Former first lady Michelle Obama said Americans are ‘not ready’ to elect a woman to the White House, citing former Vice President Kamala Harris’ 2024 presidential election loss to President Donald Trump.

Obama made the comments to a crowd of women at the Brooklyn Academy of Music while promoting her new book, ‘The Look.’

‘As we saw in this past election, sadly, we ain’t ready,’ she said on Friday.

‘That’s why I’m like, don’t even look at me about running, because you all are lying. You’re not ready for a woman. You are not,’ she continued.

The former first lady went on to say that she does not believe men in America are comfortable with a woman leading them.

‘You know, we’ve got a lot of growing up to do, and there’s still, sadly, a lot of men who do not feel like they can be led by a woman, and we saw it,’ Obama said.

In her book, which was released on Nov. 4, Obama touches on her journey with fashion, hair and beauty, as well as her time in the White House as the first Black woman to serve as first lady. She wrote that women in politics are often judged based on their physical appearance instead of their ability to lead.

‘During our family’s time in the White House, the way I looked was constantly being dissected — what I wore, how my hair was styled. For a while now, I’ve been wanting to reclaim more of that story, to share it in my own way. I’m thankful to be at a stage in life where I feel comfortable expressing myself freely — wearing what I love and doing what feels true to me. And I’m excited to share some of what I’ve learned along the way,’ Obama wrote on Facebook in June while promoting her book ahead of its release.

”The Look’ is about more than fashion. It’s about confidence. It’s about identity. It’s about the power of authenticity. My hope is that this book sparks conversation and reflection about the ways we see ourselves — and the way our society defines beauty,’ she added.

In his iconic dissent in Morrison v. Olson (1988), the late, great Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia brilliantly articulated why the Independent Counsel Statute unconstitutionally intruded upon the Executive Branch. This dissent laid the groundwork for the Supreme Court’s current constitutionalist majority to restore sanity to separation-of-powers jurisprudence by returning power to its rightful place: the Executive Branch, all of whose power is vested in the President of the United States who is elected by all Americans.

Leftists and other anti-democratic big-government types call this view the ‘unitary executive theory.’ In reality, it is just Article II of the United States Constitution. We The People loan executive power to our duly-elected President; we do not divvy it up among unelected, leftist federal bureaucrats. Scalia’s most famous line in the Morrison dissent was his characterization of the statute as ‘a wolf in wolf’s clothing,’ a play on the idiom of ‘a wolf in sheep’s clothing.’ Scalia was illustrating how the violation of the separation of powers was unambiguous.

Former U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf of Massachusetts is another wolf in wolf’s clothing, despite his effort–aided by the leftist media–to package himself otherwise. Wolf was appointed to the bench by President Reagan in 1985, but he is no judicial conservative. Wolf received the stamp of approval from the most leftist home-state duo in Senate history: Ted Kennedy and John Kerry. The reason the approval of these radical senators was necessary lies in a century-old Senate tradition called the blue slip. Home-state senators can veto nominations of U.S. district judges, U.S. attorneys, and U.S. marshals. Nominees will not move forward without the return of blue slips from both home-state senators. Senators will not relinquish this extraordinary power because they are power-hungry and self-serving. They want to hand-select the federal prosecutor who could indict them, the federal judge who could try them, and the federal marshal who could escort them to prison.

Recently, Wolf resigned from his lifetime appointment. He had assumed senior status (a form of semi-retirement) during the Obama administration, allowing Obama—instead of the next Republican president–to appoint a leftist to replace Wolf in full-time judicial service. According to Wolf, President Trump has disregarded the rule of law in innumerable ways. Wolf wants to speak out about it and serve as a self-appointed spokesman for sitting judges who cannot. Wolf also has blasted the Supreme Court, claiming that the constitutionalist majority has enabled President Trump. Wolf has whined the Court has ruled 17 out of 20 times in the Trump administration’s favor on its emergency docket. Wolf has compared this success rate to that of players like Barry Bonds, Mark McGuire, and Sammy Sosa during Major League Baseball’s steroid era.

Wolf’s claim is absurd. The administration has succeeded so much at the Supreme Court thanks to its stellar team of legal all-stars, headed by Attorney General Pam Bondi and Solicitor General John Sauer. Many other brilliant attorneys also deserve credit for the administration’s sterling Supreme Court performance.

