Three Democratic governors — Gavin Newsom of California, JB Pritzker of Illinois, and Tim Walz of Minnesota — who are considered potential contenders for the 2028 presidential election, have recently advanced proposals to scale back or freeze publicly funded health care for undocumented immigrants. The decisions come as all three states face budgetary pressures, prompting a reassessment of earlier commitments to expand health coverage to individuals without legal status.
Each governor has attributed the proposed cuts to financial shortfalls driven in part by the higher-than-expected costs of expanding health care access. However, these developments also reflect broader tensions within the Democratic Party over how to address immigration policy — a politically fraught issue that proved damaging in recent elections and continues to be a central focus of Republican attacks led by former President Donald Trump.
The proposed rollbacks mark a stark reversal from recent efforts to expand health care access for undocumented populations and have sparked backlash from progressive groups and immigrant advocates. Critics warn that the moves could erode support among the Democratic base, particularly at a time when opposition to Trump-era immigration policies is intensifying across the country.
In Minnesota, the most recent change came on Tuesday, when the state Legislature passed a bipartisan bill to eliminate state-funded health insurance for undocumented adults. The measure cleared the Republican-led House and the Democrat-controlled Senate as part of a broader effort to close the state’s budget gap. Governor Walz has indicated he will sign the bill into law.
The legislation would remove undocumented adults from eligibility for MinnesotaCare, a program that provides low-cost health coverage to low-income residents. It would effectively undo one of Walz’s key achievements from 2023, when Democrats held full control of the state government. However, the bill preserves coverage for undocumented children.
California Governor Gavin Newsom has taken a similar approach. His proposed 2025-26 budget would halt new enrollment for undocumented adults in Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program, reversing earlier commitments to universal health care for all Californians, regardless of immigration status. Under his plan, individuals already enrolled in Medi-Cal would not lose coverage, but starting next year, undocumented adults over 19 would no longer be eligible to enroll for full benefits. A $100 monthly premium for undocumented adults is also slated to begin in 2027.
Newsom’s administration has justified the freeze by pointing to the unexpectedly high cost of the Medi-Cal expansion and the state’s multibillion-dollar deficit. He has partly blamed the shortfall on Trump-era economic policies, such as tariffs, and surging Medi-Cal enrollment.
In Illinois, Governor Pritzker’s administration is preparing to sunset a similar program — Health Benefits for Immigrant Adults — which currently provides coverage to more than 30,000 low-income undocumented residents. Introduced in 2021, the program’s costs quickly exceeded initial projections. Under the budget approved by the Democrat-led legislature last month, the program is set to end by July 1.
While these steps are framed as necessary fiscal decisions, they come as federal Republicans push legislation that would cut Medicaid funding to states offering health care to undocumented immigrants. Trump has also issued an executive order this year targeting access to public assistance for those without legal status.
Responding to criticism, Newsom’s spokesperson, Elana Ross, reiterated that the plan would not remove current enrollees, but simply cap enrollment to manage costs. “Instead of rolling back the program — meaning cutting people off for basic care — we’re capping it,” she said.
A spokesperson for Pritzker emphasized the difficult trade-offs required to balance the budget, stating that the decision reflects “the reality of Trump and Republicans tanking our national economy and attempting to strip away healthcare.”
The Walz administration did not comment on the Minnesota legislation, which emerged from compromise talks with Republicans, who had initially called for eliminating the MinnesotaCare program altogether.
“No one got everything they wanted,” Walz acknowledged last month. “These were very difficult conversations about deeply held priorities. But we ultimately reached a deal that reflects tough but necessary decisions.”
Pushback from the Left
Immigrant advocacy organizations have sharply criticized the proposed rollbacks, warning that such moves could destabilize the broader health care system and accusing Democratic leaders of caving to political pressure from Trump and the GOP.
“We urge state leaders to build on the progress they’ve made, not jeopardize the health of their residents,” said Tanya Broder, senior counsel for health and economic justice policy at the National Immigration Law Center. “At a time when extremist politicians are scapegoating immigrants, we need state officials to stand firm and protect their communities.”
Broder emphasized that immigrants contribute billions in taxes at all levels of government yet are frequently excluded from key health care programs. “Cutting off coverage for immigrants will not only put individuals at risk — it threatens the health of entire communities and weakens the health care system we all rely on,” she added.
Some progressives voiced concerns that the actions by Governors Newsom, Pritzker, and Walz may signal a strategic political shift to the right on immigration — an issue that remains one of Trump’s strongest areas of support, according to recent polling. They warned that such a move could alienate the Democratic base, particularly those who prioritize immigrant rights and universal health care.
“This plays right into the conservative narrative that undocumented immigrants are a burden,” said Jennifer Driver, senior director at the State Innovation Exchange, a progressive policy organization. “There’s this flawed belief that moving toward the center or right will win over moderate voters, but it risks demoralizing your core supporters instead.”
Driver said the disappointment among progressives stems from what they perceive as inconsistency in Democratic leadership. “The frustration is coming from this pattern — we say we’re progressive, but only when it’s politically convenient,” she said.
Other Democratic strategists were more cautious, suggesting it’s too early to determine whether the governors’ decisions reflect a broader ideological shift, particularly as many leaders begin positioning themselves for potential 2028 presidential runs. They also pointed to the ongoing fiscal pressure states face under federal policies shaped by the Trump administration.
“The Trump administration is putting enormous pressure on states,” said Jeff Blodgett, a veteran Democratic strategist in Minnesota who worked on campaigns for the late Senator Paul Wellstone and former President Barack Obama. “There’s widespread concern about current and future state budgets, especially given the federal government’s posture toward blue states.”
