Corporate Accountability

Cruz: Treasury Dept. ‘political operatives’ might have tampered with Obamacare

By Sylvan Lane 

 

WASHINGTON–Sen. Ted Cruz on Thursday accused the Treasury Department of potentially meddling with an IRS interpretation of the Affordable Care Act to make sure low-income Americans could still get subsidized health insurance through federal exchanges.

 

“The Obama administration is trying to impose on you, personally, thousands of dollars in penalties that are contrary to law,” said Cruz, who suggested the IRS knew how to enforce the law before “political operatives” from the Treasury overruled them.

 

Cruz convened a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing on how the administration created Obamacare subsidy rules. Republicans praised it as a sorely needed investigation and Democrats dismissed it as political theater.

 

“We are in a so-called hearing about the rule-making process with witnesses that have nothing to do with the rule making process,” said Delaware Sen. Chris Coons, the subcommittee’s chief Democrat.

 

The Treasury Department refused to let officials testify because of pending litigation, and Cruz threatened to subpoena them, as he did in a May 27 letter to Treasury Secretary Jack Lew.

 

Though the Treasury told Cruz they wouldn’t play ball, the jam-packed Capitol hearing room was set up for their testimony. The senators filed into a room with witness-less table, which Cruz called a symbol of the Obama administration’s “contempt for Congress” and “the height of arrogance.”

 

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said he didn’t “want to suggest the empty table was used as a prop,” but the message was clear.

 

The hearing comes as the Supreme Court decides whether insurance purchased through the federal healthcare exchange is eligible for federal subsidies.

 

A section of the ACA provides subsidies for policies purchased through exchanges “established by the state.” Since 36 states refused to set up their own exchanges, the Supreme Court will rule in King v. Burwell if that legally applies to the federal exchange and could leave more than 7 million Americans without subsidized insurance.

 

Democrats suggested Cruz wait to hold the hearing until after the Supreme Courts rules so Treasury officials would testify. Cruz dismissed this, citing previous testimony from officials at a House hearing during a 2013 legal challenge to Obamacare.

 

Another panel of witnesses argued over the legal implications of the clause the Supreme Court is considering. Michael Carvin, who represents the plaintiffs in that case, said the law needed to be executed as written, and Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies for the libertarian Cato Institute, suggested a House investigation found evidence that could support Cruz’s accusation.

 

Robert Weiner, who helped craft the ACA, and Elizabeth Wydra, chief council at the Constitutional Accountability Center, said no one in Congress thought the law should be executed in any other way, and critics are taking that clause out of context.

More from Corporate Accountability

Corporate Accountability
September 9, 2025

ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS—Fifth Circuit rejects petition challenging OCC authority to enforce national banking rules

Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw
The court distinguished the national banking regulatory regime from the SEC’s antifraud provision in Jarkesy and the...
Corporate Accountability
July 11, 2025

This Group’s Record in Front of the Roberts Court Is Mind-Boggling

Slate
In a provocative dissenting opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson recently called out her colleagues on the Supreme Court...
By: Ana Builes, Brian R. Frazelle
Corporate Accountability
July 2, 2025

Moneyed Interests Still Prevail at the Supreme Court (2024-2025 Term)

The Court Continues to Favor Corporations over Workers, Consumers, and the Environment.
By: Brian R. Frazelle, Ana Builes
Corporate Accountability
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Novartis v. Secretary United States Department of Health and Human Services

In Novartis v. Secretary United States Department of Health and Human Services, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit considered whether the Inflation Reduction Act’s Medicare drug price negotiation program is an unconstitutional...
Corporate Accountability
January 28, 2025

Federal Deposit Insurance as Jarkesy Waiver

Yale Journal on Regulation
An argument lurking just beneath the surface in a pending Fifth Circuit case could stem...
Corporate Accountability
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Boehringer Ingelheim v. Department of Health and Human Services

In Boehringer Ingelheim v. Department of Health and Human Services, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit considered whether the Inflation Reduction Act’s Medicare drug price negotiation program is an unconstitutional taking...