Moreover, the rulings by Wolf’s fellow activist judges are clearly partisan and lawless. How many cases does Wolf think the administration should have won before the Court? Eight out of 20? Ten? Twelve? His statistical conspiracy gibberish is devoid of even a scintilla of legal analysis. Wolf is only interested in peddling nonsense to bash justices he plainly detests. Wolf also conveniently ignores the other side of the statistical coin. According to analysis from former top Senate counsel Michael Fragoso, district judges in Massachusetts ruled against the Trump administration on 27 out of 29 temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions. Wolf apparently has no issue with this disparity; rather, he seems to view these rulings as coming from beacons of judicial integrity.

Wolf has a history of conspiracy hogwash. For over a decade, he pursued a baseless case against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, history’s greatest justice. According to Wolf, Thomas had wilfully failed to make required disclosures. The Judicial Conference categorically rejected Wolf’s theory. Yet, over a decade after the case had been closed, Wolf testified before a Senate Judiciary Committee subcommittee chaired by U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, another partisan and deranged conspiracy theorist. During one exchange, Wolf told a U.S. senator that former Reagan Solicitor General Rex Lee would have been disturbed by, as Wolf saw it, unethical behavior of Thomas. That senator was Mike Lee of Utah, and Solicitor General Lee was his deceased father. Sen. Lee rightfully erupted at Wolf’s despicable statement.

Sitting judges cannot speak out against President Trump according to the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. They cannot use Wolf as their mouthpiece, either. The House and Senate Judiciary Committees need to subpoena Wolf to determine which judges are trashing President Trump through Wolf. If Wolf refuses to divulge the information, he should face contempt of Congress charges just like Trump allies Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro did.

If the identities of judges who speak through Wolf to bash President Trump become public, every one of those judges must face impeachment proceedings. No matter how difficult conviction by a two-thirds Senate supermajority will be, these rogue judges must suffer through the impeachment process to deter them and other judicial embarrassments from engaging in blatantly unethical behavior. These radical judges are illegally and dangerously subverting the will of American voters.

Wolf is a Sheldon Whitehouse, not a Ronald Reagan. Wolf plans to serve as the vehicle by which sitting judges can attempt to circumvent ethical constraints. He has spouted risible conspiracy tripe to denigrate the Supreme Court in general and Thomas in particular. He even has stooped to the all-time low of bringing up a senator’s deceased father in a pathetic attempt to score a few cheap political points. In short, Wolf is a disgrace to the federal judiciary, and his resignation is welcome news. Good riddance to this wolf in wolf’s clothing.

From new stealth bombers to AI-enabled drones, the U.S. and China are reshaping airpower for a Pacific showdown — each betting its technology can keep the other out of the skies.

The U.S. is charging ahead with its next-generation F-47 fighter, while China scrambles to catch up with jets designed to match the F-35 and F-22.

After a brief program pause in 2024, the Air Force awarded Boeing the contract in March for the F-47, a manned sixth-generation fighter meant to anchor America’s next air superiority fleet. The first flight is expected in 2028.

At the same time, the B-21 Raider, the stealth successor to the B-2, is deep into testing at Edwards Air Force Base. The Air Force plans to buy at least 100 Raiders — each built to survive inside heavily defended Chinese airspace.

The Pentagon is also betting on Collaborative Combat Aircraft, or CCAs — drones designed to fly alongside fighters as ‘loyal wingmen.’ Prototypes from Anduril and General Atomics are already in the air. Officials say CCAs will let one pilot control several drones at once.

China outpaces the rest of the world in the commercial drone market, but that doesn’t necessarily give it the advantage from a military perspective. 

‘I’m not sure that’s really true. In terms of high-end military drones that are really important to this fight, the U.S. still has a pretty significant edge.’ said Eric Heginbotham, a research scientist at MIT’s Center for International Studies. 

He pointed to the Air Force’s stealth reconnaissance platforms — the RQ-170 and RQ-180 — and upcoming ‘loyal wingman’ drones designed to fly with fighters as proof that the U.S. still leads in advanced integration and stealth technology.

China’s leap forward

China’s airpower modernization has accelerated as the U.S. reshapes its force. Beijing has zeroed in on three priorities — stealth, engines, and carriers — the areas that long held its military back.

The Chengdu J-20, China’s flagship stealth fighter, is being fitted with the new WS-15 engine, a home-built powerplant meant to rival U.S. engines.

