By Lane Gillespie, Bankrate.com

Alexis Leone, a 34-year-old mother of five in rural Mississippi, initially tried her best to juggle her full-time job with her youngest child’s needs.

Related Articles

Losing your hair? What you eat and drink can make it worse

Trump’s Tylenol and vaccine warnings leave some pregnant women concerned, others angry

Scientists rebuke Trump’s Tylenol-autism claim, stress fever is bigger danger in pregnancy

‘Nightmare bacteria’ cases are increasing in the US

Minnesota Department of Health endorses COVID-19 vaccination ‘without additional barriers’

Leone’s son is partially deaf and has a severe allergy to ants. But her workplace was unable to accommodate Leone’s multiple appointments a week for speech therapy, weekly allergy treatments and other medical needs for her son, and she says it was unwilling to work with her Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) request. (FMLA is a federal labor law that requires most companies to offer unpaid, protected leave for a family or medical reason.) So, she quit her job, and she now relies on Medicaid and her husband’s commission-based income to meet her family’s health and financial needs.

Under her old workplace’s insurance, medical co-pays alone for her son cost $200 a week, which she already struggled to afford before she quit her job. Today, those co-pays — as well as health care for her other four children — are completely covered under Medicaid. But, because of the Trump administration’s sweeping Medicaid cuts that passed in July, Leone isn’t sure how much longer she’ll be able to afford her children’s health care.

The cuts are part of President Donald Trump’s broad tax and spending bill, dubbed the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) Act, and mainly tighten restrictions on disabled adults’ access to care, not children’s. Still, the cuts might affect Leone’s family’s access to Medicaid through new, stricter work requirements for adults and additional paperwork that families will have to fill out every year to keep their coverage. What’s more, the National Rural Health Association estimates rural hospitals will lose a significant amount of funding due to the bill or could close outright, which could affect Leone’s family’s access to local health care providers. Leone has difficulty accessing providers that accept Medicaid near her, as it is — her children’s dentist is a two-hour drive away.

Leone hopes her family’s financial situation will improve to the point that they won’t need to rely on Medicaid by the time most of the changes go through in 2027. If their financial situation doesn’t improve, she just hopes her child with a disability will continue to have access to health care, despite the cuts.

“If we have to have private insurance or no insurance (for my kids), it’s going to be almost impossible to then afford to get the services that are needed,” Leone says.

This summer, the 70 million Americans enrolled in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) learned that the vital health care they’d come to rely on through public assistance could disappear, as the Trump administration gutted the 60-year-old program. The OBBB Act that passed this year and was signed by Trump in July would cut funding by nearly $1 trillion and would lead to 10.5 million fewer people enrolled in Medicaid over the next 10 years, according to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office. The Trump administration says the bill will lead to less Medicaid fraud. However, Medicaid cuts will increase costs and limit provider availability for many disabled Americans. With limited or no access to Medicaid, many Americans with disabilities will have to make tough choices about where their money goes.

Today, Leone’s family doesn’t save money and can barely cover their bills, which is more common for people with disabilities and their families than the general American population. While 24 percent of employed people feel they are completely financially secure, only 7 percent of unemployed, permanently disabled people say the same, according to Bankrate’s Financial Freedom Survey. Similarly, 65 percent of unemployed, permanently disabled people feel they are not completely financially secure and likely never will be, compared to 25 percent of employed people.

“Meeting financial goals such as saving for emergencies and retirement or paying for basic necessities like quality healthcare and groceries is a formidable challenge for every American,” says Bankrate U.S. Economy Reporter Sarah Foster, who has reported on economic policy and its effect on American households for over six years. “Add in the experience of living with a chronic illness or disability, and those aspirations may feel almost insurmountable.”

4 tips for disabled Americans concerned about their finances under the Medicaid cuts

People with disabilities often face financial pressure from two sides: They may pay more in health care costs than other households, and they may also struggle to pay those costs because they can face barriers to attaining well-paying, accessible jobs.

“People with disabilities might lack adequate transportation to and from work; they might need on-the-job assistance or more flexible paid time off that workplaces don’t provide,” Foster says. “It’s also true that their jobs get cut faster during the busts and take longer to come back during the booms. All of those factors can confine them to a sustained state of financial stress and insecurity.”

