Even though the previous administration is gone, its regulatory impact lingers on, affecting older adults, businesses, and the broader economy. The Trump administration has been attempting to swiftly undo some of these policies, but it’s not just about what happens in the executive branch—the courts have a significant role, too.
Recently, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals discussed a case that might challenge a notable aspect of the Biden administration’s agenda. This situation revolves around how federal power is applied to penalize political adversaries, particularly examining Florida’s challenge to a sudden change in Medicaid rules. This shift seems to unfairly target states under Republican leadership, enabling those governed by Democrats to advance programs like gender confirmation initiatives.
Reports indicate that the Biden administration unexpectedly revamped Medicaid regulations by imposing harsh new restrictions on Medicaid funds. Historically, Medicaid funding arrangements have helped hospitals assist vulnerable populations in both red and blue states. However, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) abruptly deemed these arrangements illegal. Consequently, states such as Florida, Texas, and Missouri find themselves penalized, while states like California seemingly escape scrutiny.
An email obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request shows that CMS simultaneously made these decisions while encouraging cuts in federal funding for states like Florida. One email insinuated this was a strategy to influence conservative immigration policies.
Traditionally, both Republican and Democrat administrations have navigated Medicaid funds with respect and flexibility. Hence, this sudden enforcement seems to be more politically motivated than genuinely policy-based.
It’s crucial to point out that it’s inappropriate for Republicans to manipulate the law against their opponents, and it’s equally wrong when Democrats do it. The current situation, with Democrats targeting particular states, certainly calls for scrutiny.
The underlying logic behind this effort highlights a glaring double standard.
Rory Howe, a CMS staff member, has led initiatives that undermine Medicaid funding for red states while simultaneously approving Medicaid expenditures for gender confirmation procedures in Washington. In effect, as red states are punished for established funding practices, blue states receive incentives with fresh uses of Medicaid funds unrelated to providing for the needy.
Remember, Donald Trump was a target of similar legal maneuvers. When he couldn’t be defeated at the polls, his opponents turned to the courts—this approach not only aimed to indict him but also to dismantle his campaign through a torrent of legal challenges. Similar tactics have been employed against conservative governors, dragging them through legal battles and bureaucratic obstacles.
The practical impact in states like Florida and Texas is severe. The loss of Medicaid funding under these new rules creates significant budgetary gaps, forcing difficult decisions about taxation or even the closure of rural hospitals. Everyday Americans could find themselves without necessary care, simply due to political motivations instead of principled policies.
The law shouldn’t become a tool for partisan retaliation. While technical discussions might narrow this debate, the essential issue stands out: if federal agencies can reinterpret regulations to punish certain states today, there’s nothing stopping them from targeting other groups in the future.
Recent years have shown that this use of lawfare is eroding trust in our institutions. Many Americans feel that the system is rigged—a sentiment that’s become quite common. To reverse this harmful trend, the courts need to draw a clear line and assert that it’s unacceptable.
A fair ruling from the 11th Circuit could reinforce limits on partisan enforcement and ensure that regulations don’t morph into weapons for political advantage.
Retaliatory actions against political opponents, whether they’re from Republicans or Democrats, should not become standard practice in American governance. It’s our hope that the 11th Circuit recognizes this and acts accordingly.
