JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — To receive Medicaid health coverage, some adults will soon have to show they are working, volunteering or taking classes. But to gather that proof, many states first will have to spend millions of dollars improving their computer systems.

Across the nation, states face an immense task and high costs to prepare for the Jan. 1 kickoff of new Medicaid eligibility mandates affecting millions of lower-income adults in the government-funded health care program.

Related Articles

Trump expects his Fed pick and AI to deliver a replay of the ’90s boom. Economists have doubts

Where things stand after the US and Israeli strikes on Iran

Trump will award the Medal of Honor to three US Army service members in a White House ceremony

Hegseth insists the Iran conflict is ‘not endless’ while warning more casualties are likely

Congress will debate an Iran conflict that is well underway

The first half of a $200 million federal allotment has already begun flowing to states to help implement the new requirements. But the tab for the needed technology improvements and additional staff is likely to exceed $1 billion, according to an Associated Press analysis of budget projections in more than 25 states. That extra cost will be borne by a mixture of federal and state tax dollars.

The task is not as simple as pushing through a software update on your smartphone or personal computer. That’s because each state has its own system for managing Medicaid, often requiring experts to make customized changes.

“Our current eligibility systems are pretty old, and the ability to change them is very, very difficult,” said Toi Wilde, chief information officer for the Missouri Department of Social Services.

New Medicaid requirements affect millions, but not all

The big tax-cut law signed last year by Trump is financed, in part, by sweeping Medicaid changes intended to cut government spending. Two of the most prominent will apply in four-fifths of the states, affecting Medicaid enrollees ages 19 through 64, without young children, whose incomes are above the typical eligibility cutoff.

Those Medicaid participants will have to work or do community service at least 80 hours a month, or enroll at least half-time as a student. They also will face eligibility reviews every six months, instead of annually, meaning they could lose coverage more quickly when their circumstances change.

The two provisions together are projected to save the federal government $388 billion over the next decade, resulting in 6 million fewer people with health insurance, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

But states first must update their online portals used by Medicaid participants, their aging computer systems used by state workers and their methods of verifying information through various databases.

Most will have to turn to private contractors to meet the time crunch. At least 10 companies have agreed to offer discounted services, according to the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Making those technology upgrades “is going to be a lift. It’s not something straightforward. It’s not easy,” said Jason Reilly, a partner at Guidehouse, a firm that is advising several states on the Medicaid requirements.

Most states don’t currently collect employment or education information about Medicaid participants. So states are looking to tap into outside sources to verify job and school data. But there’s no database of community volunteers.

And states are still waiting on federal rules — not due until June — to define some of the exceptions to the work requirements, such as how to determine who qualifies as “medically frail.”

States face extra pressure to get it right because the federal government will start penalizing states with too many Medicaid payment errors in October 2029.

FILE – A worker at a Medicaid call center reviews information regarding eligibility determinations on Wednesday Aug. 16, 2023 in Jefferson City, Mo. (AP Photo/David A. Lieb, File)

States will be angling for extra federal money

Congress guaranteed all states a share of the $200 million allotted for Medicaid work and eligibility changes. But states must apply for additional federal money. The federal government covers up to 90% of states’ costs to develop systems for determining Medicaid eligibility, 75% of costs to maintain those systems and half of most other administrative costs.

Missouri won early approval for the 90% federal funding rate. State lawmakers now are fast-tracking a $32 million appropriation needed to solicit bids for vendors to start upgrading technology platforms and improving a chatbot for Medicaid participants. Over the next year, the state’s social services agency expects to need about 120 additional workers — at a cost of $12.5 million — to handle the extra administrative workload.

Other states also project large costs. Maryland expects to spend over $32 million in federal and state funds to implement the Medicaid changes, Kentucky more than $46 million and Colorado over $51 million. Arizona estimates it could cost $65 million — and require 150 additional staff — to implement the new federal requirements.

Some states surveyed by the AP reported even higher expected costs, though they didn’t always provide a breakdown for how much is due to new Medicaid mandates and how much pertains to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program changes also contained in Trump’s big law.

Several states, including Arkansas, said they are still working on cost estimates for the Medicaid changes. Arkansas instituted a Medicaid work requirement in 2018-2019, and thousands of people were dropped from the rolls before a federal court ended it. Many of the technology changes required by the new federal mandates could be covered under an existing vendor contract and have “a minimal financial impact on our Medicaid budget,” the Arkansas Department of Human Services said in an email.

Nebraska has said it plans to launch Medicaid work requirements in May, seven months ahead of the federal deadline. But the state has not detailed any associated costs and did not respond to inquiries from the AP.

