Ben Zdencanovic, University of Cambridge

California and Minnesota Face $1B Medicaid Funding Hold

The Trump administration announced on July 21, 2026, that it’s withholding US$867 million in federal healthcare funding for California and $200 million for Minnesota – a total of more than $1 billion.

Federal officials said the two states had failed to provide sufficient evidence that a number of disputed medical claims were legitimate. These include bills for in-home care and other services covered by the two states’ Medicaid programs for low-income residents.

Medicaid administrators say the funds can be recovered if the states supply the requested documentation. But the action is highly unusual: Typically, Medicaid officials partner with states to conduct an audit when they suspect fraud, a careful process that often takes years.

It’s the second time in 2026 that the Trump administration has withheld or deferred federal Medicaid funds for several states, including California and Minnesota, because of alleged fraud and abuse. The Democratic governors of those states have called the decision a politically motivated attack on their constituents.

I’m a historian of social policy who led the first comprehensive historical overview of Medi-Cal, California’s statewide Medicaid system. I’ve found that U.S. leaders have long used the language of fraud and abuse to blur the line between correcting very real failures within Medicaid and – as I believe the Trump administration is currently doing – discrediting and defunding the program itself.

Slashing the safety net

The Medicaid restrictions are part of the Trump administration’s overall efforts to slash federal funding for the safety net.

The large tax-and-spending bill that Trump signed into law in July 2025 as the cornerstone of his second-term agenda pared eligibility for Medicaid by introducing work requirements for some adults. It is cutting close to $1 trillion in federal spending on the program over the next decade.

Researchers estimate that almost 12 million people, on top of the estimated 28 million without health insurance in 2025, could become uninsured by 2034 due to these changes. By mid-2026, more than 3 million people had already lost their insurance coverage due to Republican changes to the Affordable Care Act.

‘Padlocking’ the ‘cookie jar’

In February 2026, Vice President JD Vance, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Dr. Mehmet Oz, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, announced a new anti-fraud initiative called Comprehensive Regulations to Uncover Suspicious Healthcare.

Also known by its rather unsubtle acronym, CRUSH, this initiative is taking unprecedented steps to withhold and defer funds in response to suspected fraud. “CMS is done trying to catch fraudsters with their hands in the cookie jar,” Oz said in announcing CRUSH’s formation. “Instead, we’re padlocking the jar and letting them starve.”

Advertisement

To be sure, Medicaid fraud, waste and abuse – such as providers billing Medicaid for services that are unnecessary or never rendered – are very real problems that cost taxpayers billions of dollars annually. They do divert funds from the low-income and disabled Americans enrolled in the program.

But the Trump administration’s latest moves are part of a much broader history of weaponizing Medicaid fraud and abuse – both real and imagined. I see them as a politicized attempt to prove that Medicaid itself is wasteful, that state governments cannot be trusted to administer federal money, and that public benefits inevitably invite dishonesty.

Providing little oversight at the start

Medicaid was established, along with Medicare for older adults, in 1965 as part of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s “Great Society” reforms. Despite providing millions of Americans with health insurance coverage for the first time, these programs had few centralized mechanisms for the kind of federal oversight that could prevent and catch fraud and abuse.

And the sheer scale and complexity of the Medicaid system – joint federal-state funding, varying eligibility requirements, millions of enrollees and thousands of providers – created opportunities for questionable billing practices among providers.

The 1970s saw a number of highly publicized Medicaid scandals involving nursing homes, laboratories, pharmacies and so-called “Medicaid mills” – healthcare providers that sought to bill the government for large numbers of Medicaid patients for shoddy and often fraudulent care.

A series of high-profile congressional investigations spurred demand for stronger Medicaid oversight and enforcement. That led to the Medicare-Medicaid Anti-Fraud and Abuse Amendments of 1977, which established the national Medicaid Fraud Control Units program.

The state-run Medicaid Fraud Control Units received generous federal matching funds to investigate and prosecute fraud.

