On August 21, 2025, the Trump administration rolled out a sweeping new policy that’s already shaking the foundations of federal health programs across the United States. The move, which mandates monthly eligibility checks for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), is touted by supporters as a way to safeguard taxpayer dollars and ensure that only those who are truly eligible receive benefits. But critics warn it could spell trouble for millions—especially seniors and those with chronic health issues—by making it harder to keep their coverage uninterrupted.
At the heart of the policy is a directive for states to verify the citizenship or immigration status of every Medicaid and CHIP beneficiary each month. If there’s any uncertainty, states are required to request additional documentation and, if necessary, adjust or suspend coverage. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is leading the charge, aligning the effort with an executive order signed by President Trump that calls for greater scrutiny of federally funded programs providing economic benefits to immigrants.
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. didn’t mince words, emphasizing the need to protect Medicaid from abuse and ensure it serves only those who are legally eligible. Dr. Mehmet Oz, the CMS Administrator, echoed this sentiment, saying that “safeguarding resources for vulnerable populations” is the administration’s top priority. According to the administration, these measures are crucial for maintaining the integrity of Medicaid and CHIP, both of which provide vital health coverage for low-income families, children, and the elderly.
But the policy’s real-world impact is already sparking fierce debate. States now must cross-check beneficiaries’ information with federal databases like the Social Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security’s SAVE program every month. If a person’s status can’t be confirmed, their coverage could be disrupted—potentially leaving them without access to essential medical services. The CMS has clarified that individuals without satisfactory immigration status will only receive limited services under specific circumstances, further narrowing the safety net.
New York Attorney General Letitia James is leading a coalition of 20 other attorneys general in a lawsuit against the Trump administration, arguing that the new requirements hinder health, education, and social services programs from serving all residents, regardless of immigration status. James warns that these directives could jeopardize everything from cancer screenings and early childhood education to primary care, posing a serious threat to public health. “These measures jeopardize cancer screenings, early childhood education, primary care, and more, posing a serious threat to public health,” James said, underscoring the gravity of the situation for vulnerable populations.
The implications are especially dire for seniors with major health issues. For those who rely on Medicaid for treatments and regular check-ups, even a brief interruption in coverage could have life-altering consequences. Unlike Medicare, which is federally administered, Medicaid is a joint federal and state program, meaning that eligibility requirements and benefits can vary widely from state to state. This patchwork system could lead to inconsistent application of the new verification rules, with some states enforcing them more stringently than others. The result? A potential minefield for beneficiaries trying to navigate their coverage.
In Tulsa, U.S. Representative Kevin Hern weighed in on the unfolding changes during a forum hosted by the Tulsa Regional Chamber. Hern, a Republican, praised the new work requirements tied to Medicaid, which are scheduled to take effect over the next few years. “What we don’t want to do is waste benefits on people who are able to take care of themselves,” Hern said, pointing to a March 2025 poll by the Paragon Health Institute—a think tank founded by a former Trump advisor—that found more than 80% of Americans support work requirements for Medicaid.
However, polling on the issue is far from unanimous. A separate March 2025 survey by KFF (the Kaiser Family Foundation) showed that about 62% of American voters supported work requirements for Medicaid, but only 17% favored decreasing Medicaid funding. This divergence highlights the complexity of public sentiment: while there’s broad support for encouraging work among those who can, most Americans are wary of cutting back on Medicaid’s overall resources.
Hern acknowledged the uncertainty surrounding the full impact of what’s been dubbed Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill,” especially for local healthcare systems. “I didn’t know just how sweeping the impacts would be,” he admitted. Yet, he remained optimistic about the potential benefits of work requirements, framing them as a common-sense reform that resonates with the American public. “An 80%+…most popular thing in America is for people to work if they are able to work in America,” Hern stated, referencing the Paragon Health Institute poll.
On another front, Hern expressed cautious optimism about President Trump’s trade policies, particularly the use of tariffs. “If we use tariffs as a negotiating tool to get people to the table, I’m all for it. If we’re using it as a weapon, I’m not,” Hern said. He even likened his position to that of “one of the most liberal persons on [the] Ways and Means Committee,” suggesting a rare moment of bipartisan agreement on the strategy behind tariffs.
But Hern was also candid in his criticism of the administration’s legislative tactics, referring to them as “blunt force trauma.” He made it clear that while he supports the goals of the new Medicaid policies, he’s not always on board with the methods used to push them through Congress. “I don’t always agree with what I call the Trump administration’s use of ‘blunt force trauma’ when it comes to moving legislation forward,” Hern said, highlighting the internal debates even among supporters of the broader agenda.
As the policy takes effect, states are scrambling to implement the new monthly verification requirements. The risk, according to health advocates and legal experts, is that eligible beneficiaries—especially seniors and those with complex health needs—could fall through the cracks due to paperwork errors, delays, or confusion over new documentation rules. The administrative burden on state agencies is also expected to rise, potentially straining resources and leading to backlogs.
The controversy surrounding the Trump administration’s Medicaid overhaul is unlikely to fade anytime soon. Supporters argue that the changes are necessary to ensure the program’s long-term sustainability and to prevent fraud. Opponents counter that the policy is punitive, disproportionately affects the most vulnerable, and undermines the fundamental purpose of Medicaid as a safety net for those in need.
As the legal battle unfolds and states adapt to the new reality, millions of Americans are left in limbo—wondering whether their next doctor’s visit will be covered, and what the future holds for the programs they depend on. The coming months will reveal just how far-reaching the effects of these changes will be, both for the nation’s health care system and for the individuals who rely on it every day.