‘It took them a while to get out of the blocks on fifth generation, especially to get performance anywhere near where U.S. fifth gen was,’ Heginbotham said. ‘The J-20 really does not have a lot of the performance features that even the F-22 does, and we’ve had the F-22 for a long time.’

Meanwhile, China’s third aircraft carrier, the Fujian, was commissioned this fall — the first with electromagnetic catapults similar to U.S. Ford-class carriers. The move signals Beijing’s ambition to launch stealth jets from sea and project power well beyond its coast.

Together, the J-20, the carrier-based J-35, and the Fujian give China a layered airpower network — stealth jets on land and at sea backed by growing missile coverage.

Chinese military writings identify airfields as critical vulnerabilities. PLA campaign manuals call for striking runways early in a conflict to paralyze enemy air operations before they can begin. Analysts believe a few days of concentrated missile fire could cripple U.S. bases across Japan, Okinawa, and Guam.

‘The U.S. bases that are forward deployed—particularly on Okinawa, but also on the Japanese mainland and on Guam—are exposed to Chinese missile attack,’ said Mark Cancian, a retired Marine colonel and senior advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. ‘In our war games, the Chinese would periodically sweep these air bases with missiles and destroy dozens, in some cases even hundreds, of U.S. aircraft.’

Heginbotham said that missile-heavy strategy grew directly out of China’s early airpower weakness.

‘They didn’t think that they could gain air superiority in a straight-up air-to-air fight,’ he said. ‘So you need another way to get missiles out — and that another way is by building a lot of ground launchers.’

Different strategies, same goal

The two militaries are taking different paths to the same target: air dominance over the Pacific.

The U.S. approach relies on smaller numbers of highly advanced aircraft linked by sensors and artificial intelligence. The goal: strike first, from long range, and survive in contested skies.

China’s model depends on volume — mass-producing fighters, missiles, and carrier sorties to overwhelm U.S. defenses and logistics.

‘U.S. fighter aircraft—F-35s, F-15s, F-22s—are relatively short-legged, so they have to get close to Taiwan if they’re going to be part of the fight,’ Cancian said. ‘They can’t fight from Guam, and they certainly can’t fight from further away. So if they’re going to fight, they have to be inside that Chinese defensive bubble.’

Both sides face the same challenge: surviving inside that bubble. China’s expanding missile range is pushing U.S. aircraft farther from the fight, while American bombers and drones are designed to break back in.

The fight to survive

Heginbotham said survivability — not dogfighting — will define the next decade of air competition.

‘We keep talking about aircraft as if it’s going to be like World War II — they go up, they fight each other. That’s not really our problem,’ he said. ‘Our problem is the air bases themselves and the fact that aircraft can be destroyed on the air base.’

China, he warned, is preparing for that reality while the U.S. is not.

‘They practice runway strikes in exercises, they’re modeling this stuff constantly,’ Heginbotham said. ‘Unlike the United States, China is hardening its air bases. The U.S. is criminally negligent in its refusal to harden its air bases.’

Cancian’s war-game findings echo that vulnerability. He said U.S. surface ships and aircraft would likely have to fall back under missile fire in the opening days of a conflict.

‘At the initial stages of a conflict, China would have a distinct advantage,’ Cancian said. ‘Now, over time, the U.S. would be able to reinforce its forces, and that would change.’

Looking ahead

The Pentagon’s fiscal 2026–27 budget will determine how fast the U.S. can build out its F-47s, B-21s, and CCAs — systems that will shape American airpower through the 2030s.

China’s rapid modernization is closing what was once a wide gap, but the U.S. still holds advantages in stealth integration, combat experience, and autonomous systems.

‘The ability to protect our aircraft, whatever form those aircraft take, on the ground is going to be central to our ability to fight in the Asia theater,’ Heginbotham said.

‘Survivability is going to be key … The ability to protect and disperse your firepower is going to be central to whether we can really stay in this game.’

For decades, U.S. air dominance was taken for granted. In the Pacific, that advantage is no longer guaranteed. 

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced new efforts to ‘clean up’ the nation’s energy sector amid a corruption scandal and near-constant attacks from Russia.

Zelenskyy met with Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko on Sunday morning, saying he called on lawmakers to revamp the leadership at the State Nuclear Regulatory Inspectorate and the State Energy Supervision Inspectorate, in addition to other efforts to expunge Russian influence in the sector.