The most serious Medicaid fraud was generally committed by healthcare providers and contractors, not patients. Medicaid Fraud Control Units were principally responsible for investigating providers, while also prosecuting the abuse and neglect of patients whose care was billed to Medicaid.

At the same time, however, Medicaid was becoming entangled in a broader political debate over social spending, whether many Americans were becoming too dependent on government benefits, and the alleged use of benefits by people who should not have received them. In the 1980s and 1990s, widely circulated stories about Medicaid exposed fraud and malfeasance by providers.

But disproportionately, they also highlighted the comparatively few instances of fraud by people enrolled in the program, such as cases where they submitted false receipts for covered medically related travel or sold drugs they obtained through Medicaid for free or at low cost.

Using Medicare fraud to justify spending cuts

The distinction between Medicaid and cash assistance programs, such as the Aid to Families with Dependent Children “welfare” program, frequently disappeared in political rhetoric. False or exaggerated stories that portrayed African American single mothers living extravagantly while fraudulently claiming welfare benefits became potent symbols of supposed government failure.

Advertisement

While campaigning as a presidential candidate, Ronald Reagan seized on this trope of the “welfare queen” in his attacks on social spending.

By the mid-1990s, opposition to welfare programs had become increasingly bipartisan. Politicians in both parties often used tales of Medicaid fraud on the part of providers and recipients to justify tighter eligibility rules and spending cuts.

Federal oversight expanded further with the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, which created the Medicaid Integrity Program and strengthened federal oversight of state programs. The Affordable Care Act, the landmark healthcare legislation Congress passed in 2010, added new measures to screen providers and verify billing.

Concerns about Medicaid’s “integrity” became highly politicized in the debates surrounding the ACA. Critics of Medicaid expansion argued that increasing the number of people who could get health insurance through the program would increase fraud and improper enrollment. Supporters of expanding Medicaid to help more Americans gain health insurance maintained that anti-fraud rhetoric often disguised ideological opposition to the program’s expansion.

Blurring distinctions then and now

For the six decades that this program has helped millions of low-income Americans get healthcare, politicians have blurred the distinction between protecting Medicaid from abuse and using abuse to discredit Medicaid itself.

In my view, the Trump administration’s campaigns against California and Minnesota continue that pattern. It is using real weaknesses within Medicaid to advance much broader political arguments: that Democratic states cannot be trusted, that public benefits naturally invite abuse, and that withholding funds is itself a form of reform.

The result will no doubt be that fewer low-income Americans will be able to get the healthcare they need.

Ben Zdencanovic, Assistant Professor of U.S. History, University of Cambridge

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

💪 Your health journey starts here! Explore the latest health news, fitness tips, wellness trends, and healthy living advice. Share your thoughts in the comments and subscribe to the STM Daily News newsletter to stay informed and inspired every day.

Advertisement

Last Updated on September 6, 2026 by Daily News Staff

The $24,950 electric pickup is approaching production, but early availability will be limited—and many buyers may wait well into 2027.

Slate Auto’s minimalist electric pickup is moving closer to becoming something customers can actually park in their driveways.

After months of describing its launch simply as “late 2026,” the startup has reportedly begun asking some preorder holders whether they would be interested in taking delivery as early as December. The outreach provides the clearest indication yet of when the first production Slate Trucks could reach American roads.

That does not mean every early customer will receive a truck before the end of the year. According to emails reviewed by Business Insider, customers were offered the possibility of a December 2026 delivery, while other estimated windows stretched from early 2027 through July–September 2027.

Still, the news is an important milestone for one of the most closely watched—and most unconventional—new vehicles in America.

From an under-$20,000 promise to a $24,950 truck

When Slate emerged from stealth in 2025, much of the attention centered on the possibility of an electric truck costing less than $20,000 after federal incentives. The expiration of the federal consumer EV tax credit eliminated the subsidy that made that advertised figure possible.

Slate later established an official starting price of $24,950 before destination charges, taxes and accessories. With a reported $1,450 destination fee, the effective starting point is approximately $26,400 before a buyer begins personalizing the truck.