Georgia’s work requirement prompts concerns

Georgia is currently the only state requiring some Medicaid recipients to work, after receiving special federal approval several years ago to expand coverage to some adults not otherwise eligible.

FILE – A stand for Georgia Pathways is seen at a job fair in Atlanta, Ga., June 5, 2025. (AP Photo/Sudhin Thanawala, File)

The Georgia Pathways to Coverage program racked up more than $54 million of administrative costs from 2021 through the first part of 2025 — twice the amount of medical assistance paid out over that same period, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office. Almost all of those costs came from technology changes to its eligibility and enrollment system.

Some Medicaid analysts point to Georgia’s costs and Arkansas’ enrollment losses as reasons for caution as work requirements roll out in other states.

“A huge amount of funding is going to go to vendors to construct these complicated red-tape systems that prevent people who need it from getting health care,” said Joan Alker, executive director of the Center for Children and Families at Georgetown University. “In my view, that is a big, big risk.”

By FOSTER KLUG

TOKYO (AP) — A shaken world reacted with anger and confusion — and more involvement than expected, in some cases — Monday as the coordinated U.S.-Israeli attacks on Iran over the weekend sprawled into a regional war.

The first details of possible effects on Iran’s nuclear program, the issue at the center of the escalating conflict, began to emerge. More allies of the U.S. and Israel engaged, as did Iran’s armed proxies. And countries from the Gulf to Cyprus found themselves in the line of fire.

Fast-paced diplomacy was required as the missiles and drones kept coming. Borders closed, embassies emptied and allies sent military reinforcements.

Open support, and some silence

Many nations refrained from commenting directly on the initial U.S.-Israeli joint strikes but condemned Tehran’s retaliation, perhaps mindful of U.S. President Donald Trump.

Other governments criticized Iran’s strikes on Arab neighbors while staying silent on the U.S. and Israeli military action.

Canada — not shy about its frustration with the Trump administration — expressed open support for the U.S. strikes, along with Australia.

Russia, China and Spain responded with sometimes sharp criticism. Russia’s foreign ministry accused the U.S. and Israel of “hiding behind” concerns about Iran’s nuclear program while actually pursuing regime change.

India called for dialogue. “There will have to be a dialogue at some point,” the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog, Rafael Grossi, said.

With thousands of citizens of countries around the world stranded at airports or on cruise ships, and some from countries like the Philippines and China killed in the exchanges of fire, more nations have a stake in what comes next.

All will have the chance for more say as international groups convene in urgent calls and meetings, after the U.N. Security Council gathered in emergency session on Saturday, hours after strikes began.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz speaks before media members as he visits facilities of Siemens Energy during his official visit, in Hangzhou, China, Thursday, Feb. 26, 2026. (Andres Martinez Casares/Pool Photo via AP)

Pitching in to stop Iran

In a statement, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz called on the United States and Iran to resume talks over Iran’s nuclear program and said they favored a negotiated settlement. Saturday’s strikes began two days after the latest round of talks.

The three countries have led efforts to reach a negotiated solution over Iran’s nuclear program.

Related Articles

US and Israeli attacks on Iran put further strain on international law

A look at some of the contenders to be Iran’s supreme leader after the killing of Khamenei

Where things stand after the US and Israeli strikes on Iran

Russia-Ukraine talks planned for Abu Dhabi this week may change venue, Zelenskyy says

Macron says France will allow temporary deployment of nuclear-armed jets to European allies

At the same time, Britain, France and Germany said they were ready to help with efforts to keep Iran from firing more missiles and drones.

But countries tried to make clear how far they might go. Germany will not actively participate in military action against Iran but will consider defending its soldiers stationed on multinational military bases in Jordan and Iraq if they are attacked, German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul said Monday.

Britain stressed that it was “not at war,” although it said it would now permit the U.S. to use joint bases to strike Iran, pointing to Iran’s “scorched-earth strategy.”

Top diplomats of six Gulf states — Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Oman and Bahrain — after an emergency meeting called on Iran to immediately halt its attacks and asserted their right to self-defense.

A plea for talks, too

Oman, which was facilitating the nuclear talks and tried to keep the U.S. and Iran at the table as tensions soared, said the U.S. action “constitutes a violation of the rules of international law and the principle of settling disputes through peaceful means.” Oman, too, like other Gulf nations reported attacks that came uncomfortably close to home.

But Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi said after the second full day of hostilities that “the door to diplomacy remains open.”

Meanwhile, some states were shaken into saying something different.

