States will share $10 billion for rural health care next year in a program that aims to offset the Trump administration’s massive budget cuts to rural hospitals, federal officials announced Monday.

But while every state applied for money from the Rural Health Transformation Program, it won’t be distributed equally. And critics worry that the funding might be pulled back if a state’s policies don’t match up with the administration’s.

Officials said the average award for 2026 is $200 million, and the fund puts a total of $50 billion into rural health programs over five years. States propose how to spend their awards, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services assigns project officers to support each state, said agency administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz.

“This fund was crafted as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill, signed only six months ago now into law, in order to push states to be creative,” Oz said in a call with reporters Monday.

Under the program, half of the money is equally distributed to each state. The other half is allocated based on a formula developed by CMS that considered rural population size, the financial health of a state’s medical facilities and health outcomes for a state’s population.

The formula also ties $12 billion of the five-year funding to whether states are implementing health policies prioritized by the Trump administration’s “Make America Healthy Again” initiative. Examples include requiring nutrition education for health care providers, having schools participate in the Presidential Fitness Test or banning the use of SNAP benefits for so-called junk foods, Oz said.

Several Republican-led states — including Arkansas, Iowa, Louisiana, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Texas — have already adopted rules banning the purchase of foods like candy and soda with SNAP benefits.

The money that the states get will be recalculated annually, Oz said, allowing the administration to “claw back” funds if, for example, state leaders don’t pass promised policies. Oz said the clawbacks are not punishments, but leverage governors can use to push policies by pointing to the potential loss of millions.

“I’ve already heard governors express that sentiment that this is not a threat, that this is actually an empowering element of the One Big Beautiful Bill,” he said.

Carrie Cochran-McClain, chief policy officer with the National Rural Health Association, said she’s heard from a number of Democratic-led states that refused to include such restrictions on SNAP benefits even though it could hurt their chance to get more money from the fund.

“It’s not where their state leadership is,” she said. Oz and other federal officials have touted the program as a 50% increase in Medicaid investments in rural health care. Rep. Don Bacon, a Republican from Nebraska who has been critical of many of the administration’s policies but voted for the budget bill that slashed Medicaid, pointed to the fund when recently questioned about how the cuts would hurt rural hospitals.

“That’s why we added a $50 billion rural hospital fund, to help any hospital that’s struggling,” Bacon said. “This money is meant to keep hospitals afloat.”

But experts say it won’t nearly offset the losses that struggling rural hospitals will face from the federal spending law’s $1.2 trillion cut from the federal budget over the next decade, primarily from Medicaid. Millions of people are also expected to lose Medicaid benefits.

Estimates suggest rural hospitals could lose around $137 billion over the next decade because of the budget measure. As many as 300 rural hospitals were at risk for closure because of the GOP’s spending package, according to an analysis by The Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“When you put that up against the $50 billion for the Rural Health Transformation Fund, you know — that math does not add up,” Cochran-McClain said.

She also said there’s no guarantee that the funding will go to rural hospitals in need. For example, she noted, one state’s application included a proposal for healthier, locally sourced school lunch options in rural areas.

And even though innovation is a goal of the program, Cochran-McClain said it’s tough for rural hospitals to innovate when they were struggling to break even before Congress’ Medicaid cuts.

“We talk to rural providers every day that say, ‘I would really love to do x, y, z, but I’m concerned about, you know, meeting payroll at the end of the month,’” she said. “So when you’re in that kind of crisis mode, it is, I would argue, almost impossible to do true innovation.”

The Supreme Court sided with immigration judges on Friday, rebuffing the Trump administration for now in a case with possible implications for federal workers as the justices weigh expanding presidential firing power.

The decision is a technical step in a long-running case, but it touches on the effects of a series of high-profile firings under President Donald Trump. The justices let stand a ruling that raised questions about the Trump administration's handling of the federal workforce, though they also signaled that lower courts should move cautiously.

Immigration judges are federal employees, and the question at the center of the case is about whether they can sue to challenge a policy restricting their public speeches or if they are required to use a separate complaint system for the federal workforce.

Trump's Republican administration asked the Supreme Court to intervene after an appeals court found that Trump’s firings of top complaint system officials had raised questions about whether it's still working as intended.

The Justice Department said the firings are within the president’s power and the lower court had no grounds to raise questions. The solicitor general asked the Supreme Court to quickly freeze the ruling as he pushes to have the immigration judges’ case removed from federal court.

The justices declined, though they also said the Trump administration could return if the lower courts moved too fast. The justices have allowed most of Trump’s firings for now and are weighing whether to formally expand his legal power to fire independent agency officials by overturning job protections enshrined in a 90-year-old decision.