‘In full coordination with law enforcement and anti-corruption bodies, ensure the renewal of the Asset Recovery and Management Agency and to promptly complete the competition for the position of Head of ARMA so that the new Head of the Agency can be selected by the end of this year,’ Zelenskyy wrote on X.

He further called on lawmakers to ‘promptly conduct an audit and prepare for sale the assets and shares in assets that belonged to Russian entities and to collaborators who fled to Russia. All such assets must operate one hundred percent in Ukraine’s interests – to support our defense and to contribute to Ukraine’s budget.’

The new energy initiative also comes after a former associate of Zelenskyy’s was accused of being the mastermind behind a $100 million embezzlement scheme involving nuclear energy.

Tymur Mindich, who was once Zelenskyy’s business partner, was identified by Ukraine’s anti-corruption watchdogs as being the orchestrator of a scheme involving top officials and Ukraine’s state nuclear power company. Prior to the scandal, some feared Mindich’s growing influence over Ukraine’s lucrative industries that he had access to because of his ties to Zelenskyy.

Mindich allegedly exerted control over loyalists who then pressured contractors for Energoatom, Ukraine’s state-owned nuclear power company, demanding kickbacks to bypass bureaucratic obstacles. The requested kickbacks were reportedly as high as 15%.

Zelenskyy himself was not implicated in the investigation.

The new effort comes as Zelenskyy says that his team is ‘working to ensure another start to negotiations’ on ending the war with Russia.

‘We are also counting on the resumption of POW exchanges – many meetings, negotiations, and calls are currently taking place to ensure this. I thank everyone who is helping. Thank you to everybody who stands with Ukraine,’ Zelenskyy wrote.

Ukraine’s president further said that he is preparing for a full week of diplomacy with Greece, France and Spain, as well as renewed negotiations over prisoner of war exchanges with Russia.

Zelenskyy will meet with officials in Greece on Sunday to discuss natural gas imports, while talks with France on Monday and Spain on Tuesday will center on bolstering Ukrainian air defenses.

Fox News’ Rachel Wolf contributed to this report.

From new stealth bombers to AI-enabled drones, the U.S. and China are reshaping airpower for a Pacific showdown – each betting its technology can keep the other out of the skies.

The U.S. is charging ahead with its next-generation F-47 fighter, while China scrambles to catch up with jets designed to match the F-35 and F-22.

After a brief program pause in 2024, the Air Force awarded Boeing the contract in March for the F-47, a manned sixth-generation fighter meant to anchor America’s next air superiority fleet. The first flight is expected in 2028.

At the same time, the B-21 Raider, the stealth successor to the B-2, is deep into testing at Edwards Air Force Base. The Air Force plans to buy at least 100 Raiders – each built to survive inside heavily defended Chinese airspace.

The Pentagon is also betting on Collaborative Combat Aircraft, or CCAs – drones designed to fly alongside fighters as ‘loyal wingmen.’ Prototypes from Anduril and General Atomics are already in the air. Officials say CCAs will let one pilot control several drones at once.

China outpaces the rest of the world in the commercial drone market, but that doesn’t necessarily give it the advantage from a military perspective. 

‘I’m not sure that’s really true. In terms of high-end military drones that are really important to this fight, the U.S. still has a pretty significant edge.’ said Eric Heginbotham, a research scientist at MIT’s Center for International Studies. 

He pointed to the Air Force’s stealth reconnaissance platforms – the RQ-170 and RQ-180 – and upcoming ‘loyal wingman’ drones designed to fly with fighters as proof that the U.S. still leads in advanced integration and stealth technology.

China’s leap forward

China’s airpower modernization has accelerated as the U.S. reshapes its force. Beijing has zeroed in on three priorities – stealth, engines and carriers – the areas that long held its military back.

The Chengdu J-20, China’s flagship stealth fighter, is being fitted with the new WS-15 engine, a home-built powerplant meant to rival U.S. engines.

‘It took them a while to get out of the blocks on fifth generation, especially to get performance anywhere near where U.S. fifth gen was,’ Heginbotham said. ‘The J-20 really does not have a lot of the performance features that even the F-22 does, and we’ve had the F-22 for a long time.’

Meanwhile, China’s third aircraft carrier, the Fujian, was commissioned this fall – the first with electromagnetic catapults similar to U.S. Ford-class carriers. The move signals Beijing’s ambition to launch stealth jets from sea and project power well beyond its coast.

