A trio of states with Democratic governors viewed as potential 2028 presidential candidates have taken steps in recent weeks to freeze or cut government-funded health care coverage for undocumented immigrants.
Democratic Govs. Gavin Newsom of California, JB Pritzker of Illinois and Tim Walz of Minnesota have largely attributed the proposals to budget shortfalls stemming from original plans to expand health care to immigrants without legal status.
But the moves also occur against the backdrop of broader debate within the Democratic Party over how to handle immigration, an issue that dragged it down in the last election and that President Donald Trump and the GOP have continued to try to capitalize on.
The plans, which would scale back health care coverage for undocumented immigrants in the three Democratic-led states just years after it was expanded, have angered progressives and immigrant advocacy groups, who warn the party risks alienating its base — particularly as protests against Trump’s deportation plans break out around the country.
The latest development came in Minnesota on Tuesday, after both chambers of the Legislature passed a bill to end state-funded health care for undocumented adults.
The bipartisan effort advanced through the Republican-controlled House and the Democratic-controlled Senate as part of attempts to balance the state budget. It now goes to Walz, who has said he’ll sign it.
The bill would end undocumented adults’ eligibility for MinnesotaCare — the state-funded health insurance program for low-income residents — effectively reversing one of the signature policy wins Walz secured during a landmark legislative session in 2023, when Democrats were in full control of state government. Undocumented children would remain eligible to enroll in the program under the legislation.
In California, Newsom unveiled a budget plan last month that would cut back on health care benefits for undocumented immigrants — a stark reversal from his promises of universal health care for all the state’s residents, regardless of their immigration status.
Newsom’s plan in his 2025-26 budget has called for freezing enrollment for undocumented adults to receive the full scope of the state’s Medicaid program, known as Medi-Cal. Newsom’s office has said the changes would apply only to new applicants over age 19, that existing enrollees wouldn’t be kicked off their plans and that the freeze, which would begin next year, wouldn’t apply to people enrolled in limited plans.
Newsom’s proposed changes also included a new $100 monthly premium for adults 19 and older with “unsatisfactory immigration status” beginning in 2027.
His expansion of Medi-Cal has cost far more than his administration anticipated. Newsom has said the changes will help to balance the state’s budget, which has run a multibillion-dollar shortfall that he has blamed on Trump’s tariffs, as well as growing costs from higher enrollment in Medi-Cal.
Meanwhile, Illinois remains on track by the end of the month to end a program — called Health Benefits for Immigrant Adults — that provides state-funded health care coverage for more than 30,000 low-income adults who are living in the state without documentation.
Similarly, the program in Illinois was more expensive than expected when it was created in 2021. Pritzker’s latest budget, which the Democratic-led Legislature passed last month, proposed eliminating it by July 1.
At least four other states offer some type of health care coverage to adults, regardless of their immigration status. Several more offer health care coverage for children, regardless of their immigration status, as California, Illinois and Minnesota will continue to do if the new plans go into effect.
While the moves would help California, Illinois and Minnesota states recalibrate their budgets, a sweeping Trump-backed domestic policy bill moving through Congress proposes slashing Medicaid funding for states that provide health care coverage to undocumented immigrants. Trump also signed an executive order this year targeting undocumented immigrants’ access to government assistance programs.
In response to questions from NBC News, Newsom spokesperson Elana Ross reiterated his statement in his initial announcement of the changes last month that “instead of rolling back the program — meaning cutting people off for basic care — we’re capping it.”
Pritzker’s office said in an email that “this year, passing a balanced budget required the difficult decision that reflects the reality of Trump and Republicans tanking our national economy and attempting to strip away healthcare.”
A Walz spokesperson didn’t respond to questions about Minnesota’s plan, which was the result of a compromise after Republican lawmakers had pushed to end the entire MinnesotaCare program.
“No one got everything they wanted,” Walz said last month after he reached a tentative deal with Republicans on the budget, which was finalized in a special session this week. “There were very difficult conversations about issues that were very dear to each of these caucuses. But at the end of the day, we were able to come to this agreement.”
Blowback from the left
Immigrant advocacy groups have panned the moves, saying they risk further imperiling the broader health care system, and blasted Democrats for succumbing to Trump’s attacks.
“We urge state leaders to build on their progress, rather than placing the health of their residents at risk,” said Tanya Broder, the senior counsel for health and economic justice policy at the National Immigration Law Center. “Particularly as extremist politicians scapegoat and target immigrants, we are counting on state officials to do the right thing and hold the line.
“As states increasingly have recognized, a community’s health and well-being depend on ensuring that everyone has access to health care. Immigrants pay billions of dollars in federal, state and local taxes, yet many are excluded from critical health care programs,” she added. “Terminating state coverage for immigrants will compromise our collective health, as well as the health care infrastructure that serves all of us.”
Some progressives questioned whether the moves were part of a broader strategy by the three governors to move to the right on the broader issue of immigration, which polling has shown still remains one of Trump’s strongest issues.
They said they could face a backlash from their base by departing from positions on supporting immigrant communities and expanding health care.
“It really feeds into the conservative narrative that undocumented immigrants are a drain on our communities,” said Jennifer Driver, a senior director at the State Innovation Exchange, a progressive legislative policy group. “This assumption that by moving more to the middle or to the right that you’re going to recruit some people back — I think it’s a miscalculation.
“The frustration that you’re seeing in the Democratic base is due to this kind of this waffling, this kind of idea that ‘OK, yes, we are progressive — but only in some moments,’” Driver added.
Other strategists suggested it remained too early to gauge whether a broader shift was in play as governors and other lawmakers positioned themselves for potential 2028 White House bids, and they emphasized that the threats blue states face from Trump are serious.
“The Trump administration is squeezing the hell out of states,” said Jeff Blodgett, a Minnesota-based Democratic strategist who was a campaign manager for the late Sen. Paul Wellstone and the state director for both of Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns. “There’s just a lot of concern about current and future budgets given what the federal government is doing to states.”