However, there are federal and online resources that can help you look for a higher-paying job, balance your budget and save money. If you’re looking for new strategies to manage your money in anticipation of Medicaid cuts, these tips can help get you started.

1. See where you can cut expenses

Whether you earn a wage through a job, receive benefits or both, if you’re interested in saving more, it’s worth your time to find where you can cut back on both fixed and variable expenses.

Variable expenses — expenses that aren’t set from month to month, such as food or transportation costs — are easier to cut down on than fixed expenses, which remain the same from month to month. If you want to save on variable expenses, you can make small changes starting today, like buying in bulk, using public transportation instead of ride-shares or thrifting for clothing, furniture and home goods, instead of buying new.

It’s a little bit more work to save money on your fixed expenses, but you may be surprised at how often you can negotiate your regular bills. Consider these methods to save money on your fixed expenses:

FIXED EXPENSES
WAYS TO CUT BACK

Rent or mortgage, including utilities, taxes, fees and maintenance
Live with roommates or family, if possible (even temporarily). You can save money on energy bills by unplugging devices when you aren’t using them and using room-temperature water when doing laundry. The U.S. Department of Energy also has a guide on how to save on energy bills.

 

Phone, internet and cable bills
You may be able to negotiate your phone or internet bill if you call your provider.

 

Debt repayment, such as for a car, student loans or credit cards
If you have outstanding credit card or automotive debt, you may be able to call your issuer to negotiate your balance to avoid the balance being sent to collections. Most automotive, student loan and credit card issuers might also offer hardship programs or be willing to settle your debt for a lower amount.

 

Medical coinsurance, co-pays and prescription costs
If you have existing medical debt, call the provider and see if you can negotiate for a payment plan or lower balance. You can also often access prescription coupons from the manufacturer’s website or through third-party platforms like GoodRx.

 

Child care costs
Consider alternative child care options, such as family, nanny shares or child care co-ops. You may also be able to access certain tax credits for families, such as the child and dependent care credit or the child tax credit.

 

Memberships, such as gym memberships
Try out DIY options, such as buying home gym equipment secondhand or doing beauty treatments (such as your hair and nails) at home.

 

2. Look into specialized assistance

If you have a disability and need help paying for expenses, you may qualify for local and state programs. You can find more information through your state’s Health and Human Services office. Nationally, you may also qualify for assistance with your:

Rent or mortgage. Non-elderly disabled vouchers can help people under the age of 62 with a disability find and pay for affordable rentals. If you’re a senior citizen, you can also access housing choice vouchers, affordable housing or public housing.
Utilities. The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEA) helps with heating and cooling bills. Some states also offer help with electric bills.
Phone and internet. Lifeline offers discounts on phone and internet bills for low-income households.
Food and household goods. Depending on your age and members of your family, you may be eligible for food assistance, including the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP). If you’re disabled or homebound, your local food bank may be able to deliver food, personal hygiene products and cleaning supplies. Reach out to your nearest food bank to learn what resources they offer for disabled individuals.

If you’re a disabled veteran struggling financially, you can also turn to certain specialized programs and grants.

3. Save more by opening an ABLE account

If you’re concerned about being able to afford health care as a disabled person, you might want to consider saving money now in an ABLE account. An ABLE account is a tax-advantaged savings account specifically for people with disabilities who qualify. You can use the funds only for disability-related expenses, including housing, education, transportation, health, prevention and wellness, assistive technology and personal support services, according to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. To open an ABLE account, there are a few qualifications you need to meet — notably, your disability must have started before you were 26 years old. (This will increase to 46 in January 2026.)

While you must have a disability that started before the age of 26 to open one, anyone can contribute to an eligible person’s ABLE account, though annual contributions are limited to $19,000, as of 2025.

If you’re worried about a major upcoming expense, like a medical procedure, or if you want to make sure you have funds to use in an emergency, you should prioritize saving, starting today. Ideally, it’s best to save 20 percent of your take-home pay for emergency savings, retirement and debt repayment, but it’s OK if you’re not able to save that much. If you receive the average Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) payment of $1,738 per month, try saving as little as $50 per month, which could help pay for a future car tire or minor medical bill.