Together, the J-20, the carrier-based J-35, and the Fujian give China a layered airpower network – stealth jets on land and at sea backed by growing missile coverage.

Chinese military writings identify airfields as critical vulnerabilities. PLA campaign manuals call for striking runways early in a conflict to paralyze enemy air operations before they can begin. Analysts believe a few days of concentrated missile fire could cripple U.S. bases across Japan, Okinawa and Guam.

‘The U.S. bases that are forward deployed – particularly on Okinawa, but also on the Japanese mainland and on Guam – are exposed to Chinese missile attack,’ said Mark Cancian, a retired Marine colonel and senior advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. ‘In our war games, the Chinese would periodically sweep these air bases with missiles and destroy dozens, in some cases even hundreds, of U.S. aircraft.’

Heginbotham said that missile-heavy strategy grew directly out of China’s early airpower weakness.

‘They didn’t think that they could gain air superiority in a straight-up air-to-air fight,’ he said. ‘So you need another way to get missiles out – and that another way is by building a lot of ground launchers.’

Different strategies, same goal

The two militaries are taking different paths to the same target: air dominance over the Pacific.

The U.S. approach relies on smaller numbers of highly advanced aircraft linked by sensors and artificial intelligence. The goal: strike first, from long range, and survive in contested skies.

China’s model depends on volume – mass-producing fighters, missiles, and carrier sorties to overwhelm U.S. defenses and logistics.

‘U.S. fighter aircraft – F-35s, F-15s, F-22s – are relatively short-legged, so they have to get close to Taiwan if they’re going to be part of the fight,’ Cancian said. ‘They can’t fight from Guam, and they certainly can’t fight from further away. So if they’re going to fight, they have to be inside that Chinese defensive bubble.’

Both sides face the same challenge: surviving inside that bubble. China’s expanding missile range is pushing U.S. aircraft farther from the fight, while American bombers and drones are designed to break back in.

The fight to survive

Heginbotham said survivability – not dogfighting – will define the next decade of air competition.

‘We keep talking about aircraft as if it’s going to be like World War II – they go up, they fight each other. That’s not really our problem,’ he said. ‘Our problem is the air bases themselves and the fact that aircraft can be destroyed on the air base.’

China, he warned, is preparing for that reality while the U.S. is not.

‘They practice runway strikes in exercises, they’re modeling this stuff constantly,’ Heginbotham said. ‘Unlike the United States, China is hardening its air bases. The U.S. is criminally negligent in its refusal to harden its air bases.’

Cancian’s war-game findings echo that vulnerability. He said U.S. surface ships and aircraft would likely have to fall back under missile fire in the opening days of a conflict.

‘At the initial stages of a conflict, China would have a distinct advantage,’ Cancian said. ‘Now, over time, the U.S. would be able to reinforce its forces, and that would change.’

Looking ahead

The Pentagon’s fiscal 2026–27 budget will determine how fast the U.S. can build out its F-47s, B-21s and CCAs – systems that will shape American airpower through the 2030s.

China’s rapid modernization is closing what was once a wide gap, but the U.S. still holds advantages in stealth integration, combat experience and autonomous systems.

‘The ability to protect our aircraft, whatever form those aircraft take, on the ground is going to be central to our ability to fight in the Asia theater,’ Heginbotham said.

‘Survivability is going to be key… The ability to protect and disperse your firepower is going to be central to whether we can really stay in this game.’

For decades, U.S. air dominance was taken for granted. In the Pacific, that advantage is no longer guaranteed. 

Even before the conflict over Medicaid subsidies that resulted in a month-and-a-half-long government shutdown, Democrats were already attacking Republicans over their reforms to the federal health insurance program, which has expanded over many years.

Democrats say the GOP’s cuts were put in place to give tax breaks to the wealthy, and serve to raise people’s premiums and kick them off their coverage. But Republicans, free-market health policy experts and a disability advocate argue these are ‘scare tactics’ used to deceive the public about what Republicans are really trying to do to Medicaid.

According to conservative health policy experts who spoke to Fox News Digital, Republican changes have done nothing to harm those whom Medicaid was originally intended for — people not expected to be in the labor market, such as individuals with disabilities, pregnant women, children and seniors. They argue the Medicaid reforms built into Trump’s tax cuts have actually improved the federal healthcare program for those it is supposed to be serving. 