The 22-nation Arab League, which has historically condemned both Israel and Iran for actions it says risk destabilizing the region, called the Iranian attacks “a blatant violation of the sovereignty of countries that advocate for peace and strive for stability.”

And Syria was among Iran’s closest regional allies and a staunch critic of Israel under former President Bashar Assad, yet its foreign ministry singularly condemned Iran, reflecting the new government’s efforts to rebuild ties with regional economic heavyweights and the United States.

Concerns about oil and nuclear assets

China, a significant buyer of Iranian oil, said it was “highly concerned” about the U.S. and Israeli strikes called for an immediate halt to the military action and return to negotiations.

But Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi on Monday played down growing worry about the economic impact on oil shipments from the Middle East, saying Japan has oil reserves at home that can last for several months.

The Nobel Peace Prize-winning International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons condemned the U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran. And European Union leaders in a joint statement called for restraint and diplomacy in hopes of “ensuring nuclear safety.”

Associated Press writers around the world contributed.

By MIKE CORDER

THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — As U.S. and Israeli forces pounded Iran, and Tehran and its affiliates retaliated by firing missiles at targets across the Mideast on Monday, the international legal order was caught in the crossfire.

Related Articles

A look at some of the contenders to be Iran’s supreme leader after the killing of Khamenei

Where things stand after the US and Israeli strikes on Iran

Russia-Ukraine talks planned for Abu Dhabi this week may change venue, Zelenskyy says

Macron says France will allow temporary deployment of nuclear-armed jets to European allies

Britain says it’s not at war after a drone strikes its Akrotiri base in Cyprus

At the heart of the post-World War II global order — United Nations headquarters in New York — Secretary-General António Guterres told the Security Council on Saturday that U.S. and Israeli airstrikes violated international law, including the U.N. Charter. He also condemned Iran’s retaliatory attacks for violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of nations in the Mideast.

Officials in the Trump administration insist that the military campaign is a lawful measure to ensure Tehran does not build nuclear weapons. “It’s a matter of global security. And to that end, the United States is taking lawful actions,” Trump’s U.N. ambassador, Mike Waltz, said.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi wrote in a letter to the U.N. on Sunday that the killing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei “constitutes a grave and unprecedented breach of the most fundamental norms governing relations among States.”

On Monday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth bullishly defended the U.S. military campaign. “No stupid rules of engagement, no nation building quagmire, no democracy building exercise, no politically correct wars. We fight to win and we don’t waste time or lives,” he said at the Pentagon.

The war with Iran comes less than two months after U.S. forces swooped into Caracas to capture former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and fly him to New York to face justice.

International law and the US Constitution under pressure

David Crane, an American expert on international law and founding prosecutor of a United Nations court that prosecuted crimes in Sierra Leone, wrote in an analysis that U.S. attacks in Iran and Venezuela “highlight a dangerous trend: the normalization of unilateral force as a tool of foreign policy. Even when the outcome is positive, the violation of international law and constitutional limits sets a precedent that threatens global stability and undermines America’s own legal foundations.”

In Washington, many Democrats have called the strikes illegal. They argue that under the Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war. They say the Trump administration failed to lay out its rationale or plan for the military strikes, and the aftermath.

Congress hurriedly scheduled a war powers debate for Monday over Trump’s authority to bomb Iran.

A plume of smoke rises after a strike in Tehran, Iran, Monday, March 2, 2026. (AP Photo/Vahid Salemi)

The crime of aggression

Under an amendment to the founding treaty of the International Criminal Court, aggression is described as “the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations.”

Among acts of aggression listed by the court are: “Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State.”

Neither the United States, Israel nor Iran are members of the court, meaning the court does not have jurisdiction in the ongoing war unless it is referred to ICC prosecutors by a Security Council resolution.

International legal order

Under the U.N. Charter, nations are only permitted to use force against another nation if it has been authorized by the Security Council or in self-defense, said Marieke de Hoon, an associate professor of international criminal law at the University of Amsterdam.

De Hoon said the attacks on Iran amount to a crime of aggression.

“It is a violation of the prohibition to use force, the cornerstone of the international legal order, and there is no legal justification for it: it is not a self-defense against an armed attack by Iran or an imminent threat” of an attack, “nor is there a UNSC resolution to authorize use of force,” she told The Associated Press. “Regime change moreover violates the sovereignty of another state.”

What about Iran

Iranian authorities have a history of brutal repression of dissent and sponsoring extremism that has destabilized the Mideast. The country’s nuclear ambitions were targeted by Trump last year in military strikes on sites in Iran.