To open an ABLE account, check out your state’s program.

4. Look for job assistance near you

If you’re concerned about losing your Medicaid eligibility and are interested in going back to work (or working for the first time), you don’t have to face today’s challenging job market alone. Federal and state-level programs are designed to help you find the right job placement. If you’re on SSI or SSDI, you may even be able to keep your benefits while you work. Generally, you can receive SSI if you make less than $2,019 per month as a single person. You can receive SSDI benefits if you earn less than $1,550 per month.

Check out these programs for more help with finding the right job:

Ticket to Work: Ticket to Work is a free program administered by the Social Security Administration (SSA) for those 18 to 64 on Social Security disability benefits. It provides one-on-one guidance, such as resume and interview help, as well as benefits counseling to explain how returning to work affects your federal and state benefits. Through Ticket to Work, if you earn enough at your new job that your SSDI payments stop, you can continue to receive Medicare for more than 7 years.
State Vocational Rehabilitation Agencies: Different states offer different vocational services for adults with disabilities, and many offer specialized services for the blind or visually impaired, as well as for people under the age of 18. In Texas, for example, a counselor can help place you with a job that aligns with your needs and interests through tuition assistance, specialized training, vehicle modification, therapy and other services.

The bottom line

If you receive disability benefits, understanding your financial options can help you navigate your personal finances with confidence. You can also check out other financial resources for disabled or low-income families, which can help you establish credit or even purchase a home.

Key takeaways:

President Donald Trump signed a bill in July that would implement cuts to Medicaid enrollment and funding, which will be rolled out over the next three years. The cuts would increase medical costs for many Americans with disabilities and may make it harder for some families to save or balance their budgets.
Disabled people concerned about Medicaid cuts can consider opening an ABLE account or looking into personalized job assistance.

©2025 Bankrate.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

By LINLEY SANDERS, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump’s second-term strengths look different from his first, according to new polling.

Once strengthened by economic issues, Trump’s approval is now relatively low on the economy — and he’s leaning on his stronger issues of crime, border security and immigration. Concerns about the economy and immigration helped propel him to the White House, but polling over the past year shows that Americans’ faith in the Republican president’s handling of the economy is low — particularly among independents — and his approval on immigration has fallen slightly.

Now, Trump’s strongest issues are border security and crime, but there were signs of potential weakness on crime in the most recent poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

President Donald Trump addresses the 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly, Tuesday, Sept. 23, 2025, at U.N. headquarters. (AP Photo/Angelina Katsanis)

At the same time, Trump’s overall approval has been fairly steady in AP-NORC polling since the beginning of his second term. This month, 39% of U.S. adults approve of how Trump is handling his job as president, which is back in line with his average approval rating after a slight uptick in August. There was a similar pattern during his first White House term, when his approval stayed within a narrow range.

Here are the issues on which he’s been strongest and weakest in his second term:

Trump’s biggest strengths are border security and crime

Trump has turned border security into a strength of his second term, a sharp reversal from his first term in office.

Most Americans approve of Trump’s approach to border security. He gets higher marks on that than on his handling of the presidency overall or other issues that had previously been top strengths, including immigration and crime. This has also emerged as a unique strength of his second term. Only about 4 in 10 U.S. adults approved of Trump’s approach to border security in 2019, during which time Trump was focused on securing funding for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Related Articles

Veterans who lack citizenship fear being swept up in Trump’s deportations

Trump’s ‘tough it out’ advice to expectant moms is the latest example of men opining on women’s pain

Trump says he doesn’t think Argentina needs a bailout, but US will help

After cost-cutting blitz, Trump administration rehires hundreds of laid-off employees

At UN, Trump attacks climate change efforts in front of leaders of drowning nations

His approval on immigration is slightly lower than it was early in his second term, but it remains a bit higher than his overall job approval.

In March, about half of U.S. adults approved of his handling of immigration. But the most recent measure found his approval on immigration at 43%, just a tick higher than his overall approval rating.

