What specific executive actions did Trump take on ACA subsidies between 2017 and 2021?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Between 2017 and 2021, the Trump administration took several executive and administrative steps that altered how Affordable Care Act (ACA) financial assistance operated: it stopped cost‑sharing subsidy payments to insurers in 2017 and issued an executive order directing agencies to loosen ACA regulations to encourage cheaper, less comprehensive plans [1]. Available sources do not mention other specific executive acts by name in that period beyond these actions [1] [2].
1. Trump’s 2017 halt to cost‑sharing payments — immediate market shock
In 2017 the administration announced it would cease making cost‑sharing reduction (CSR) payments to insurers, a move that took effect immediately and created near‑term losses for insurers that had counted on the funds — a decision widely described as “stunning” and likely to lead insurers to raise premiums or exit markets [1]. The George Washington University public‑health analysis notes insurers faced immediate losses and that the majority of CSR beneficiaries lived in states that supported Trump, highlighting the political and fiscal sting of the choice [1].
2. Executive order to loosen ACA rules — push toward cheaper, skimpier plans
Also in October 2017 President Trump issued an executive order directing HHS, Treasury and Labor to pursue policies that would make lower‑cost, less comprehensive insurance options more available — a deliberate strategy to encourage alternatives to ACA‑compliant plans [1]. The public‑health reporting from George Washington’s Milken School frames this directive as part of a broader effort to “make it easier to buy health plans that are cheaper — typically because they cover less” [1].
3. Waivers, short‑term plans and market‑pull effects tracked by watchdogs
Advocacy and watchdog sources documented an array of administrative moves tied to that deregulatory approach: rapid approval of state waivers and expansion of short‑term and association health plans designed to pull healthier enrollees out of ACA risk pools, raising premiums for those who remain [2]. The CBPP “Sabotage Watch” chronology lists refusals to open federal special enrollment periods during COVID‑era job losses and rapid approvals of waivers and other actions that critics say undermined ACA markets [2].
4. What the administration did not do, according to available reporting
Available sources do not mention the Trump administration formally changing the baseline premium tax‑credit formula via executive action between 2017 and 2021; those kinds of calculations and subsequent rule changes referenced elsewhere occurred later and are reported in documents after 2021 [3]. Likewise, there is no citation among the supplied sources of other named executive orders specifically altering premium tax‑credit payments during 2017–2021 beyond the CSR halt and the October 2017 executive order directing regulatory changes [1] [2].
5. Political framing and consequences — bipartisan fallout and market uncertainty
The CSR payment cutoff and the push for looser regulatory options had clear political aims: to pressure Congress and to make non‑ACA plans more attractive to Republicans, while critics warned those moves would destabilize markets and increase premiums for sicker and lower‑income people [1] [2]. Watchdog reporting frames many of these actions as part of a coordinated effort to “undermine” the ACA, citing rapid approvals and refusals that, in their view, worsened coverage outcomes [2].
6. How later reporting links these moves to future rulemaking
Although not from the 2017–2021 window, later analyses trace subsequent administration rulemaking (the “Marketplace Integrity and Affordability” type rules) back to deregulatory instincts of the Trump era and note that later changes to credit calculations were finalized after 2021 — a reminder that executive actions can set regulatory trajectories that produce policy shifts years downstream [3]. That line of causation is presented in reporting that connects earlier deregulatory orders to later administrative changes [3] [1].
7. Limitations and competing interpretations in the record
The record in these sources is clear on the CSR payment stoppage and the October 2017 executive order, and on watchdog concerns about waivers and enrollment policy [1] [2]. Sources disagree on intent and impact: administration messaging framed deregulatory moves as increasing consumer choice and reducing costs, while public‑health and policy researchers warned of destabilization and higher premiums for vulnerable enrollees [1] [2]. Available sources do not provide a comprehensive inventory of every administrative memo or internal agency guidance from 2017–2021; they focus on headline actions and watchdog chronologies [1] [2].
If you want, I can compile a timeline of the specific press statements, the October 2017 executive order text, and the CBPP chronology entries to show dates and more granular administrative steps cited in these sources [1] [2].