Money & Jobs

The ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ Will Strip Healthcare From Millions—Especially Women and Disabled People

PUBLISHED 7/7/2026 by and

Over 70 million people depend on Medicaid. The Trump administration and members of Congress who constantly turn to the program to make cuts, want you to think that’s a problem. It isn’t—it’s the point.

Every talking point repeated by politicians, amplified by the media and embedded in the rhetoric of those who just voted to gut $1 trillion from the program, is not a policy argument. It’s a cover story. The administration’s story of a typical Medicaid beneficiary is rooted in falsehoods about who is currently supported by the program.

The reality of Medicaid looks like:

… a 59-year-old woman in North Carolina who closed her small business because her eyesight failed, who sorts recyclables at a concert venue when the season allows, who survives on less than $10,000 a year and who relies on Medicaid for arthritis medication and blood pressure care.

Or a 63-year-old woman in Arkansas who spent her career working and now serves as the sole caregiver for her husband with advanced cancer, who is unable to leave him to log the 80 hours a month the federal government will soon demand of her on top of the role she already plays, filling gaps in a system that was already threadbare before it was slashed.

Or a young mom who has been trying for years to find an answer for the rare disease that makes her periodically unable to walk, while struggling to hold down her retail job and care for her kids while waiting months to see specialists.

These are the faces of Medicaid, and this is who HR 1—the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act—and the cuts within it, will harm.

And now, with a new interim final rule from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the situation has gotten measurably worse by an administration going further than Congress intended, leaving states scrambling.

The public comment period on the interim final rule closes July 31, 2026. Make your voice heard today.

America’s Roman Holiday: Prime Day and the Price of Convenience

PUBLISHED 6/26/2026 by

Amazon Prime Day has become one of the biggest shopping events in the country, but its success tells a story far bigger than discounts.

In an economy where families are struggling with the cost of groceries, rent, healthcare and childcare, the appeal of lower prices is understandable. Yet the massive scale of Prime Day also raises a harder question: What does it mean when one of America’s defining consumer rituals depends on a labor system that workers, regulators and advocates have repeatedly described as dangerous, underpaid and deeply unequal?

Amazon’s influence extends far beyond its own warehouses. By normalizing ever-faster delivery, constant surveillance and relentless productivity, the company has helped reshape expectations across the retail economy.

As billionaire wealth continues to soar and labor protections face renewed political pressure, Prime Day reveals the growing divide between those who profit from convenience and those whose labor makes it possible.

Public Health Under Fire: Military Flu Outbreak Illustrates the Danger of Politicizing Vaccine Policy

PUBLISHED 6/25/2026 by

Few medical advances have saved more lives than vaccines. Yet the Trump administration continues to undermine that success by politicizing public health and discrediting decades of scientific evidence. The recent flu outbreak at Lackland Air Force Base—which sickened nearly 300 service members after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ended the military’s longstanding flu vaccine requirement—offers a stark reminder of what happens when ideology replaces evidence.

This is not an isolated incident. From weakening federal vaccine recommendations under Robert F. Kennedy Jr., to fueling distrust in routine immunizations, the administration’s anti-science agenda is already contributing to preventable outbreaks and declining vaccination rates.

Public health should never be a partisan project, and the costs of treating it as one are measured in illness, lost readiness and lives put at unnecessary risk.

Keeping Score: Abortion Bans Cost $140B Per Year; Federal Courts Protect Trans Youth and Incarcerated Trans Women; Feminists React to FBI Raid on Ohio Voting Rights Organization

PUBLISHED 6/24/2026 by

In every issue of Ms., we track research on our progress in the fight for equality, catalogue can’t-miss quotes from feminist voices and keep tabs on the feminist movement’s many milestones. We’re Keeping Score online, too—in this biweekly roundup.

This week:
—Rep. Lizzie Fletcher (D-Texas) is working to get Republicans on the record on the Right to Contraception Act.
—ICE has already reported the deaths of 18 detainees this year, on pace to surpass the highest number of deaths in decades.
—Abortion restrictions could cost the U.S. economy $140 billion annually in lost earnings.
—”I love the inflation,” says Trump.
—The EEOC will no longer require federal agencies to report on race, ethnicity, sex or gender identity.
—83 percent of American voters agree that emergency contraception should be easily accessible.
—Abortion ban states are slowly losing a generation of women medical students and doctors.
—More than 770,000 children have already lost access to SNAP benefits after last year’s funding cuts.
—A new study found trans women athletes have no significant physical advantages over cis women.
—Missouri has restored access to medication abortions after a Jackson County judge struck down key state restrictions, allowing clinics to resume providing the service and marking the first time medication abortion has been available in Missouri since 2018.
—Republicans passed a reconciliation bill that provides roughly $70 billion for ICE and CBP, sending it to President Trump’s desk. (This is on top of more than $140 billion Republicans already provided for those agencies last year.)

