, the same ones that have pushed the entire Russian Black Sea Fleet out of the Black Sea.   

Our defense procurement priorities are misguided. The Russians, Ukrainians, Iranians and even the Chinese are starting to treat drones not like we typically do as surveillance. They treat them like they do artillery rounds. This is ammunition and ammunition needs to be produced in massive quantities. They collectively have their manufacturers producing millions per year, yet our government gets excited when a U.S. manufacturer can produce 100 drones a month.   

The Ukraine operation should also highlight just how vulnerable we are as a country to similar attacks from our enemy.  Sadly, history has shown that the U.S. government will likely only change its archaic laws after we have a catastrophic attack on U.S. soil. Currently, we don’t allow for the needed widespread use of counter-drone and electronic warfare systems. We should be asking our leaders, why do we have to wait for fellow Americans to get hurt before doing something?

The truth is, we are not prepared defensively for what the state of drone technology currently is globally. People now easily have access to lethal capabilities at low costs that were before only allotted to first-world countries with massive budgets. The technology is proliferating at an alarming rate.   

Thankfully, we have a few companies up to the task. Andy Yakulis, CEO of the defense startup Vector Defense, focused on preparing our soldiers for the next generation of drone warfare, told me recently that: ‘We don’t have a drone technology problem, we have a contracting problem. We have a federal government and defense department procurement problem. Our defense industrial base is broken, and the big prime contractors just don’t get it and aren’t incentivized to adapt to this modern way of warfare because the money keeps rolling out to the same large defense contractors in from our government. We need to streamline the process for defense innovators, companies who understand the threats.’  

He’s right, the technology and expertise in America exists today to stop future attacks and to protect Americans. We will never fight another war without drone technology and AI playing some of the most critical roles. We just aren’t moving federal government budgets quickly enough to fix it, and we need to before it’s too late.  

President Donald Trump and SpaceX and Tesla CEO Elon Musk engaged in a public feud Thursday, less than a week after the White House held a farewell press conference for Musk highlighting his contributions spearheading the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

Musk departed his tenure as a special government employee with DOGE May 30, but swiftly launched into criticisms of Trump’s massive tax and spending package dubbed the ‘big, beautiful, bill.’ Tuesday, Musk labeled the measure a ‘disgusting abomination’ because of reports it ramps up the federal deficit.

On Thursday, Trump told reporters in the Oval Office that Musk opposed the bill because it eliminates an electric vehicle tax credit that benefits companies like Tesla. But Trump said that provision has always been part of the measure. 

‘I’m very disappointed, because Elon knew the inner workings of this bill better than almost anybody sitting here, better than you people,’ Trump said in the Oval Office in a meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. ‘He knew everything about it. He had no problem with it. All of a sudden he had a problem, and he only developed the problem when he found out that we’re going to have to cut the EV mandate, because that’s billions and billions of dollars, and it really is unfair.’

Musk immediately responded on X to Trump’s statements, urging a removal of the ‘disgusting pork’ included in the measure. He also said it was ‘false’ that he had been shown the measure ‘even once.’

The two continued to publicly spar against one another, with Musk asserting that Trump wouldn’t have won the 2024 election if it weren’t for his own backing. Meanwhile, Trump accused Musk of going ‘CRAZY’ over cuts to the EV credits, and said that Musk had been ‘wearing thin.’ 

Additionally, Trump told Fox News on Friday that ‘Elon’s totally lost it’ and was not interested in speaking over the phone with Musk, despite media reports suggesting that the two would talk. 

Here’s what also happened this week: 

Visit with the chancellor of Germany

Chancellor of Germany Friedrich Merz met with Trump at the White House Thursday, where the two discussed the war in Ukraine. 

While Merz asserted that the U.S. was in a powerful spot to bring a meaningful end to the conflict between Ukraine and Russia, Trump offered that the world might need to ‘let them fight for a little while.’

‘America is again in a very strong position to do something on this war and ending this war,’ Merz said. 

Merz said that Germany was willing to help however it could, and wanted to discuss options to partner with the U.S. to bring peace. Likewise, Merz suggested that European allies exert additional pressure on Russia to end the conflict. 

But Trump said that he told Putin in a recent call that perhaps both countries would need to feel the consequences of fighting more acutely, claiming he had told Putin ‘maybe you’re going to have to keep fighting and suffering a lot.’

‘Sometimes you see two young children fighting like crazy – they hate each other, and they’re fighting in a park, and you try and pull them apart, they don’t want to be pulled,’ Trump said.  ‘Sometimes you’re better off letting them fight for a while and then pulling them apart.’

Call with Xi

Trump spoke with Chinese President Xi Jinping Thursday to discuss trade negotiations between Washington and Beijing. 

‘I just concluded a very good phone call with President Xi, of China, discussing some of the intricacies of our recently made, and agreed to, Trade Deal,’ Trump said Thursday in a Truth Social post. ‘The call lasted approximately one and a half hours, and resulted in a very positive conclusion for both Countries.’

