Iowa’s 2026 U.S. Senate race had its first viral moment on May 30, when an unscripted comment from Senator Joni Ernst generated massive coverage across Iowa and national news outlets.

The words Ernst blurted out in frustration at that town hall meeting may or may not have staying power in the next Senate campaign.

But we’ll definitely keep hearing what the senator said before and after making that gaffe. Republicans around the country, including Iowa’s U.S. House members, have used the same false claims in defense of the budget reconciliation bill now pending in the Senate.

Those statements were among more than a dozen messages about Medicaid and the federal food assistance program known as SNAP that Republicans tested this spring in telephone polls. I was a respondent for one of the surveys in early May and have transcribed the questionnaire at the end of this post.

I don’t know which GOP-aligned entity paid for the robo-poll I received, but it’s clear the memo on how to spin deep Medicaid and SNAP cuts has gone out to all Republicans in Congress.

THE UNPLANNED MESSAGE

By now you’ve all seen what happened about 45 minutes into Ernst’s early morning town hall in Parkersburg (Butler County) on May 30. After a member of the largely hostile audience shouted that “people will die” because of cuts to Medicaid and SNAP, a frustrated Ernst said, “Well, we all are going to die.” The clip exploded on social media.

Nathan Sage, the first declared Democratic candidate for Senate in Iowa, was at that event and sounded incredulous afterwards: “What the actual hell just came out of Joni Ernst’s mouth? I can’t believe what I just heard with my own ears in that room today. […] She doesn’t give a shit about Iowans.”

Other prospective Democratic challengers weighed in. State Senator Zach Wahls quipped, “Yes Joni, we are all going to die, but it shouldn’t be our SENATORS who are killing us.” State Representative J.D. Scholten posted on Instagram, “We all don’t have to die so billionaires can have a bigger tax break. That is crazy!”

Not many Republicans will copy Ernst’s off-the-cuff fatalism or the sarcastic tone she struck in an Instagram video posted on May 31. (While walking through a cemetery, Ernst said of her town hall remarks, “I made an incorrect assumption that everyone in the auditorium understood that yes, we are all going to perish from this Earth. So I apologize. And I’m really, really glad that I did not have to bring up the subject of the tooth fairy as well. But for those that would like to see eternal and everlasting life, I encourage you to embrace my lord and savior, Jesus Christ.”)

But just about every Republican in Congress is reading from the same playbook when challenged on their support for deep cuts to Medicaid and SNAP.

WHAT CAME AFTER “WELL, WE ALL ARE GOING TO DIE”

Most large social media accounts shared a clip from Ernst’s town hall that was less than ten seconds long. It’s helpful to see the context, so here’s a KCRG-TV video showing what the senator said immediately before and after:

First, note that Ernst refers to “corrections” in the reconciliation bill, rather than cuts. In the poll I received, many questions about Medicaid and SNAP were framed around the idea that lots of ineligible people currently receive benefits. Republicans want you to believe they are only trying to pull back benefits from people who don’t qualify under federal law.

Ernst claimed 1.4 million “illegals” are receiving Medicaid. That’s false. Undocumented immigrants cannot enroll in federally funded health coverage such as Medicaid, Medicare, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (known as HAWK-I in Iowa). As D’Angelo Gore explained for FactCheck.org,

CBO [The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office], which analyzed provisions in an early draft of the Energy and Commerce Committee’s portion of the House budget bill, said that, in 2034, 1.4 million people would lose “other coverage” — specifically health insurance through “state-only funded programs” under current law.

The 1.4 million “includes people without verified citizenship, nationality, or satisfactory immigration status,” the CBO said. […]

But those individuals would not come from the Medicaid program.

Iowa has no state-funded health insurance program that covers undocumented immigrants. Every Iowan dropped from the Medicaid rolls would be a U.S. citizen.

Using CBO analysis, Democratic staff on the Joint Economic Committee calculated that around 57,000 Iowans would lose Medicaid coverage under the Republican bill—from just under 13,000 in the first Congressional district to more than 15,000 people in the third and fourth districts.

Ernst repeats the 1.4 million number, then says, “They are not eligible. So they will be coming off.”

At that point, a woman shouting “people will die” threw the senator off her game, prompting the comment that drew so much attention.

When Ernst recovered, she went straight to another poll-tested lie: “We are going to focus on those that are most vulnerable. Those that meet the eligibility requirements for Medicaid, we will protect. We will protect them, OK? Medicaid is extremely important here in the state of Iowa.”

Speaking to reporters at another event on May 30, Ernst characterized the reaction to her remark as “hysteria” coming “from the left.” She added,

And we are not talking about decreasing benefits to those on Medicaid.

We know two things are true: death and taxes. And what I’m trying to do is extending tax benefits for hard-working Iowans and that we’re preserving Medicaid for those that meet eligibility requirements. We don’t need to see illegal immigrants receiving benefits that should be going to Iowans.

Not true. Research has shown that Medicaid work requirements and more frequent eligibility checks, which are part of the reconciliation bill, force many eligible people off the Medicaid rolls.