… and more.

The World Cup Is Here—But Who Is It For?

PUBLISHED 6/23/2026 by

Soccer is one of the most beloved sports in the world, and the 2026 FIFA World Cup—the largest in the tournament’s history—has drawn millions of fans across the globe. This year, for the first time, the event is being jointly hosted by the United States, Canada and Mexico, with matches and related events taking place across North America.

FIFA stands to earn billions of dollars from the tournament.

But as the organization reaps record revenues, many host communities are bearing significant costs. Soaring ticket prices, displacement, labor concerns and aggressive immigration enforcement have raised questions about who truly benefits from the World Cup. For many working-class residents—and even lifelong soccer fans—the tournament is out of reach.

To better understand those impacts, I spoke with Jennifer Li, co-director of the Center for Community Health Innovation at the O’Neill Institute and director of Dignity 2026, a coalition of labor and human rights organizations working to protect communities most at risk during the World Cup.

Soccer “is very much an immigrant sport, let’s face it,” said Li, “and by extension, a sport for people of color, diverse communities. It is a sport that’s not expensive to play, but very expensive to watch, apparently. So, the question then becomes: Who is this for?”

I’ve Spent My Life Caring for Others. Who Cares for Caregivers?

PUBLISHED 6/18/2026 by

Front & Center amplifies the voices of Black women navigating poverty—highlighting their struggles, resilience and dreams as they care for their families, build careers and challenge systems not built for their success. Now in its fourth year, Front & Center is a collaboration between Ms. and Springboard to Opportunities, a nonprofit based in Jackson, Miss., working alongside residents of federally subsidized housing as they pursue their goals.
—

“I have always been a caregiver. That’s just who I am.

“I care for my grandkids now—three of them, ages 6, 3 and 7 months—and I’ve cared for a lot of family members over the years. My daughter works at the post office, so I watch the children when she’s at work, when they get out of school and sometimes at night if she needs me. They keep me on my toes, but I love every minute of it.

“Before that, I cared for my grandmother, who raised me. And that was tough, because this was when I had just had my own kids. They were going to a sitter so that I could go and care for her. She had cancer and I had to learn how to help her with everything, including her colostomy bag.

“People act like it’s simple, but it’s not. It costs money. It takes time. And when the people who need care also have to work, that puts families in a tight spot. My daughter looked into daycare, and it was expensive. So she asked me to help, and then she paid me. That worked better for all of us.

“Getting guaranteed income helped me too. It gave me some breathing room. I was able to help with gas, help around the house and take care of little things that come up. That kind of support matters because caregiving does not stop just because the bills keep coming.

“I still believe in taking care of people. Babies can’t help themselves. Kids can’t help themselves. Older adults can’t either. We all get to a point where we need somebody. So I keep doing what I do, because this is my purpose. I care for my people, and I do it with love.”

No Equality Without Paid Leave

PUBLISHED 6/18/2026 by

The U.S. remains one of the only wealthy nations without a national paid leave program.

That failure has profound consequences for women’s economic security, caregiving responsibilities and ability to participate fully in public life: Every day, workers are forced to choose between caring for a new baby, recovering from illness or supporting a loved one and keeping a paycheck. Those impossible choices fall disproportionately on women, reinforcing gender inequities at work, at home and in civic life.

Paid leave is not simply a workplace benefit; it is a cornerstone of a more equitable democracy. When women are pushed out of the workforce, lose income or shoulder the overwhelming burden of unpaid care, they have less time, fewer resources and fewer opportunities to participate in their communities and shape public life.

Change is possible. States across the country have already demonstrated paid family and medical leave works, and overwhelming majorities of voters support it. If we are serious about creating a more inclusive future, guaranteeing paid leave for all workers must be part of the agenda. Women cannot be equal citizens without it.

(This is part of a new miniseries FEMINIST 250: Democracy’s Feminist Future, a special Ms. series examining the next chapter of American democracy through a feminist lens. As the nation approaches its 250th anniversary, the series explores how women and marginalized communities have shaped democratic progress, what lessons history offers for the challenges ahead, and how a more inclusive, representative and equitable democracy can be built for the next 250 years.)