‘The Working Families Tax Cuts increased oversight efforts as part of a larger package of Medicaid program integrity measures to more precisely serve the traditional Medicaid and the Medicaid Expansion populations,’ said Rep. Morgan Griffith, R-Va., who serves as chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health. ‘Progressive Democrats and their Congressional allies are desperate as they try to pan the Working Families Tax Cuts as devastating to the traditional Medicaid population, which is not true! The traditional Medicaid population, which includes expectant mothers, low-income seniors, children and individuals with disabilities, is not affected by our bill!’

Stricter eligibility requirements — which experts who support the GOP’s approach told Fox News would ensure Medicaid dollars go to those they were intended for — are among the Republican reforms that have drawn Democrats’ ire. Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program had more than 82 million enrollees in 2024, compared with 42.1 million in 2005.
 

Democrats are also upset with provisions that impact how states get reimbursed for certain healthcare coverage via the federal government. Republicans have argued that Democratic states, like California, have been using funding loopholes in this framework so that federal dollars can help them pay for the ballooning cost of covering health insurance for non-U.S. citizens. 

The latest fight that triggered the recent government shutdown centered on enhanced Medicaid subsidies enacted under President Joe Biden during the coronavirus pandemic, described by his administration as a way to ease healthcare costs during that economic strain. Since February, Democrats have targeted vulnerable Republicans over the issue through ad buys and messaging campaigns. One group, Protect Our Care, reportedly spent $1 million on billboards and TV ads titled ‘Hands Off Medicaid.’

However, Paragon Health Institute President Brian Blase argues these changes serve to ‘rightfully refocus’ Medicaid, not ruin it. 

‘It requires able-bodied, working-age adults to work, go to school, or volunteer to receive benefits. It cracks down on corporate-welfare schemes that direct billions of dollars to wealthy, politically connected insurers and hospitals,’ Blase said. ‘And it reduces waste, fraud, and abuse that divert resources from those that truly need it.’ 

Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rep. Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., said point-blank that ‘members of the traditional Medicaid population will not lose coverage due to this law,’ while slamming the ‘left-wing media’ for perpetuating attacks on Republicans.

‘Time and again, Republicans have fought for strengthening, sustaining, and securing the Medicaid program for our most vulnerable Americans — expectant mothers, children, low-income seniors, and individuals living with disabilities,’ Guthrie argued. ‘Republicans are enabling the Medicaid program to serve its intended purpose, and we will continue to fight for solutions that protect the program for generations to come.’

Dean Clancy, Senior Health Policy Fellow at Americans for Prosperity, applauded Republicans for sticking to their guns in the face of ‘Democrats’ hyperbolic claims and histrionic scare tactics aimed at blocking any change to Medicaid.’  

Another angle of attack for Democrats has been claims that the Republican reforms will negatively impact people with disabilities. The fear is that the increased eligibility requirements will be a major barrier to people with disabilities who might struggle with such tasks. They also fear the funding framework change for states could push them to reduce benefits, eligibility or limit services for this population.   

But Rachel Barkley, Director of the National Center’s Able Americans Program, which promotes free-market policy reforms for people with disabilities, said she is confident that Republicans’ reforms to Medicaid will ‘directly improve’ the lives of those living with disabilities.

Among the reforms Barkley praised were the implementation of the Helping Communities with Better Support (HCBS) Act, which she said ‘expands access to Medicaid home- and community-based services for individuals with disabilities and their caregivers,’ while simultaneously increasing transparency and accountability for those waiting for care. 

Barkley also highlighted new tax provisions ushered in by Republicans that she said will serve to promote financial security for those with disabilities. 

But importantly, Barkley added, the GOP reforms — such as new work requirements — serve to ensure that disabled people are given the priority within Medicaid that they deserve.  

Clancy, meanwhile, noted that he and the folks at Americans For Prosperity, a D.C. think-tank that promotes free-market solutions to problems, were big fans of the ‘Personal Option’ that he says Republicans’ Medicaid reforms advanced. 

Clancy has described the ‘Personal Option’ as ‘a set of sensible, principled reforms that make American health care better, more affordable, and more accessible for everyone — without a government takeover.’ He said the approach gives Medicaid enrollees more control over how their services are delivered rather than leaving those decisions to the government.