California sues Trump admin again, this time over Medicaid data transfer to DHS
Democrat Attorney General Rob Bonta said the federal lawsuit filed Tuesday in the Northern District of California represents the 28th time in 23 weeks – or more than once a week – that California is challenging the president in court.
"Upon information and belief, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)'s Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) handed over a trove of individuals' protected health data obtained from States, including California, Illinois, and Washington, to other federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)," the complaint says. "Millions of individuals' health information was transferred without their consent, and in violation of federal law."
Those states allow non-U.S. citizens to enroll in Medicaid programs that they say pay for their expenses using only state taxpayer dollars. The Associated Press first reported last month that the sharing of data by HHS to DHS included addresses, names, social security numbers, immigration status and claims data for enrollees in those states.
"In doing so, the Trump administration silently destroyed longstanding guardrails that protected the public's sensitive health data and restricted its use only for purposes that Congress has authorized, violating federal laws including the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)," the lawsuit says. The complaint alleges violations of several other federal privacy laws, including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, known as HIPPA.
HHS has claimed that the transfer of data to DHS is meant "to ensure that Medicaid benefits are reserved for individuals who are lawfully entitled to receive them."
"But Congress itself extended coverage and federal funds for emergency Medicaid to all individuals residing in the United States, even those who lack satisfactory immigration status," the complaint says. "The States have and will continue to verify individuals' eligibility for federally funded Medicaid services using established federal systems and cooperate with federal oversight activities to ensure that the federal government pays only for those Medicaid services that are legally authorized."
Attorneys general from Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington joined the suit.
"President Trump, Secretary Kristi Noem and Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are weaponizing Medicaid to fuel their anti-immigration campaign," Bonta said at a virtual press conference. "They're threatening the personal health data of 78.4 million individuals who are enrolled in Medicaid and the children's health insurance program, CHIP, for their mass surveillance and federal immigration enforcement plans."
"This isn't about cutting waste or going after fraud," Bonta said. "This is about going after vulnerable people who entrusted the state and the federal government to help them access health care, a basic human right."
The complaint says they intend to "protect their State Medicaid programs, and to prevent them from being used in service of an anti-immigrant crusade, or other purposes unrelated to administration of those programs."
Fox News Digital reached out to DHS for comment on the lawsuit, but they did not immediately respond. An HHS spokesman reacted to the lawsuit in statements obtained by Politico and the AP.
HHS is "aggressively cracking down on states that may be misusing federal Medicaid funds to subsidize care for illegal immigrants - that includes California," HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon reportedly said. "This oversight effort – supported by lawful interagency data sharing with DHS – is focused on identifying waste, fraud, and systemic abuse."
He added, "HHS acted entirely within its legal authority – and in full compliance with all applicable laws – to ensure that Medicaid benefits are reserved for individuals who are lawfully entitled to receive them."
The plaintiffs claim their states "will lose federal funds as fear and confusion stemming from the disclosures cause noncitizens and their family members to disenroll, or refuse to enroll, in emergency Medicaid for which they are otherwise eligible, leaving States and their safety net hospitals to foot the bill for federally mandated emergency healthcare services."
"States will also ultimately bear the negative public health costs associated with reduced utilization of healthcare for childbirth and other emergency conditions," the complaint says. "Meanwhile, the public will suffer irreparable damage due to increased morbidity and mortality."
Bonta noted California's Medi-Cal program provides public healthcare coverage for one out of every three Californians, including more than two million noncitizens. Because not all noncitizens are eligible for federally funded Medi-Cal services, California uses state-only funds to provide a version of the Medi-Cal program to all eligible state residents, "regardless of their immigration status," he said.