Other Iowa Republicans haven’t said we’re all going to die, but they have echoed Ernst’s other messages about the planned cuts.

HOW OTHER IOWA REPUBLICANS USE THE POLL-TESTED LIES

The reconciliation bill would reduce spending on Medicaid by around $700 billion and on SNAP by $300 billion over the next decade. But to hear Republicans tell the story, those cuts will “strengthen” safety net programs for Americans who need them.

Here are a few of the many examples I’ve seen lately.

Representative Mariannette Miller-Meeks (IA-01) claimed in a YouTube video that in the “big, beautiful bill,” Republicans “made reforms to Medicaid which will strengthen Medicaid and preserve it for those who it was intended for. So no illegal immigrants will be receiving Medicaid. If you’re ineligible for Medicaid, you will not be on Medicaid.” She also touted the work requirements.

A few days later, Miller-Meeks’ weekly email newsletter included these points under “Key Wins in the One, Big Beautiful Bill”:

PROTECTS MEDICAID FOR THOSE WHO NEED IT MOST:

• Ends Medicaid for illegal immigrants and non-disabled adults who choose not to work.
• Cracks down on billions in waste, fraud, and abuse.
• Recommits Medicaid to children, pregnant women, seniors, veterans, and people with disabilities.

Shortly before the House voted on the bill, Representative Ashley Hinson (IA-02) said during a conference call with reporters, “The key I support is making sure this program exists for people who actually need it. What we’ve seen is that over a million illegal immigrants have been getting coverage on Medicaid.”

Hinson went on to say, ”The intent of Medicaid is to protect those with disabilities, seniors, mothers with single mothers with children, not 29-year-old men playing video games on their mother’s couch in the basement. We want people getting back to work. If you don’t qualify for Medicaid benefits, you shouldn’t be receiving them, and that includes illegal immigrants.”

(Peer-reviewed research has shown Medicaid work requirements in Arkansas “did not increase employment.”)

Representative Zach Nunn (IA-03) uses part of his Congressional office budget to pay for social media advertising. Here’s a recent Facebook ad, which asserts Nunn is “committed to protecting Medicaid, Social Security, and strengthening SNAP so Iowa families get the care they need.”

Here’s an Instagram ad placed by Nunn’s office, using the same messaging:

To bolster the idea that Republicans are only targeting those who illegally benefit from federal programs, Nunn held a press conference on May 28 to tout legislation he plans to introduce. His bill “would increase civil penalties for people who have intentionally defrauded recipients of SNAP.” Speaking alongside an Iowan who was a scam victim, Nunn said, “If it’s happening to David, we know nationwide this is happening to the tune of thousands of people every month.”

Nunn wants you to focus on fraud that might affect thousands of people nationally. Meanwhile, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has calculated that under the reconciliation bill House Republicans just approved, around 29,000 Iowa adults might lose their SNAP benefits entirely. Around 58,000 Iowans might lose part of their food assistance. In Nunn’s district alone, some 8,000 people might lose all of their SNAP benefits, and 17,000 could lose part of their SNAP benefits.

Representative Randy Feenstra (IA-04) has highlighted the tax provisions of the reconciliation bill in his public statements. But at his annual picnic on May 30, the Des Moines Register’s Brianne Pfannenstiel quoted him as saying of the benefit cuts,

“I’ll tell you what, we’re not going to hurt anybody,” Feenstra told reporters. “I mean, what we did with SNAP is making sure that we’re getting rid of waste and fraud. Sitting on the Ag Committee, we had a lot of discussions about this, and I want to tell you, anybody that’s on SNAP will stay on SNAP unless you’re an illegal.”

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has estimated that 6,000 of Feenstra’s constituents are at risk of losing SNAP benefits entirely, and 12,000 people living in IA-04 could lose part of their federal food assistance.

The Ernst gaffe will surely appear in many 2026 campaign ads. But Democrats shouldn’t neglect to address the premeditated, poll-tested lies that Republicans will use to defend a cruel and harmful vote.

P.S.—If a pollster calls you about to ask about any Iowa campaigns or political issues, don’t hang up the phone! Take notes or record the survey and send me the information.

---

Appendix: Laura Belin’s transcript of questions asked in a telephone poll that Laura received on a landline in early May 2025. The robocall began with four demographic questions, to determine the respondent’s party affiliation, age, gender, and education level.

The rest of the poll consisted of eleven questions about Medicaid, six questions about SNAP, and three questions about tax policies under consideration in the reconciliation bill. For questions 5 through 13 and 15 through 24, respondents were asked to press 1 for “strongly supportive,” 2 for “somewhat supportive,” 3 for “somewhat opposed,” 4 for “strongly opposed,” or 5 for “unsure.”

Question 5: “Medicaid is a welfare program that provides basic health care coverage for seniors, pregnant women, people with disabilities, and some low-income able-bodied adults. Would you support or oppose changes to Medicaid that crack down on waste and fraud while preserving the program for the truly needy?”