Even with the slight dip, immigration remains a strength in a way it wasn’t in his first term. Throughout his first term, closer to 4 in 10 U.S. adults approved of his immigration approach — but when he started his second term, it was about half who approved.

Trump has taken firm steps to deport immigrants living in the U.S. illegally, and the new poll finds that a sizable share of Americans — about half — say Trump has “gone too far” in pursuit of that goal, roughly the same share as held that stance in a poll conducted in April.

His approval on how he’s handling crime is also down slightly to 46%, after reaching 53% in August as he deployed the National Guard to Washington. But that still exceeds his overall job approval, and it’s also an advantage among certain groups, like independents. About 4 in 10 independents approve of Trump’s approach to crime, compared with 25% who approve of his approach to the presidency overall.

Trump is weaker on the economy with independents

The economy is often a fraught point for presidents, and there are indications that Americans continue to be concerned about the country’s economic state.

Just 37% of U.S. adults approve of Trump’s handling of the economy. That’s down slightly from August, when 43% approved, but broadly in line with his overall approval.

The economy is a particularly weak issue for Trump among independents. Only about 2 in 10 independents approve of how Trump is handling the economy, much lower than the share who approve of his handling of border security and crime.

In Trump’s first term, closer to half of U.S. adults approved of his handling of the economy. This height of his success on this issue came at the beginning of 2020, right before the COVID-19 pandemic sparked an economic downturn. His approval on this issue varied throughout the pandemic, and about half of Americans approved of his economic approach just before he lost the 2020 presidential election. At that point, however, more Americans were more worried about the coronavirus pandemic than the economy. His approval has been consistently lower in his second term — when he came into office, only about 4 in 10 approved of how he handled the economy.

Trump’s lowest issues among Republicans: Trade and health care

Only about 7 in 10 Republicans approve of Trump’s approach to trade negotiations with other countries and health care — marking the lowest issue ratings among his base.

Americans overall aren’t thrilled about how he’s handling these issues, either. Only about one-third of U.S. adults approve of how Trump is handling either trade negotiations with other countries or health care. These have been steadily low in recent AP-NORC polls but roughly track with Trump’s overall approval. They were also similarly low in his first term.

About 6 in 10 U.S. adults say Trump has “gone too far” when it comes to imposing new tariffs on other countries. That includes about 9 in 10 Democrats but also roughly 6 in 10 independents and 3 in 10 Republicans. Very few Americans, including Republicans, want Trump to go further on imposing tariffs.

Trump is earning lower marks on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

About 4 in 10, 37%, of U.S. adults approve of the way Trump is handling the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians, down slightly from the 44% who approved in March.

Slightly fewer Republicans approve of how Trump is handling the conflict — 72%, compared with 82% of Republicans who approved of the way Trump was handling the issue in March. Democrats are also slightly less likely to approve: 9% now, down from 14% in March.

Despite this, Trump’s approval on foreign policy has been steady. About 4 in 10 U.S. adults approve, in line with April.

The AP-NORC poll of 1,183 adults was conducted Sept. 11-15, using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 3.8 percentage points.

By JAMIE STENGLE

DALLAS (AP) — Three people have been shot at an Immigration and U.S. Customs Enforcement facility in Dallas and the shooter is dead from a self-inflicted gunshot wound, the agency’s director said.

Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons confirmed the shooting during an interview on CNN on Wednesday.

“It could be employees, it could be civilians that were visiting the facility, it could be detainees,” Lyons said of those who were shot. “At this point, we’re still working through that.”

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said details were still emerging but the agency was confirming there were “multiple injuries and fatalities” at the field office. Noem said the motive remained unclear but noted there has been an uptick of targeting of ICE agents.

Dozens of emergency vehicles were seen along a highway near the facility.

ICE and Homeland Security didn’t immediately provide additional details.

A Fourth of July attack at a Texas immigration detention center injured a police officer, who was shot in the neck. Attackers dressed in black military-style clothing opened fire outside the Prairieland Detention Center in Alvarado, southwest of Dallas, federal prosecutors said. At least 11 people have been charged in connection with the attack.

