Republicans are rolling out a new way to talk about Medicaid cuts — and they’re counting on voters not noticing. Instead of calling it what it is, they’re using a softer label: “reducing growth.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) leaned on the phrase in an interview on ABC’s This Week, defending Donald Trump’s so-called “Big Beautiful Bill,” which reins in Medicaid spending over time. Graham insisted the bill doesn’t cut Medicaid — it just slows it down.
“We haven’t cut Medicaid. We’ve reduced the growth,” Graham said.
He claimed Medicaid has “grown 50 percent in five years” and warned it’s “about to take over Medicare.” Under the bill, Medicaid growth would be capped at 6 percent for two years and then drop to 4 percent annually.
But critics say this is political spin. Slowing projected growth means less funding than expected — and fewer resources for low-income families and states that rely heavily on the program.
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), one of two Republicans who voted against the bill, warned the changes would be “devastating to North Carolina.” Graham responded that he respects Tillis but stood by the language. “What we’ve done is we limited the growth of Medicaid,” he said.
And it’s not just Graham using this wording.
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. echoed the same talking point in a congressional hearing. When pressed about the bill’s impact on Medicaid, he claimed:
“We’re not cutting Medicaid. There’s no cuts to Medicaid. There’s simply restrictions in the growth of Medicaid over the next decade.”
That’s nearly identical to what Graham said — and it’s no coincidence. Republicans and senior officials are carefully avoiding the word “cuts,” even as the plan delivers billions less in future Medicaid funding.
Graham argued the change is necessary to get federal spending under control. “We’re trying to do hard things that should be done and have to be done,” he said. “We’re $37 trillion in debt.”
The Senate barely advanced the 1,000-page bill on Saturday, with two Republican senators joining Democrats in voting no. While party leaders try to soften the language around what’s happening, the numbers don’t lie: less growth means less money — and that’s a cut, no matter what they call it.
What voters will hear — and feel — may be another story.
