White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt encountered rigorous questioning during her Monday briefing as she defended the Trump administration’s stance on healthcare for undocumented immigrants during the ongoing government shutdown. This highlighted the administration’s contentious approach of linking immigration policy to healthcare funding amid a budget impasse.
In the October 6, 2025, briefing, Leavitt was asked directly if the Trump administration thinks hospitals should refuse treatment to undocumented immigrants in emergency rooms. This question emerged within broader discussions about the administration’s justification for the government shutdown, which Republicans attribute to Democrats’ insistence on extending Affordable Care Act subsidies.
Leavitt consistently argued that Democrats had closed the government to offer federally funded healthcare to undocumented immigrants. However, federal law currently bars undocumented immigrants from accessing federally funded healthcare through the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid. The Democratic push is focused on restoring health program access for all American citizens and certain legally present non-citizens, not on extending coverage to undocumented individuals.
The press secretary reiterated that President Trump was not negotiating with Democratic leaders. When questioned about potential talks, Leavitt stated that Trump’s stance was clear and non-negotiable. She confirmed that Trump had communicated with House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune but had not spoken with congressional Democrats since a meeting with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer before the shutdown began.
The briefing came as the administration increased pressure tactics, including threats of mass layoffs instead of standard furloughs. Leavitt warned that the administration might soon have no option but to conduct mass firings of federal workers, a shift from previous shutdown practices during Trump’s first term, which resulted in furloughs. She noted that the timing of potential layoffs would depend on Senate votes on funding bills.
When questioned about the rationale for choosing layoffs over furloughs, Leavitt shifted blame to Democrats, saying that discussions about layoffs would not be occurring if not for what she called the “Democrat shutdown.” She explained that with the government not receiving funds, officials had to assess the balance sheet and act as responsible stewards of taxpayer money.
The confrontation arose amid broader constitutional questions about the administration’s funding decisions. On October 7, 2025, the White House announced plans to use tariff revenue to maintain the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children during the shutdown. Leavitt stated that Trump had authorized using Section 232 tariff revenue to support WIC, which assists about seven million low-income mothers, pregnant women, and young children.
The decision regarding WIC funding raised questions about executive authority over federal spending. The program typically operates with an annual appropriation of $7.6 billion, resulting in a weekly cost of around $146 million. The administration described the tariff revenue transfer as a creative solution by the Office of Management and Budget, though officials did not clarify how long the funding would last or if additional transfers would be necessary.
Constitutional experts expressed concerns about the president’s power to redirect tariff revenue without congressional approval. The Appropriations Clause of the Constitution grants Congress the “power of the purse,” and the administration’s unilateral reallocation of funds represents a shift from traditional separation of powers principles.
Meanwhile, the administration faced further scrutiny over federal worker back pay. A draft White House memo suggested that furloughed federal workers might not be entitled to back pay after the shutdown ends, despite a 2019 law requiring retroactive compensation. The Government Employee Fair Treatment Act of 2019 mandates that all federal employees, whether furloughed or working without pay, must receive back pay once a shutdown concludes.
The memo indicated that the White House interpreted the law’s language requiring payment “subject to the enactment of appropriations Acts ending the lapse” to mean Congress must specifically allocate back pay funds. This interpretation conflicts with the Office of Personnel Management’s September guidance affirming federal workers would receive retroactive pay.
Senate votes on both Republican and Democratic spending proposals have repeatedly failed, with Democrats insisting on including extensions of Affordable Care Act subsidies affecting over 20 million Americans. The subsidies are due to expire at the end of the year, and Democrats have made their renewal a condition for supporting any short-term funding measure.
The American Federation of Government Employees criticized the administration’s back pay position as an apparent misinterpretation of the law. Union President Everett Kelley emphasized that federal employees’ livelihoods should not serve as bargaining chips in political negotiations.