Whatcha gonna do, Van Drew, Van Drew?

Will the formerly Democratic South Jersey House rep abandon his promise to protect Medicaid?

Do you wear pink ties if you’re not blood-red MAGA?

See updates at bottom (5/6 and 5/7).

I have an op-ed in NJ.com questioning whether Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-NJ-2) will hold to his promise to “protect” Medicaid for his constituents, including those covered via the ACA Medicaid expansion.

Van Drew, a formerly Democratic House representative in South Jersey who went MAGA and switched parties, has been something of a fulcrum in the Republican House drive to pass legislation cutting hundreds of billions of dollars in federal Medicaid funding (he’s at least a frequent source in reports on that struggle).

On the one hand, Van Drew has more than 165,000 Medicaid/CHIP enrollees in his district, including more than 50,000 low-income adults covered via the ACA Medicaid expansion. Unlike most Republicans, when he vows to “protect” Medicaid, he includes “low-income families” — i.e., the ACA expansion population — in the groups to be protected. And yet, he voted for the resolution targeting hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to Medicaid over ten years. And there are signs he will go along with essentially repealing the expansion - -that is, cutting federal funding for it enough to make it fiscally impossible for states to continue.

The op-ed spotlights the contradictions in Van Drew’s words and deeds concerning Medicaid and encourages constituents (and perhaps reporters) to press him about those contradictions. I hope you’ll give it a read.

UPDATE, 5/6/25: It seems Van Drew has refined and settled on his cut-is-not-a-cut argument: A per capita cap just forces savings on a state:

If a state cuts benefits as a result of a cap, “they’re bad,” Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.) said.

If the cap is set to the rate of inflation, “that should say to the states, ‘Hey, we’re still going to grow. We’re going to control the rate of growth,'” and the states are going to have to organize themselves to make sure their spending reflects the change, Van Drew said.

Of course, the very definition of a cut in federal Medicaid spending is a shift of costs to the state. Their rhetorical ingenuity (or rather, Brian Blase’s) knows no bounds.

Meanwhile, Van Drew is getting widely quoted saying this to Axios:

"I will not vote for any bill that cuts eligible legal people…That means our working poor."

See the loophole? Ending the 90% FMAP or cap-shrinking doesn’t “cut eligible people.”

UPDATE, 5/7/25: Further Van Drew update, now that Republican leadership is averring in Punchbowl (for the moment) that they won’t go after the ACA expansion FMAP:

“What we don’t want to do is pass a bill through the House of Representatives that doesn’t even have a shot with the president or with the United States Senate,” Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.) said. “That would be insane. It’s stupid.”

Van Drew has alleged from the beginning that Trump does not want deep cuts. He stated in a press release on Feb. 25, when the first House budget resolution passed:

I have had numerous one-on-one conversations with President Trump on this matter, and he shares my philosophy—these programs must be protected for the low-income families, seniors, and individuals with disabilities who rely on them. President Trump and I are on the exact same page on this important issue.

While no one really had cause to believe either Trump or Van Drew, given the $880 billion cut target for the E&C Committee in the resolution, and Trump’s 1000-times-proven ability to reverse himself within 24 hours — or one — Van Drew appears to still believe. And Punchbowl relays from moderates that they expect to settle on a package with $400-500 billion in cuts over ten years.

Statements and rumors blow back and forth as Republicans struggle to reconcile their fanatic and relatively “moderate” camps. The expansion FMAP may be off the table today, back on tomorrow. Van Drew may fall in line for $400 billion in cuts or $900 billion.