FACT FOCUS: RFK Jr. misleads on Medicaid cuts

In a series of recent Congressional hearings, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has repeatedly disputed lawmakers’ characterizations of Medicaid funding changes in President Donald Trump’s 2025 tax and spending legislation, creating confusion about the true impact of the law on the healthcare safety net program.

During multiple budget hearings, Democratic lawmakers raised alarms about potential effects on rural hospitals and vulnerable Americans who rely on Medicaid for healthcare coverage. Kennedy consistently interrupted these concerns, insisting that no cuts to Medicaid have occurred.

“There are no cuts to Medicaid,” Kennedy stated during one particularly contentious exchange. “We are increasing Medicaid spending by 47% over the next 10 years. Increasing spending by 47%. How is that a cut? That is only a cut in Washington, D.C.”

However, healthcare policy experts and Medicaid analysts challenge Kennedy’s characterization, describing it as misleading political rhetoric that obscures the reality of the legislation’s impact. The tax and spending bill enacted significant changes to Medicaid, including new work requirements and eligibility restrictions, which the Congressional Budget Office projects will reduce program spending by nearly $1 trillion over the next decade.

Kennedy’s defense rests on the fact that Medicaid spending will still increase in absolute dollar terms over the next ten years, citing a February Congressional Budget Office report showing 47% nominal growth over that period. His staff has pointed to these projections to support his claim that no cuts have occurred.

This argument fails to acknowledge that Medicaid spending would have grown more substantially without the new restrictions, experts say. The natural growth in spending results from factors including population changes, rising healthcare costs, and inflation – not from maintaining or enhancing current service levels.

“This is an old, sort of tired argument that’s been used by conservatives to justify spending cuts by saying, well, if spending is still growing in nominal terms, somehow there wasn’t a cut,” explained Edwin Park, a research professor at Georgetown University. “The federal government is spending nearly a trillion dollars less than it otherwise would have in the absence of the legislation.”

Sara Rosenbaum, professor emerita at George Washington University’s school of public health, was more blunt in her assessment of Kennedy’s rhetoric. Drawing on her 51-year career studying Medicaid, she called the secretary’s claims “absurd,” noting, “They cut a trillion dollars.”

The Trump administration and Republican lawmakers have defended these Medicaid reforms as necessary measures to eliminate fraud and improve program integrity. They position the changes as targeting individuals who shouldn’t qualify for benefits rather than affecting legitimately eligible beneficiaries.

“To be clear, HHS is taking steps to ensure Medicaid serves those it is intended to support,” said Department of Health and Human Services spokesman Andrew Nixon. “These actions are not cuts — they are focused on addressing waste, fraud, and abuse to better position the program for those who rely on it.”

Critics counter that the increased administrative hurdles and more stringent eligibility verification requirements will inevitably cause eligible Americans to lose coverage. Park warned that the changes would result in “many more uninsured people, and people going without needed care.”

The disagreement highlights the ongoing political battle over safety net programs and how government officials characterize policy changes that reduce projected spending. While Kennedy insists no cuts have occurred because overall spending continues to rise, healthcare experts maintain that reducing projected spending growth by $1 trillion represents a significant and consequential cut to the program that millions of vulnerable Americans rely on for healthcare access.