In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, the Trump administration is following a very specific, very old script. It argues that political speech causes political violence, and that this speech must therefore be punished.

It is imperative that all defenders of free speech — whether on the left, right, or in the center — reject this narrative from the outset. For more than a century, the American understanding of free speech has been that political expression may only be punished when it incites imminent violence, for example, whipping up a crowd of angry people until they riot.

This principle of free speech, which traces back to Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes and the famous “clear and present danger” test, is designed to protect political beliefs, however wrong or dangerous they may be, by separating the expression of ideas from an individual’s choice to take unlawful action. It is the bedrock of the First Amendment as we know it. Breaking the distinction between protected political speech and illegal action is a frontal attack on the most basic freedom in our constitutional system.

So don’t take the bait. When the president, the attorney general, or others in the administration say that liberal speech caused Tyler Robinson to shoot Kirk, don’t respond by saying that Kirk’s speech also incited violence. Don’t say that outrageous remarks by a Fox News commentator caused a mass shooting at a homeless encampment in Minneapolis. Such claims of causation play directly into the Trump administration’s strategy: using political violence as an excuse to suppress speech it doesn’t like.

The words “clear and present danger” are so familiar that it’s worth reminding ourselves of what Holmes’ famous ruling actually said — and of how the Supreme Court has updated the rule since 1919, when he introduced it in the case of Schenck v. United States. The case involved a leaflet, printed in the middle of World War I, urging resistance to the draft, which the leaflet depicted as serving the interests of what Holmes called “Wall Street’s chosen few.” The defendant had been criminally convicted in federal court of violating the Espionage Act by obstructing recruitment and enlistment, as well as causing and attempting to cause insubordination in the military.

Holmes explained the test as follows: “The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”

Put simply, Holmes was saying that political speech can only be banned as incitement if a court determines that the speech is very likely to cause illegal action (so that the danger is clear) and that the action is likely to occur immediately (so that the danger is present).

The innovation of the test was that the government could no longer allege that a given argument might cause or contribute to an illegal outcome somewhere down the line. By demanding clarity and presence, the clear and present danger test intentionally protected political speech — even speech calling for the violent overthrow of the federal government — absent the immediacy and probability of the speech causing that result.

In 1969, in the famous case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court, in an unsigned per curiam opinion on behalf of the whole court, made the test even more protective of speech than Holmes had. It wrote that incitement to violence or other lawless action is constitutionally protected “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

This new test specified that two separate conditions must be satisfied before speech can be punished as incitement. First, the speech must be intended by the speaker to produce immediate illegal action. And second, the speech must be likely to cause that immediate action.

Brandenburg is still good law. It governs any attempt by the Trump administration to suppress free speech in the name of reducing political violence. Every judge in every court in the land knows the test, and I expect that they will follow it faithfully.

But the principle behind Brandenburg and its predecessor, the clear and present danger test, needs to be defended on its own terms lest our free-speech tradition fail when put to the test of real-world violence and an administration keen to exploit it to suppress expression.

Ideas are one thing. The choice to act illegally is another. Those who express ideas must not be held responsible for the separate actions of people who choose to break the law.

The reason for this distinction is simple, even if it is not always obvious: If the government can suppress ideas it doesn’t like, we can’t have a democratic system in which we freely debate ideas.

Related Articles

Michael R Bloomberg: In dark times, Americans need leadership that unites

David M. Drucker: How Erika Kirk memorialized her late husband

David Brooks: The era of dark passions is unleashed

David M. Drucker: Trump is not as unpopular as his opponents think

Lynn Schmidt: Presidential incapacity and the limits of the 25th Amendment

As Holmes noted, free speech is not absolute, and we have to draw the line somewhere. His famous example was that free speech “would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.” But short of the intention to produce immediate violence, coupled with the reality that such violence will occur, our constitutional system has now been separating ideas from action for more than a century. We must not lose that tradition of freedom to a president who neither understands nor respects it.

Noah Feldman is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. A professor of law at Harvard University, he is author, most recently, of “To Be a Jew Today: A New Guide to God, Israel, and the Jewish People.”