Trump said the conversation had focused ‘almost entirely’ on trade, and that Xi had invited the U.S. president and first lady Melania Trump to visit China. Likewise, Trump reciprocated and invited Xi and his wife, Peng Liyuan, to visit the U.S. 

The call comes nearly a week after Trump condemned China on May 30 for violating an initial trade agreement that the U.S. and China had hashed out in May. And on Wednesday, Trump said Xi was ‘extremely hard to make a deal with’ in a Truth Social post. 

The negotiations from May prompted both countries to agree that the U.S. would lower its tariffs against Chinese imports from 145% to 30%, and China would reduce its tariffs against U.S. imports from 125% to 10%.

Fox News’ Caitlin McFall contributed to this report. 

Some of the White House’s conservative House allies say they’re interpreting the upcoming vote on President Donald Trump’s $9.4 billion spending cut proposal as a ‘test’ of what Congress can achieve in terms of rolling back federal funding.

Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, said he would not speak for members of the Trump administration but added, ‘I do think it is a test.’

‘And I think this is going to demonstrate whether Congress has the fortitude to do what they always say they’ll do,’ Roy said. ‘Cut the minimal amount of spending – $9 billion, NPR, PBS, things you complain about for a long time, or are they going to go back into their parochial politics?’

House GOP leaders unveiled legislation seeking to codify Trump’s spending cut request, known as a rescissions package, on Friday. It’s expected to get a House-wide vote sometime next week.

‘The rescissions request sent to Congress by the Trump Administration takes the federal government in a new direction where we actually cut waste, fraud, and abuse and hold agencies accountable to the American people,’ House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., said in a statement introducing the bill.

The legislation would claw back funding that Congress already appropriated to PBS, NPR, and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) – cuts outlined by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) earlier this year.

And while several Republican leaders and officials have already said they expect to see more rescissions requests down the line, some people who spoke with Fox News Digital believe the White House is watching how Congress handles this first package before deciding on next steps.

‘You’re dead right,’ Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., told Fox News Digital when asked if the rescissions package was a test. ‘I think that it’s a test case – if we can’t get that…then we’re not serious about cutting the budget.’

A rescissions package only needs simple majorities in the House and Senate to pass. But Republicans in both chambers have perilously slim majorities that afford them few defections.

Republicans are also racing the clock – a rescissions package has 45 days to be considered otherwise it is considered rejected and the funding reinstated.

Rep. Lance Gooden, R-Texas, did not directly say whether he viewed the spending cuts as a test but dismissed any potential concerns.

‘This is very low-hanging fruit, and I don’t anticipate any problems,’ Gooden told Fox News Digital.

‘I’ve heard a few comments in the media, but I don’t think they’re serious comments. If someone on the Republican side can make a case for PBS, but they won’t take a tough vote against illegal immigration, then we’ve got a lot of problems.’

Paul Winfree, president and CEO of the Economic Policy Innovation Center (EPIC), told Fox News Digital last week, ‘This first rescissions package from President Trump is a test as to whether Congress has the ability to deliver on his mandate by canceling wasteful spending through a filibuster-proof process.’

‘If they can’t then it’s a signal for the president to turn up the dial with other tools at his disposal,’ Winfree, who served as Director of Budget Policy in the first Trump administration, said.

Both Roy and Norman suggested a process known as ‘pocket rescissions’ could be at least one backup plan – and one that Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought has floated himself.

‘Pocket rescissions’ essentially would mean the White House introduces its spending cut proposal less than 45 days before the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30. In theory, it would run out the clock on those funds and allow them to expire whether Congress acted or not.

Vought told reporters after meeting with Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., on Monday that he wanted to ‘see if it passes’ but was ‘open’ to further rescissions packages.

‘We want to send up general rescissions bills, to use the process if it’s appropriate, to get them through the House and the Senate,’ Vought said. ‘We also have pocket rescissions, which you’ve begun to hear me talk a lot about, to be able to use the end of the fiscal year to send up a similar rescissions, and have the funds expire. So there’s a lot of things that we’re looking at.’

Still, some moderate Republicans may chafe at the conservative spending cuts.

READ THE BILL BELOW: APP USERS CLICK HERE

Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., refused to comment on whether he’d support the legislation before seeing the details but alluded to some concerns.

‘Certainly I’m giving you a non-answer right now until I read the details,’ Bacon said.

‘It does bother me because I have a great rapport with Nebraska Public Radio and TV. I think they’ve been great to work with, and so that would be one I hope they don’t put in.’

He also raised concerns about some specific USAID programs, including critical investments to fight Ebola and HIV in Africa.

The legislation is expected to come before the House Rules Committee, the final gatekeeper before most legislation sees a House-wide vote, on Tuesday afternoon.

It’s separate from Trump’s ‘one big, beautiful bill,’ a broad piece of legislation advancing the president’s tax, energy, and immigration agenda through the budget reconciliation process.