A union formerly representing immigration judges, who work for the Justice Department, first sued in 2020 to challenge a policy restricting what the judges can speak about in public. They say the case is a free-speech issue that belongs in federal court.

In recent months, Trump's administration has fired dozens of immigration judges seen by his allies as too lenient.

While the order is not a final decision, the case could eventually have implications for other federal workers who want to challenge firings in court rather than the employee complaint system now largely overseen by Trump appointees.

The decision comes after a series of wins for the Justice Department on the high court’s emergency docket. The court has sided with the Trump administration about two dozen times on issues ranging from immigration to federal funding.

President Donald Trump’s administration has announced a massive package of arms sales to Taiwan valued at more than $10 billion that includes medium-range missiles, howitzers and drones, drawing an angry response from China.

The State Department announced the sales late Wednesday during a nationally televised address by the Republican president, who made scant mention of foreign policy issues and did not speak about China or Taiwan. U.S.-Chinese tensions have ebbed and flowed during Trump’s second term, largely over trade and tariffs but also over China’s increasing aggressiveness toward Taiwan, which Beijing has said must reunify with the mainland.

If approved by Congress, it would be the largest-ever U.S. weapons package to Taiwan, exceeding the total amount of $8.4 billion in U.S. arms sales to Taiwan during President Joe Biden’s Democratic administration.

The eight arms sales agreements announced Wednesday cover 82 high-mobility artillery rocket systems, or HIMARS, and 420 Army Tactical Missile Systems, or ATACMS — similar to what the U.S. had been providing Ukraine during the Biden administration to defend itself from Russia — worth more than $4 billion. They also include 60 self-propelled howitzer systems and related equipment worth more than $4 billion and drones valued at more than $1 billion.

Other sales in the package include military software valued at more than $1 billion, Javelin and TOW missiles worth more than $700 million, helicopter spare parts worth $96 million and refurbishment kits for Harpoon missiles worth $91 million.

The eight sales agreements amount to $11.15 billion, according to Taiwan’s Defense Ministry.

The State Department said the sales serve “U.S. national, economic, and security interests by supporting the recipient’s continuing efforts to modernize its armed forces and to maintain a credible defensive capability.”

“The proposed sale(s) will help improve the security of the recipient and assist in maintaining political stability, military balance, and economic progress in the region,” the statements said.

China’s Foreign Ministry attacked the move, saying it would violate diplomatic agreements between China and the U.S.; gravely harm China’s sovereignty, security and territorial integrity; and undermine regional stability.

“The ‘Taiwan independence’ forces on the island seek independence through force and resist reunification through force, squandering the hard-earned money of the people to purchase weapons at the cost of turning Taiwan into a powder keg,” said Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun.

“This cannot save the doomed fate of ‘Taiwan independence’ but will only accelerate the push of the Taiwan Strait toward a dangerous situation of military confrontation and war. The U.S. support for ‘Taiwan Independence’ through arms will only end up backfiring. Using Taiwan to contain China will not succeed,” he added.

Under federal law, the U.S. is obligated to assist Taiwan with its self-defense, a point that has become increasingly contentious with China, which has vowed to take Taiwan by force, if necessary.

Taiwan’s Defense Ministry in a statement Thursday expressed gratitude to the U.S. over the arms sale, which it said would help Taiwan maintain “sufficient self-defense capabilities” and bring strong deterrent capabilities. Taiwan’s bolstering of its defense “is the foundation for maintaining regional peace and stability,” the ministry said.

Taiwan’s Foreign Minister Lin Chia-lung similarly thanked the U.S. for its “long-term support for regional security and Taiwan’s self-defense capabilities,” which he said are key for deterring a conflict in the Taiwan Strait, the body of water separating Taiwan from China’s mainland.

The arms sale comes as Taiwan’s government has pledged to raise defense spending to 3.3% of the island’s gross domestic product next year and to reach 5% by 2030. The boost came after Trump and the Pentagon requested that Taiwan spend as much as 10% of its GDP on its defense, a percentage well above what the U.S. or any of its major allies spend on defense. The demand has faced pushback from Taiwan’s opposition KMT party and some of its population.

for arms purchases, including to build an air defense system with high-level detection and interception capabilities called Taiwan Dome. The budget will be allocated over eight years, from 2026 to 2033.

The U.S. boost in military assistance to Taiwan was previewed in legislation adopted by Congress that Trump is expected to sign shortly.

Last week, the Chinese embassy in Washington denounced the legislation, known as the National Defense Authorization Act, saying it unfairly targeted China as an aggressor. The U.S. Senate passed the bill Wednesday.