By John Q. Hosedrinker 
NOTUS reported that President Trump appeared unaware that his budget bill, which he touted as “big and beautiful,” included cuts to Medicaid. During a meeting with House Republicans, he was informed that the bill, which he had been presenting as a plan that protected Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, actually slashed Medicaid funding. This revelation raises concerns about Trump’s understanding of the legislation and suggests that he may be acting as a figurehead for the Heritage Foundation. The bill’s changes to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act are projected to result in millions of Americans losing their health insurance.
Read the original article here
Trump Apparently Didn’t Know His Own Bill’s Extreme Medicaid Plan, and the initial thought that arises is that the claim, or the insinuation, that he was unaware of the details within his own proposed legislation regarding Medicaid cuts is deeply concerning. It raises questions about his ability to govern, his attentiveness, and the degree to which he’s merely a figurehead. The fact that a bill of such magnitude, with potentially devastating consequences for millions of Americans, could be passed without his full comprehension paints a troubling picture of the legislative process and the influence of behind-the-scenes actors.
This leads us to the idea of Trump as a “vessel,” as someone guided by other entities, specifically the Heritage Foundation and its allies. The suggestion is that these groups are feeding him policy and legislative language, essentially writing the bills for him, and he is simply lending his signature. It brings to light a potential shift in power, with unelected officials and special interest groups dictating the direction of the country. It raises the chilling question of how much agency he truly possesses, and whether his decisions are being made by him, or for him.
Then the picture develops further with the assertion that Trump operates on “autopilot,” seemingly disengaged from the specifics of governing. The implication is that he is present in name only, an image crafted to maintain the illusion of control. This narrative underscores the idea of a detached leader, content to be a puppet while others pull the strings. This lack of attention could mean that he’s either deliberately choosing ignorance, or that his mental capacity is not what is needed to lead.
Considering the Republicans’ claims of ignorance, combined with the Democrats’ vocal opposition and the fact that the bill became law, a disturbing picture emerges. Who was really responsible for writing this piece of legislation? It evokes the uncomfortable feeling that the legislative process has been compromised, and that special interests have seized control. It gives the impression that the needs of the American people are secondary to the agenda of a select few.
The core idea then shifts into a very direct accusation: that Trump knew about the bill, or at least didn’t care about its implications for the poor. He is, according to this angle, indifferent to the potential suffering caused by Medicaid cuts, seeing them instead as a tool to serve his own interests and those of his wealthy associates. This narrative portrays him as someone who prioritizes self-enrichment and power above the welfare of the general population. He does not care, and the negative outcomes for those using Medicaid are not a priority.
This perspective deepens, adding the concept of “plausible deniability” to the equation. Trump feigning ignorance allows him to distance himself from the fallout, enabling him to blame others when the consequences of the bill become apparent. It reinforces the view of a calculating politician who is more concerned with preserving his image and avoiding accountability than he is with responsible leadership. He is a liar.
The claim that Trump would be easily bullied into not signing the bill if the Democrats pushed this angle hard reveals a political strategy. The argument is that by focusing on his lack of knowledge and the potential negative impacts of the bill, Democrats could force him to back down. It suggests that he is more concerned with public perception and appearances than he is with the substance of the legislation. He would sign a different bill.
It also becomes clear that the bill is a vehicle for Project 2025, and those who created it for him. He has no idea what’s in it, and simply wants the photo opportunity. It emphasizes the role of external actors in shaping his policies, which paints a picture of him as a rubber stamp, easily manipulated by his supporters.
His inability to comprehend the specifics of the bills he signs reflects a troubling pattern. Whether it’s because of a lack of interest, capacity, or a combination of both, it raises fundamental questions about his fitness for office. It highlights the risk of allowing special interests to hijack the political process.
The focus then turns to the consequences that may result. The potential for severe hardship for those reliant on Medicaid is presented as a certainty. It creates a sense of urgency, calling for a coordinated response from the opposition.
The issue is no longer a matter of debate. The bill’s impact is undeniable. The blame is clear. He wants to wreck the country.
The point is made that Trump is a man who doesn’t read and only reacts. Everything that comes from him is a lie. The cruelty is the point.
In summary, the portrayal of Trump is harsh and critical. He is depicted as ignorant, disengaged, and more concerned with self-preservation than the welfare of the country. His legislative actions are not born out of careful deliberation, but instead represent the will of powerful individuals who have his ear. It is a condemnation of the current state of affairs, with the message being that the public is being deceived.