The United States Is No Country for Mothers. (Not Yet.)

PUBLISHED 6/18/2026 by

For 250 years, America has asked mothers to carry the weight of families, communities and the economy while offering little in return. We celebrate motherhood rhetorically, but our policies tell a different story: unaffordable childcare, inadequate paid leave and a culture that blames women for structural failures. In this essay, I argue that these conditions are not accidental—they are the result of political choices that have excluded mothers from full participation in economic and civic life.

If we are serious about building a stronger democracy for the next 250 years, we must start with childcare. Universal, affordable childcare is not a fringe idea; it is the foundation that makes equal pay, workforce participation, political engagement and family well-being possible. States like New Mexico and New York are already demonstrating what can happen when leaders treat care as public infrastructure rather than a private burden.

The good news is that mothers are increasingly refusing to be divided by the same culture wars that have stalled progress for generations. Across political lines, families want the same basic thing: the ability to work, raise children and participate fully in their communities without being pushed to the breaking point. The future of American democracy depends on whether we finally build a country that works for mothers.

(This is part of a new miniseries FEMINIST 250: Democracy’s Feminist Future, a special Ms. series examining the next chapter of American democracy through a feminist lens. As the nation approaches its 250th anniversary, the series explores how women and marginalized communities have shaped democratic progress, what lessons history offers for the challenges ahead, and how a more inclusive, representative and equitable democracy can be built for the next 250 years.)

Keeping Score: Threats Against Abortion Clinics Doubled in 2025; Sounding the Alarm on ‘Horrible Conditions’ of Delaney Immigration Center; Pride Celebrations Around the U.S.

PUBLISHED 6/10/2026 by

In every issue of Ms., we track research on our progress in the fight for equality, catalogue can’t-miss quotes from feminist voices and keep tabs on the feminist movement’s many milestones. We’re Keeping Score online, too—in this biweekly roundup.

This week:
—”Trump only seems to have the capability to fire female secretaries,” observes AOC.
—Two-thirds of abortion clinics reported violence or harassment in 2025.
—The TAKE IT DOWN Act (Tools to Address Known Exploitation by Immobilizing Technological Deepfakes on Websites and Networks Act) took effect last month. It requires social media sites to take down non-consensual sexual imagery within 48 hours.
—Members of Congress visited the Delaney Hall Immigration Detention Center after detainees started a hunger strike to protest inhumane conditions.
—The Trump administration announced an investigation into E. Jean Carroll, who Trump sexually abused and defamed.
—Harvey Weinstein’s New York rape trial resulted in another mistrial.
—A North Carolina bill would allow deadly force against patients seeking abortion care.
—Healthcare premiums have skyrocketed, forcing 21 percent of HealthCare.gov enrollees to lose coverage.
—Women freelancers charge an average of 19 percent less per hour than men.
—Americans are struggling to access disability benefits after cuts to the Social Security Administration.
—Social media platforms are enabling anti-LGBTQ hate and censorship.
—Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) reintroduced the Federal Death Penalty Prohibition Act to ban the death penalty at the federal level. Last month, the DOJ announced they would bring back firing squads and potentially electrocution and lethal gas for executions.
—A comprehensive calendar shows all the Pride parades this month, across the country and globe.

… and more.

The Sharpest SNAP Decline in Nearly 30 Years Is Happening Right Now

PUBLISHED 6/9/2026 by

More than 3 million people stopped participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) between July 2025 and January 2026—a decline of roughly 8 percent nationwide and the steepest drop in the program’s caseload in nearly three decades.

The sharp decrease followed enactment of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (HR 1), which made historic changes to SNAP and shifted significant new costs and administrative responsibilities onto states.

What makes the decline notable is that it has not been accompanied by a corresponding improvement in economic conditions. SNAP participation has historically expanded during periods of need and gradually declined as low-income households experienced sustained economic recovery. This time, however, enrollment has fallen far more rapidly than during previous recoveries, even as unemployment has remained relatively stable.

The trend echoes the last major contraction in SNAP participation following the 1996 welfare law, which introduced stricter eligibility rules and work requirements.

As states implement additional provisions of HR 1 in the months ahead, researchers and anti-hunger advocates warn that participation could continue to fall, potentially leaving more households without assistance to afford groceries.