Question 6: “According to data from state Medicaid agencies, 62 percent of able-bodied adults on Medicaid do not work. Would you support or oppose requiring able-bodied adults with no young children at home to work, train, or volunteer at least 20 hours per week as a condition of eligibility for Medicaid?”

Question 7: “Currently, the federal government gives states more Medicaid funds for able-bodied adults than for seniors, children, and individuals with disabilities. Would you support or oppose reducing the amount of Medicaid funding provided for able-bodied adults to the amount provided for seniors, children, and individuals with disabilities?”

Question 8: “States are currently using financing gimmicks to shift more of their Medicaid costs to federal taxpayers. Some people have even called these gimmicks a money-laundering scheme. Would you support or oppose closing the loopholes that allow states to shift their Medicaid costs onto federal taxpayers?”

Question 9: “The federal government has made more than $1 trillion in improper Medicaid payments over the last decade. The vast majority of these improper payments are the result of eligibility errors, including enrolling individuals who are not eligible, and keeping them on the program after their circumstances change and they become ineligible. Would you support or oppose verifying that an individual meets all federal requirements for Medicaid eligibility before they are allowed to enroll in the program?”

Question 10: “Would you support or oppose checking eligibility for people on Medicaid more frequently and on better technology to help ensure those receiving benefits are still eligible?”

Question 11: “Federal law prohibits individuals who enter the United States illegally from enrolling in Medicaid, but many enroll before their immigration status is verified. Would you support or oppose verifying that an individual is a U.S. citizen or a legal immigrant before enrolling them in Medicaid?”

Question 12: “The Biden administration added Medicaid regulations that increased spending on the program by hundreds of billions of dollars. Would you support or oppose getting rid of Biden-era Medicaid regulations that cost taxpayers billions of dollars?”

Question 13: “Medicaid funding is supposed to be tied to the average income in each state, so that poorer states receive more money than wealthier states. However, Washington, DC, which has a higher average income than every state, is treated as one of the poor states when it comes to Medicaid funding. DC’s special Medicaid treatment will cost an extra $11 billion over the next decade. Would you support or oppose ending DC’s special Medicaid funding deal and funding DC’s Medicaid program at its proper rate?”

Question 14: “Federal taxpayers will spend $8.6 trillion on Medicaid over the next ten years, nearly doubling yearly Medicaid spending compared to 2024. At its current rate of growth, do you believe Medicaid spending is sustainable? Press 1 for definitely sustainable, press 2 for probably sustainable, press 3 for probably not sustainable, press 4 for definitely not sustainable, press 5 if you are unsure.”

Question 15: “Congress is currently considering a plan that would reduce spending on Medicaid by removing individuals who entered the U.S. illegally, cracking down on waste and fraud, and requiring able-bodied adults without young children to work at least part-time. Would you support or oppose reinvesting some of those savings into programs and services for the truly needy, such as children and individuals with disabilities?”

Question 16: “The next six questions are about food stamps. Would you support or oppose requiring able-bodied adults with no young children at home to work, train, or volunteer at least part-time as a condition of eligibility for food stamps?”

Question 17: “Would you support or oppose requiring the state to verify whether an individual meets federal eligibility requirements for food stamps, rather than extending automatic approvals?”

Question 18: “Federal law sets eligibility rules for the food stamp program, including limits on income and assets. But some states have used a loophole to extend the program beyond these limits, allowing more than 5 million otherwise ineligible individuals to enroll. Would you support or oppose enforcing federal eligibility rules to ensure only those meeting the federal income and assets rule enroll in the program?”

Question 19: “In 2021, the Biden administration increased food stamp spending by more than 27 percent without Congressional approval, breaking its 45-year policy of budget neutrality, which only increases benefits to account for inflation, unless Congress approves a larger increase. His action cost taxpayers $250 billion. Would you support or oppose limiting future food stamp increases to the rate of inflation unless Congress approves a larger change?”

Question 20: “In 2021, the Biden administration increased food stamp spending by more than 27 percent without Congressional approval, which cost taxpayers $250 billion. Would you support or oppose temporarily pausing future food stamp increases, until the effects of the $250 billion increase become budget neutral, meaning those new costs are no longer increasing overall government spending?”

Question 21: “Most state-administered welfare programs split the cost of the programs between states and the federal government. However, the federal government currently pays 100 percent of food stamp benefit costs, even though states set policies about eligibility and benefits.” Would you support or oppose requiring states to pay a portion of food stamp benefit costs for individuals in their own states?”

Question 22: “The next three questions are about taxes. Would you support or oppose eliminating income tax on tips?”

Question 23: “Would you support or oppose eliminating income tax on Social Security?”

Question 24: “Would you support or oppose eliminating income tax on overtime?”

Question 25: “The final question is about the 2024 election. Thinking back to the 2024 Congressional election, for which candidate did you vote? Press 1 for Lanon Baccam, the Democrat, press 2 for Zach Nunn, the Republican, press 3 for someone else, press 4 if you did not vote.”

“That concludes our poll. Thank you for your time and opinions. Goodbye.”

Top image of Senator Joni Ernst speaking during her May 30 town hall is cropped from a photo first published on Ernst’s official Facebook page.