The Trump administration is facing scrutiny for reportedly considering using health care funds to support a potential conflict involving Iran and the U.S. Critics have voiced concern that the proposal could put the well-being of roughly 300,000 Americans at risk.
According to a report by Axios, Republicans are in the early stages of discussions about using health care cuts to help fund a broader budget package tied to a potential Iran-related conflict. The proposed reductions could total as much as $200 billion and may also be used to support immigration enforcement.
NEW: Republicans are considering reductions in federal health spending to help pay for a budget bill containing as much as $200 billion to fund the Iran war and immigration enforcement. https://t.co/6gLxDT7kTm
— Axios (@axios) March 30, 2026
House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington told the publication that the proposal could lower Affordable Care Act premiums by about 11%. However, the changes could also result in roughly 300,000 Americans losing their health insurance coverage.
While the plan could reduce federal spending, critics say it may disproportionately affect low-income Americans. Those who rely on programs such as Medicaid and Medicare could face significant challenges if funding is reduced.
Supporters of the proposal have said the cuts are aimed at addressing fraud within the health care system. However, because the plan remains in its early stages, the administration has not provided detailed guidance on how such fraud would be identified or prevented.
The GOP made nearly a trillion dollars in cuts to health care last year to give tax breaks to the rich.
Now they want to cut more funding and further increase health insurance costs to fund Trump’s war with Iran.
These people couldn’t be more out of touch. https://t.co/w2JJaf4dLE
— Governor Gavin Newsom (@CAgovernor) March 30, 2026
The proposal follows President Donald Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill,” which resulted in roughly $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid and other health programs. The new plan could lead to further reductions in access to affordable health care.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom criticized the proposal, referencing earlier health care cuts. In a post on X, he wrote that Republicans had previously made significant reductions to fund tax breaks for wealthy Americans.
He added that further cuts could increase health insurance costs while redirecting funds toward military and immigration priorities. Newsom also described the approach as out of touch with the needs of everyday Americans.
Newsom was not alone in his criticism. Rep. John Larson also condemned the proposal, calling it “an outrage” and criticizing the idea of redirecting health care funds toward immigration enforcement and potential overseas conflict.
— Isabel M (@IsabelM31530319) March 30, 2026
In a post on X, Larson said he opposed the proposal and indicated he would not support it. He was among several lawmakers who have publicly pushed back against the idea.
Others online expressed mixed reactions. Some criticized the proposal as prioritizing tax cuts and military spending over public health, while others questioned the broader policy implications.
One user wrote that prioritizing tax breaks for wealthy individuals and military spending over health care reflects a failure in leadership. Another said lawmakers appear willing to fund defense initiatives while limiting support for health care and food assistance programs.
Absolutely not. Why would we give $200 billion for an illegal war? We could be investing that money here in America by extending ACA tax credits and reversing some of the Republicans’ disastrous Medicaid cuts.
People want healthcare, not warfare. https://t.co/wRNrGoIqfO
— Rep. Zoe Lofgren (@RepZoeLofgren) March 19, 2026
Additional users echoed similar concerns, with one describing the proposal as an example of misplaced priorities. Another characterized it as a politically risky move ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
There is currently no confirmed timeline for whether the proposal will move forward as part of the broader legislation. However, Arrington told Axios he hopes to see it considered within the next 60-90 days. Further details are expected as discussions continue.