"The Trump Administration has upended longstanding privacy protections with its decision to illegally share sensitive, personal health data with ICE. In doing so, it has created a culture of fear that will lead to fewer people seeking vital emergency medical care," Bonta added in a statement. "I'm sickened by this latest salvo in the President's anti-immigrant campaign. We're headed to court to prevent any further sharing of Medicaid data — and to ensure any of the data that's already been shared is not used for immigration enforcement purposes."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
29 minutes ago
- CBS News
New Minnesota law sets guardrails for children of content creators featured in monetized videos
Parents who make a profit from online videos featuring their children may have to think twice before posting them because of a unique Minnesota law that took effect Tuesday. The statute puts guardrails around "content creation" and how minors are compensated for appearing in monetized videos on social media. Children 13 and younger are now prohibited from participating in those specific posts, and older teenagers who are featured — or make their own videos — must be paid revenues from that content into a trust account available to them when they turn 18. "They set it up as almost a child labor law. It's not about what you can say. It's about kids needing to be able to be paid for work that they do," said William McGeveran, dean of the University of Minnesota Law School, whose scholarship focuses on the First Amendment, data privacy and technology. "And if they're 13 and under, kids can't work in the ice cream shop and they can't work in their parents' content creation either. That's the way the law looks at it." The law defines a content creator as a person who creates "video content performed in Minnesota in exchange for compensation." The rules kick in about minors if they are included in at least 30% of that paid video content produced within a 30-day period. The law also empowers individuals featured in videos as children to demand that content is removed from platforms when they're older. McGeveran said other states have similar policies, like California, where state legislators recently expanded the law designed to protect the earnings of child actors to include content creators. But Minnesota is the only state to go so far as to set an age limit, he said. Fourteen is the general minimum age to work most jobs, with some exceptions. "There's a formula about how much you have to make, but if you're making any kind of serious money from the content you're posting as a parental influencer, then you're covered by this law," he explained. "But the ordinary person who just posts photos of their kids on Instagram or talks about them is not covered because they're not doing it for profit." State Sen. Erin Maye Quade, a Democrat who authored the law, said she and others in the Legislature tried to strike a balance between what she described as "low-level" versus "professionalized" content featuring children, which is highly orchestrated. The latter was the focus when they put the bill together, she said. She also noted that not all content parents' post generates enough money to hit the threshold in the law, which is $0.01 or greater for every view. "It doesn't mean people can't use their kids in non-monetized content. It doesn't mean that folks can't use their kid in monetized content for fewer days and hours. It just means that a kid's whole life can't be working for any industry, including this one," Maye Quade told WCCO. "Why would we make an exception here when we haven't for all the other kinds of work that I'm sure people would love kids to do, but it's not appropriate for kids to do?" Jenna Greer, who described herself as a content creator focusing on motherhood, documents her life as a parent on TikTok and Instagram to more than 460,000 people across both platforms. Many of those videos feature her three children under the age of 6. "The whole goal of me starting [the accounts] was the intention of being able to stay home with my kids and make a financial contribution to my family, and it has turned into that and so much more, which has been a blessing," she said in an interview. She explained that she makes some money through those platforms' creator funds, but the majority of the income she makes comes from paid partnerships with brands and that content may feature her kids. The new law will likely change what that looks like for her, but she said she understands and supports the goal of protecting children and ensuring they are fairly compensated. "It will be a learning curve. It could potentially affect us in just the way that we go about communicating with brands to secure those deals," Greer said. "If I have to come up front and say, 'My kids can't be in this,' we might lose that on specific kid-focused brand deals. So there is a chance that changes our income. I don't think it will be severe, but it will affect [it]."
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
House taking key vote on Trump's "big, beautiful bill," after pressure from GOP holdouts
Washington — House Republicans began taking a key procedural vote on President Trump's massive domestic policy bill late Wednesday evening, after scrambling for hours to shore up support ahead of a self-imposed July 4 deadline to get the bill to the president's desk. It remains unclear if House Republicans have enough support to get the current version of the bill — which squeaked through the Senate on Tuesday — over the finish line. Before voting on final passage, the House needs to vote on a resolution setting the rules of debate for the bill. That crucial procedural vote began Wednesday at around 9:30 p.m., after lawmakers spent much of the day huddling amongst themselves and with President Trump to sway skeptical members. While voting on the rule was underway, House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters, "we feel very good about where we are." The Louisiana Republican called Wednesday a "long, productive day." "We had GREAT conversations all day, and the Republican House Majority is UNITED, for the Good of our Country, delivering the Biggest Tax Cuts in History and MASSIVE Growth," Mr. Trump wrote on Truth Social shortly before voting began. House GOP leaders are aiming to move ahead quickly on the signature legislation of Mr. Trump's second-term agenda, which includes ramped-up spending for border security, defense and energy production and extends trillions of dollars in tax cuts, partially offset by substantial cuts to health care and nutrition programs. But some House Republicans, who voted to pass an earlier version of the bill in May, are unhappy with the Senate's changes. Potential holdouts, including moderates and members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, met with Mr. Trump on Wednesday as the White House put pressure on House Republicans to get the bill across the finish line. One lawmaker called the meetings "very productive." But GOP Rep. Andy Harris of Maryland, the chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, told reporters earlier Wednesday that he expected the procedural vote to fail in the afternoon. In a possible sign of movement, one key Republican, Ohio Rep. Warren Davidson, announced on X Wednesday evening that he'd support the bill. It "isn't perfect, but it's the best we'll get," he wrote, adding that he would support the rule and final passage. Davidson was one of two Republicans who voted against the