That remains unusually inexpensive in a market where the average new vehicle approaches $50,000. It also preserves Slate’s central argument: Many buyers might prefer a simple new vehicle over a feature-packed model carrying a much larger monthly payment.

The important question is how many buyers will remain satisfied with the base vehicle once they see what $24,950 does—and does not—include.

Basic by design

The Slate Truck starts as a two-seat, two-door electric pickup with manual windows, physical climate controls and gray composite exterior panels. There is no built-in infotainment screen or conventional factory stereo. Drivers can use a smartphone, portable speaker or optional accessories instead.

These omissions are not oversights. They are fundamental to Slate’s strategy of reducing manufacturing complexity and allowing customers to pay only for the equipment they want.

Advertisement

Owners will be able to add exterior wraps, upgraded audio equipment, storage systems, roof racks and other accessories. A more substantial SUV kit can add an enclosed rear section and second-row seating, transforming the small pickup into a five-passenger vehicle.

Slate says its marketplace will offer more than 200 accessories, with more than 80 percent priced below $500. That flexibility is appealing, but it also creates the possibility that a $24,950 truck could quickly approach or exceed $30,000 after buyers add color, audio, additional seating and everyday conveniences.

More range without a higher base price

One of the most meaningful improvements is the truck’s estimated driving range. Early versions of the Slate concept were associated with approximately 150 miles from the standard battery. Slate now advertises roughly 205 miles of estimated range at the same $24,950 base price.

The current specification uses a 52.7-kWh battery and a single rear-mounted electric motor. Slate says the battery can charge from 20 to 80 percent in under 30 minutes under suitable fast-charging conditions.

Approximately 205 miles should make the truck more practical for commuting, local deliveries and daily errands. It remains less suited to frequent long-distance travel than many larger EVs, but the additional range substantially strengthens the value proposition.

Final range, charging performance and other specifications remain subject to change because the vehicle is still in pre-production.

Production preparations continue in Indiana

Slate plans to manufacture the truck at a former printing facility in Warsaw, Indiana. The company says three design-verification prototype vehicles were completed ahead of schedule while expansion of the plant continues.

The factory project represents an investment of nearly $400 million and is expected to create more than 2,000 jobs. Slate has designed its production system around simplicity: composite body panels eliminate the need for a conventional paint shop, while a limited number of factory configurations should reduce assembly complexity.

The company has reported more than 180,000 refundable $50 reservations. When formal preorders opened in June 2026, customers were asked to place a $300 nonrefundable deposit—reduced to an additional $250 for existing reservation holders—to secure an estimated delivery window. The money is applied to the eventual purchase price.

Slate reportedly collected more than 10,000 of those preorder deposits within the opening hours. That shows genuine interest, but refundable reservations and early deposits are not the same as completed vehicle sales. The real test will begin when customers must finalize configurations, financing and purchase agreements.

Advertisement

December would be a beginning, not a full rollout

If Slate places its first customer trucks on the road in December, it will have met its broad late-2026 target. However, the first deliveries are expected to be low-volume, with production increasing during the first half of 2027.

That distinction matters. A handful of December deliveries would demonstrate that Slate can build a saleable vehicle, but it would not prove that the company can manufacture tens of thousands of trucks reliably, control costs, supply replacement parts or support customers across the country.

For a new automaker, scaling production and service can be more difficult than designing an appealing prototype. Slate must show that its low-cost philosophy works not only in the showroom but also in manufacturing, quality control, repairs and long-term ownership.

Ford Fathom adds pressure to the equation

Slate may enjoy an early lead, but it will not have the affordable electric-truck category to itself for long.

Ford’s forthcoming Fathom electric pickup is expected to start around $28,350 and reach customers in fall 2027. For only a few thousand dollars more than a base Slate, the Ford is expected to provide four doors and more conventional standard equipment.

