When President Donald Trump signed his sweeping tax and spending bill into law last week, much of the attention focused on corporate tax breaks and the repeal of key climate protections. But buried deep within the legislation, hailed by its allies as the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” are provisions that could radically reshape the country’s healthcare system. And for millions of Latino families, the consequences could be devastating.
At the heart of the reform is a fundamental restructuring of Medicaid, the public health insurance program that covers more than 80 million low-income Americans. The new law introduces work requirements, tightens eligibility rules, and slashes federal funding to states. Policy experts say these changes will disproportionately affect the Latino population, particularly in states like California, Texas, Florida, and Arizona.
"Unfortunately, more than 16 million people are going to be directly affected by these cuts," said Dr. Ilan Shapiro, Chief Health Correspondent and Medical Affairs Officer at AltaMed. "The real problem is that the community, specifically the Latino community, already tends to use medical services much less. And now, with this restriction, even fewer people will be able to access care."
According to data from the Kaiser Family Foundation, nearly one in three Latino adults receives health coverage through Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program. Among Latino children, that number climbs even higher, with over 50 percent covered by these safety net programs.
Many of these gains stem from the Affordable Care Act, which expanded Medicaid eligibility and dramatically increased enrollment among Hispanic populations. But Trump's new law reverses much of that progress. By capping federal reimbursements and introducing six-month eligibility checks, analysts estimate that between 8 and 12 million people could lose coverage in the next three years.
"This will lead to an increase in chronic and preventable conditions that our community could face," warned Shapiro. "We have to keep in mind that people will end up in emergency rooms with complications from diabetes, high blood pressure, and other issues like cancer in much more advanced stages than we used to see."
While exemptions exist for caregivers and people with disabilities, immigrant families, especially mixed-status households, face particular vulnerability. Many fear that any interaction with government programs could be used against them in immigration proceedings, even if the public charge rule is no longer in effect.
"When providing care mired in politics, race, and power, our patients become more vulnerable, and our caregivers are placed in untenable ethical positions which are counter to our role as patient advocates," said Oriana Beaudet, Vice President of Nursing Innovation at the American Nurses Association. "Healthcare clinics and hospitals are economic drivers for communities across our country. When the demand for care increases and reimbursable care decreases, healthcare facilities close, putting everyone at risk."
Shapiro noted that this pressure will have real consequences for health systems nationwide. "This will increase the number of people going to the ER, and these services, unfortunately, will cause many community and rural clinics and hospitals to shut down or be forced to make cuts to doctors, nurses, and other staff because it will simply be too difficult to afford to provide these medical services."
According to Dr. Arturo Vargas Bustamante, professor of Health Policy at UCLA, the new law puts states like California in a bind. "Even though California has strongly opposed Medicaid work requirements in the past, the new federal law may force the state into a tough position, either complying in some form or risking losing federal funding. State leaders might try to fight the requirements in court or create new programs to protect those who lose coverage, but those options take time and money."
"In the short run, the most immediate impact will not come from people refusing to work. It will come from people getting caught up in red tape," explained Bustamante. "Thousands could lose their Medi-Cal coverage simply because they miss a deadline, do not understand the rules, or cannot easily report their hours. That means more uninsured individuals, more pressure on county clinics and hospitals, and more costs for the safety net. Communities that already face barriers to care, especially low-income workers, racial and ethnic minorities, and those in rural areas, will be hit hardest."
Latino enrollment in Medi-Cal and Covered California is also expected to decline, not because people no longer qualify, but because the system becomes more challenging and intimidating to navigate. "Trust between a patient and their care provider is critical to better health outcomes," said Beaudet. "When people do not feel safe accessing healthcare services, they delay or avoid care needs, which can lead to an exacerbation of health problems and the need for higher-cost emergency care. The confusion of navigating complex enrollment systems for public health programs, coupled with fear, inhibits individuals from accessing necessary healthcare services."
The long-term consequences could be even more severe. "Health is a culmination of our communities, the environments in which we live, our families, access to food and water, and education," said Beaudet. "Health is then supported by our healthcare system. Poverty and healthcare inequality disproportionately impact minority and non-citizen immigrants, with language and cultural barriers magnifying risks. Health policies inhibiting access to care will put people across our country at higher risk for disease, illness, and even death."
Faced with this reality, Shapiro urged communities to take action where they can. "Right now, we must be proactive and think about what we can do to prevent disease, including maintaining a healthy weight, managing our stress as best as we can, and continuing to stay active and exercise. These three things, and making health a priority in our communities, can help us stay a little healthier, especially now that access to healthcare is going to become much more difficult."
The Medicaid overhaul has triggered fierce political backlash. A coalition of attorneys general from 20 states, led by California, is preparing a legal challenge, arguing that the bill violates federal protections and unfairly targets immigrant and minority communities. At the same time, advocacy groups like UnidosUS and the Latino Community Foundation are launching national campaigns to raise awareness and encourage families to seek out trusted enrollment counselors.
Alex Segura is a bilingual, multiple-platform journalist based in Southern California.




















image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.