But De Hoon said that is not enough to justify the U.S. and Israeli bombardments.

She said that under international law Tehran has the right to self-defense, but she added that “Iran is not allowed to attack civilian infrastructure in other countries. Its response needs to be proportionate to stop the aggression, without offering itself a legitimation toward, for instance, regime change in the aggressor country.”

Crane said that while the removal from power of Maduro and Khamenei could potentially boost regional stability and reduce suffering and ultimately improve the prospects for peace and democracy, “international law does not permit states to unilaterally decide which tyrants to remove by force.”

President Donald Trump waves after arriving on Marine One on the South Lawn of White House, Sunday, March 1, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/JMark Schiefelbein)

Are assassinations ever legal

Marko Milanovic, a professor of international law at Reading University, said that in peacetime, “it is a clear violation of international law to assassinate the head of state or government of some other state.”

He said heads of state and government “enjoy personal immunities and inviolability, and any attacks against them would also violate the sovereignty of their state.”

That changes in wartime, he added, saying that if political leaders also are members of the armed forces, “then they are combatants like any other members of the armed forces and are not immune from attack.”

Associated Press writer Jovana Gec in Belgrade, Serbia, contributed to this report.

This article was co-published with Puente News Collaborative, a bilingual nonprofit newsroom dedicated to high-quality coverage from the U.S.-Mexico border.

Sitting inside the taquería El Portón here in Edinburg, Texas, tuba-tinged banda music wafting through the speakers, Bobby Pulido could easily pass for one of the many South Texas Latinos who drifted toward Donald Trump in the past two presidential races. He’s a rancher who spends time at the shooting range. Clad in a plaid shirt, cowboy boots, and khaki baseball cap that reads “Texican,” Pulido talks easily about faith, family and personal responsibility.

But, he insists, the Democratic Party is still his party.

“They shouldn’t own the flag,” Pulido said of Republicans. “I love my country, and I’d die for it. And I love God, and I embrace my faith. That’s who I am. But I’m also empathetic, and I also want to help people. And I believe that the little guy sometimes needs—like my dad did—needs a helping hand to get their family out of poverty. That’s our spirit.”

As the country heads into another volatile election season, Texas’ 15th Congressional District—stretching nearly 250 miles from the Rio Grande Valley north toward Central Texas—has become a testing ground for one of the biggest questions facing the Democratic Party: Can it win back Latino voters who swung right in recent elections?

Pulido, 52, the high-profile Tejano singer best known for his 1990s hit “Desvelado,” is widely viewed as the frontrunner in Tuesday’s Democratic Party primary in a district redrawn in 2022 to favor Republicans—but one of the few in Texas that Democrats hope they can flip. 

The race has attracted national attention as a case study in how the party might reconnect with disaffected, hard-to-pin working-class Mexican American voters.

Pulido is not the only charismatic product of the Valley’s working class in this race, however. His opponent, emergency room physician Ada Cuellar, 44, argues she is also capable of appealing beyond party lines. While she doesn’t like to label herself ideologically, some of her positions place her further left than Pulido’s self-declared Democratic conservatism.

Cuellar has an equally inspiring personal story that reflects the dreams many of the Valley’s working families hold for their children. Originally from Weslaco, she recently earned a law degree while tending to patients and raising her 12-year-old daughter as a single mother. 

“I’m a kid who grew up low-income and relied on public education,” she said. “I was a WIC program recipient, and then growing up, I was a Pell grant recipient. I see that now these things are being attacked by the Trump administration. Benefits that would have helped a kid like me, right now they’re being cut.”

She describes herself as anti-corruption and anti-establishment and takes firmer stances than Pulido on issues such as codifying abortion rights. She favors dismantling ICE, leaving immigration enforcement to other agencies with greater trust. 

“Democrats are excited about me because I’m a fighter,” she said. “And interestingly, when talking to Republicans, they also are excited about the same thing, even if they don’t align with every single position that I take.”

Despite her political attributes, a poll shared with Politico in January showed Cuellar running a solid second, facing an uphill battle against Pulido’s celebrity status and high media profile. 

The son of famed conjunto musician Roberto Pulido —a former migrant farmworker who worked his way through college—Bobby Pulido grew up in a political family reflective of the Democratic Party establishment that has long dominated the Valley. 

Tejano music star and Democratic candidate Bobby Pulido poses for a portrait following a campaign event in Falfurrias on October 25, 2025. (Photo by Michael Gonzalez)

His uncle, Eloy Pulido, was a county judge. In high school, Bobby Pulido was selected by his teachers to attend Texas Boys State, a prestigious civic leadership program, and later studied political science at St. Mary’s University in San Antonio.