bill when the House first voted on the measure in May. The president kept up the pressure, posting on Truth Social about June's low border crossing statistics and adding, "All we need to do is keep it this way, which is exactly why Republicans need to pass "THE ONE, BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL." Immigration agents "need more help and, they are counting on Republicans to, GET IT DONE," Mr. Trump wrote. Several members on both sides of the aisle had their flights canceled or delayed by bad weather as they raced back to Washington for the vote, delaying the process. All the Democrats appeared to be on hand for proceedings by Wednesday afternoon. Republicans can only afford three defections if all members are present and voting. The House Rules Committee advanced the Senate's changes to the bill overnight, setting up the action on the floor. GOP Reps. Ralph Norman of South Carolina and Chip Roy of Texas joined Democrats on the panel to oppose the rule. Both are among the group of hardliners who are likely to oppose the procedural vote in the full House. "What the Senate did is unconscionable," Norman said. "I'll vote against it here and I'll vote against it on the floor until we get it right." Hours later, Norman returned to the Capitol following a meeting with Mr. Trump and other House Republicans. He described the meeting as "very productive" but didn't say whether he will ultimately vote yes, telling reporters he's still trying to learn more about how the bill will be implemented if it passes. Johnson has spent weeks pleading with his Senate counterparts not to make any major changes to the version of the bill that passed the lower chamber by a single vote in May. He said the Senate bill's changes "went a little further than many of us would've preferred." The Senate-passed bill includes steeper Medicaid cuts, a higher increase in the debt limit and changes to the House bill's green energy policies and the state and local tax deduction. Other controversial provisions that faced pushback in both chambers, including the sale of public lands in nearly a dozen states, a 10-year moratorium on states regulating artificial intelligence and an excise tax on the renewable energy industry, were stripped from the Senate bill before heading back to the House. Johnson said Wednesday that "we are working through everybody's issues and making sure that we can secure this vote" amid the opposition. He added that he and the president are working to "convince everybody that this is the very best product that we can produce." "I feel good about where we are and where we're headed," Johnson added. Harris told reporters Wednesday that that the president should call the Senate back into town to come to an agreement on changes to the bill. GOP leaders, however, said the House would vote on the Senate bill "as-is." Should the House make changes to the bill, the revisions would require the Senate's approval, or force the two chambers to go to conference committee to iron out a final product that the two bodies could agree on, jeopardizing the bill's timely passage. Rep. Dusty Johnson, a South Dakota Republican, seemed optimistic after the White House meetings with holdouts Wednesday, saying "Donald Trump is a closer" and adding that "members are moving to yes.""I know there are some members who think they're going to vote no right now," the South Dakota Republican said. "I think when the choice becomes failure or passage, they're going to understand that passage beats the hell out of failing." GOP Rep. Virginia Foxx of North Carolina likewise urged House Republicans to get the bill to the president's desk Wednesday. "President Trump has his pen in hand and is waiting for the House to complete its work," Foxx said. "We've championed this legislation for months, have guided it through the appropriate processes, and now we're on the one-yard line." Meanwhile, with few levers to combat the bill's passage, House Democrats spoke out forcefully against the legislation. "We will not stand by and watch Trump and his billionaire friends destroy this country without putting up one hell of a fight," Democratic Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts said, calling the bill a "massive betrayal of the American people." Jeffries said that "every single House Democrat will vote 'hell no' against this one, big ugly bill," while adding that "all we need are four House Republicans to join us in defense of their constituents who will suffer mightily from this bill." Democratic leaders called out some Republicans by name, including Reps. Rob Bresnahan and Scott Perry of Pennsylvania and Reps. David Valadao and Young Kim of California. "It's unconscionable, it's unacceptable, it's un-American, and House Democrats are committing to you that we're going to do everything in our power to stop it," Jeffries said. "All we need are four Republicans, just four." Seven still missing after fireworks warehouse explosion in California Piece of plane found in North Carolina driveway may belong to Delta flight Puget Sound orca pod threatened by salmon decline
Fox News
33 minutes ago
- Fox News
CBS anchor claims Paramount settlement with Trump poses 'new obstacles' for journalists at the network
CBS News anchor John Dickerson lamented parent company Paramount's multi-million dollar settlement with President Donald Trump on Wednesday. "Paramount Global, the parent company of CBS News, settled a suit with President Trump today," Dickerson said on CBS Evening News Plus, a news program on their streaming service. "Journalists don't like to report on themselves. Sometimes that's false humility. Mostly, it's a practical limitation. Reporters try to find order in chaos." Dickerson said the settlement and ones like it hinder the press' ability to "hold power to account." "The Paramount settlement poses a new obstacle," Dickerson said. "Can you hold power to account after paying it millions? Can an audience trust you when it thinks you've traded away that trust? The audience will decide that our job is to show up to honor what we witness." Fox News Digital has learned that the sum being paid to Trump could reach north of $30 million with $16 million being paid upfront for his future presidential library, in addition to another allocation in the eight figures set aside for advertisements, public service announcements, or other similar transmissions, in support of conservative causes by the network in the future. Current Paramount management disputes the additional allocation, and a source familiar with Paramount's current leadership told Fox New Digital only $16 million was sanctioned by the official mediator, and they have no knowledge of any deal Trump made with incoming ownership as Paramount is set to merge with David Ellison's Skydance Media. However, Fox News Digital has learned that the incoming ownership will be responsible for the additional allocation. During the "CBS Evening News" program, which airs on broadcast TV to a much-wider audience, Dickerson had less to say about the settlement. "In the end, Paramount decided to settle a suit it said is without basis in law and fact and an affront to the First Amendment," Dickerson said, quoting from a previous filing from Paramount. Trump initially sought $20 billion in his lawsuit against CBS over its handling of a "60 Minutes" interview last year with then-Vice President Kamala Harris, accusing the network of election interference leading up to the 2024 contest. CBS is not acknowledging any journalistic wrongdoing with the settlement.