The two trucks represent very different ideas of affordability. Slate removes features and lets owners add them later. Ford appears to be pursuing a more familiar, fully equipped small-truck experience while attempting to keep the price near $30,000.

Slate’s advantage is that it could arrive first and carry a lower advertised price. Ford’s advantages include manufacturing scale, an established service network and decades of experience selling trucks.

The bottom line

The Slate Truck is no longer merely an intriguing rendering or auto-show experiment. A firm price has been announced, preorders are underway, verification vehicles have been built, factory preparations are advancing and the first customer deliveries may now be only months away.

At $24,950—or approximately $26,400 after destination—the Slate remains one of the most interesting efforts to make a new electric vehicle genuinely affordable. Its improved estimated range makes the proposition considerably stronger than it was at launch.

But the original question has not disappeared: Will buyers embrace a truly basic truck, or will the cost of turning that blank Slate into a comfortable everyday vehicle erase too much of its price advantage?

Advertisement

December 2026 may give us the first real answer.

Sources and further reading

• Slate Auto: How to preorder
• Slate Auto: Vehicle specifications
• Slate Auto: Warsaw factory update
• Business Insider: Earliest Slate deliveries
• Axios: Indiana-built EVs target affordability

Vehicle specifications, prices and delivery estimates remain subject to change before production.

🚗 Stay in the driver’s seat with the latest automotive news, vehicle reviews, industry updates, recalls, and buying tips. Share your opinions in the comments and subscribe to the STM Daily News newsletter for the latest Consumer Corner Automotive stories delivered straight to your inbox.

Pack Pasta Salad in a Jar for a Taste of Summer in School Lunches

(Feature Impact) When students open up their lunchboxes in the cafeteria, it’s fun to be greeted with something bright, colorful and fresh. Pasta salad is a summer picnic staple, but once the weather starts to cool and kids head back to school, there’s nothing to say you can’t send a taste of summer with them.

The beauty of pasta salad is it’s totally customizable, ideal for eating cold and easy to make ahead of time. That means you can spend the evening before school dishing up jars then pop them in the fridge for a quick morning grab-and-go lunchbox filler. Adults in the household can take one to work while kids have their own at school – and if anyone wants a different dressing or no olives, it’s an easy accommodation.

If you’re making this Pasta Salad in a Jar recipe as the main course instead of a lunchtime side, up the protein by adding beans, chicken or cubed cheese to keep kids energized for the second half of the day. Choose whole-grain or high-protein pasta for an extra nutritional boost, and pack in vitamins and fiber with plenty of crunchy fresh produce, from cucumbers and carrots to tomatoes and olives.

Find more school-day recipes at Culinary.net.

Pasta Salad in a Jar

Recipe adapted from Best of This Life
Prep time: 10 minutes
Servings: 1

Dressing:

• 2          tablespoons olive oil
  
• 2          tablespoons red wine vinegar
  
• 1/8       teaspoon dried basil
  
• 1/8       teaspoon oregano
  
• 1/8       teaspoon parsley
  
• salt, to taste
  
• freshly ground pepper, to taste

• 1/4       cup canned chickpeas, rinsed
  
• 1/2       cup halved grape tomatoes
  
• 1/2       cup diced cucumber
  
• 2          tablespoons sliced Kalamata olives
  
• 1          cup cooked pasta of choice, cooled
  
• 1          cup chopped spinach

1. To make dressing: In canning jar, combine olive oil, vinegar, basil, oregano, parsley and salt and pepper, to taste. Stir in chickpeas.
2. Layer tomatoes, cucumbers, olives, cooked pasta and spinach over dressing.
3. Refrigerate until ready to serve. To serve, flip jar over and lightly shake to combine dressing with other ingredients. 

Photo courtesy of Unsplash

SOURCE:

Culinary.net

🍴 What’s your favorite food, recipe, or dining spot? Tell us in the comments! Then subscribe to the STM Daily News newsletter for fresh recipes, restaurant news, food trends, and delicious stories delivered straight to your inbox. Join our growing community of food lovers today!