With these deep roots in politics, he assumed he might one day run for office.

But in the mid-1990s, major record labels were searching for the next Selena-type sensation. When Pulido’s father invited him to record a duet, executives heard him and offered a deal he couldn’t resist. He left college a year shy of graduating and became one of Tejano music’s biggest stars, producing 18 albums, winning two Latin Grammy awards, and touring the U.S. and Mexico.

Now, three decades later, the father of four hopes to translate his cultural capital into political momentum.

On the campaign trail, Pulido has hosted what he calls “ranch halls” instead of town halls. He appears in his signature cowboy hat and boots, sometimes breaking into song at the end of his speeches. His campaign ads emphasize that he’s “not team red, not team blue, team you.”

He argues that Latino voters in the Valley defy easy partisan labels. 

An in-depth study in 2020 by the Texas Organizing Project Education Fund found that many Latino voters hold weak partisan attachment, even when they regularly vote for one party. Rather than aligning wholesale with a platform, respondents often described weighing issues individually—immigration, healthcare, taxes, education—and basing votes on who is running at any given moment.

Equis Research, a national firm that studies Latino voters, has similarly argued that Latinos should be understood less as a guaranteed Democratic bloc and more as persuadable swing voters.

That pattern is visible in South Texas. In 2024, some Valley voters supported Trump at the top of the ticket while backing Democrats in local and congressional races. 

“I hate this narrative that South Texas is red,” Pulido said. “I don’t think the people are red. I think they care about the candidate.”

The four counties that make up the Valley, which has more than 1.3 million mostly Latino residents, had not voted Republican in a presidential race since the late 1800s. That shifted dramatically when Trump made moderate gains in 2020—then markedly larger ones four years later.

In Hidalgo County, where District 15 is anchored, he went from drawing 28 percent of the vote in 2016 to 51 percent in 2024. 

Political pundits and the media often oversimplify the Latino electorate, and Pulido rejects the argument that the shift was mostly about the economy and immigration.

He believes cultural conservatism—including debates over gender identity—resonated with many Valley voters deeply rooted in church, family, and a Tejano identity, while shielding them from the overt discrimination that Latinos face in other communities where they are the minority.

“You don’t feel the racism because we’re all Hispanics, predominantly,” he said. “So you just think, ‘It’s conservatism. I go to church, I love God. I want tax cuts, have the government staying out of my business.’”

He added: “You don’t understand how many people down here would tell me stuff about biological men playing in women’s sports, and none of them had ever experienced that, or even known of any situation where it happened.”

In a region where many Mexican American families like Pulido’s go back generations—in some cases to before the land was part of the United States—cultural identity and party affiliation do not always move together.

Democratic candidate Ada Cuellar at a No Kings rally in October. (Courtesy of Ada Cuellar Campaign/Facebook)

Pulido sees himself in that middle space. He’s confident he can bring some Trump supporters back to the political center with a focus on working-class concerns like healthcare access and cost of living.

He said programs that focus solely on people living in poverty create resentment among people who earn just enough to disqualify them, yet still struggle to make ends meet.

“So we have to do something about catering our message more to the middle class and the working class,” he said. “Because they feel like they have to work two jobs just to make it.”

Pulido believes his advantage is his friendships across party lines, including with Border Patrol agents and Trump voters.

“The most important thing for me as a Democrat that did not vote for Donald Trump is I’ve learned how to talk to people that did,” he said. “They feel I don’t disrespect them, and I don’t look down on them. And I don’t think I’m better than they are.”

Pulido’s celebrity status and his ability to code-switch politically are formidable. Yet Cuellar has mounted a serious campaign, self-funding television and radio ads while criticizing his establishment endorsements and old social media posts in which he made sexist remarks and boasted that a family friend who was a judge dismissed a speeding ticket.

She argues that longtime Democratic power brokers in the Valley who are backing Pulido are the same ones who contributed to voter disillusionment that helped Republicans flip the district.

“It’s a mistake to think that he’s the only candidate that can win this district,” she said.

This week’s winner will face Republican U.S. Representative Monica De La Cruz in November. She flipped the district in 2022 after Texas Republicans redrew its boundaries, and won again in 2024 by 14 points.

“It is absolutely winnable,” Pulido said. “But I’m the underdog, I get it.”

The post Why This South Texas District Is a Proving Ground for One of Democrats’ Biggest Questions appeared first on The Texas Observer.