Republicans on Capitol Hill are weighing legislation that’s estimated to cut billions of dollars of funding for the Affordable Care Act and cause millions of people to lose their health insurance. Many of their constituents may not be happy about it, polling suggests.

Nearly half, 45%, of adults enrolled in a health plan offered through the ACA insurance marketplace identify as Republicans, according to a new survey by KFF, a nonpartisan group that conducts health policy research.

(More than three-quarters of those Republican ACA users identify as “MAGA” Republicans. Those MAGA Republicans represent 31% of ACA purchasers overall.)

Meanwhile, 35% of Democrats get their health insurance through the ACA, KFF found.

Republicans in the House of Representatives passed a multitrillion-dollar tax and spending package in May estimated to cut about $900 billion from health programs like Medicaid and the ACA, which is also known as Obamacare.

Senate Republicans are now considering the measure, which contains many of President Donald Trump’s domestic policy priorities. Republicans are trying to pass the megabill by the Fourth of July.

If the GOP enacts the legislation as written and doesn’t extend tax credits that lower monthly ACA health premiums, about 15 million people would lose health insurance, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

“A large constituency of Republicans using the programs are potentially facing cuts,” said Audrey Kearney, a senior survey analyst for KFF’s public opinion and survey research program.

The survey was conducted May 5 to 26 among a nationally representative sample of 2,539 U.S. adults, including 247 who have purchased their own health coverage.

“Republicans are more likely to be entrepreneurs than Democrats,” according to a 2023 paper published by researchers at Columbia University, the University of California San Diego and the University of Alberta.

About 5.5% of Republicans become entrepreneurs, while that’s true of 3.7% of Democrats, they found.

However, 10 states haven’t adopted the expansion: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin and Wyoming. All voted for Trump in the 2024 presidential election.

Republicans are “more likely to live in nonexpansion states,” John Graves, a professor of health policy and medicine at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, wrote in an e-mail.

More from Personal Finance:
Job market is ‘trash’ right now
What ‘revenge tax’ in Trump spending bill may mean for investors
When it comes to saving, Gen Z asks: ‘What’s the point?’

Here’s why this matters for ACA enrollment: “In the non-expansion states, there’s a wider population eligible for the tax credits,” said Carolyn McClanahan, a physician and certified financial planner based in Jacksonville, Florida. She’s a member of the CNBC Financial Advisor Council.

In states that expanded Medicaid, nearly all adults with incomes up to 138% of the federal poverty line (about $22,000 for a one-person household in 2025) are eligible for Medicaid.

In states that didn’t expand Medicaid, a broader population is eligible for subsidies to make ACA health plans less expensive, Graves said. The subsidized exchanges are available for people between 100% and 138% of the federal poverty line, among others.

“Given the heavy subsidies in that income range, and large amount of otherwise uninsured people, that would suggest more GOP-identifying people with low incomes would go the (subsidized) exchange route,” Graves wrote.

The Affordable Care Act has been vilified by Republicans since passage during President Barack Obama’s tenure. However, provisions within the law — such as creation of the ACA marketplaces, coverage for those with pre-existing conditions and the ability to stay on parents’ health plan until age 26 — have broad appeal, said KFF’s Kearney.

As of 2023, nearly 1 in 7 U.S. residents had enrolled in an ACA marketplace plan at some point since 2014, the year in which states rolled out marketplace plans, according to a 2024 report from the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

“Our polling going back years has shown that when you ask about favorability of the ACA itself, Republicans view it as pretty unfavorable,” she said. “However, the actual provisions in it are very popular, and are popular among Republicans.”

The escalating battle between the Trump administration and Harvard University over international student visas could come at a high economic cost.

Altogether, international students who studied in the U.S. contributed $43.8 billion to the U.S. economy in the 2023-24 academic year, according to the most recent data by NAFSA: Association of International Educators. In Massachusetts, alone, international students contributed nearly $4 billion and supported more than 35,000 jobs.

At Harvard, the share of international students is disproportionately high compared to most other colleges and universities. International students accounted for 27% of Harvard’s total enrollment in the 2024-25 academic year, up from 22.5% a decade earlier.

With more than 6,000 international students, Harvard supports over 1,125 local jobs and contributes $180 million to the greater Boston economy, largely through student spending, according to a new analysis by Implan, an economic software and analysis company.

More from Personal Finance:
Harvard, Trump battle may give some applicants a leg up
Harvard students are ‘frantic,’ college consultant says
Is college still worth it? It is for most, but not all

A ban on international enrollment could destabilize a vital revenue stream, said Bjorn Markeson, an economist at Implan.

“Because Harvard has a very high international student population, it’s going to have more of that impact,” Markeson said. “The economy is a network structure, so dollars flow through. They don’t just stay in one place — and when something hits Boston, it affects New England as a whole.”

Schools have increasingly sought out international students “because they compliment the student body, and that benefits all students,” said Robert Franek, The Princeton Review’s editor-in-chief.

But foreign students also typically pay full tuition, which makes international enrollment an important source of revenue for Harvard and many colleges and universities in the U.S., according to Franek. 

Tensions between the federal government and the Ivy League university have continued to escalate after Harvard in April refused to meet a set of demands issued by the Trump administration’s Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism.

In May, President Donald Trump attempted to ban Harvard from enrolling international students, but a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order on Friday “to maintain the status quo.”

U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs said the restraining order would remain in effect until June 20. Meanwhile, Harvard President Alan Garber said that “contingency plans are being developed to ensure that international students and scholars can continue to pursue their work at Harvard this summer and through the coming academic year.”

In an interview with NBC News on Friday, U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said Harvard needs to do more to combat antisemitism on campus and screen admissions of foreign students.

Subscribe to CNBC on YouTube.

The Supreme Court on Friday granted the Department of Government Efficiency access to Social Security Administration data that includes sensitive personal information of millions of Americans.

The decision comes as the federal government sought a stay, or temporary suspension, after a federal judge blocked DOGE’s access to that data in April. The nation’s highest court granted an emergency application from the Trump administration to lift that injunction; the case is expected to proceed in lower courts.

In its decision, the Supreme Court concluded the Social Security Administration may give DOGE access to agency records while the case plays out “in order for those members to do their work.”

More from Personal Finance:
Millions would lose health insurance under GOP megabill
Average 401(k) balances drop 3% due to market volatility
Trump administration asks Supreme Court to lift ban on Education Dept. layoffs

Both the White House and the Social Security Administration called the Supreme Court decision a victory. In a statement, White House spokesperson Elizabeth Huston said it will allow the Trump administration to “carry out commonsense efforts to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse and modernize government information systems.”

Likewise, Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano in a statement said the agency “will continue driving forward modernization efforts, streamlining government systems, and ensuring improved service and outcomes for our beneficiaries.”

Yet others expressed grave concern in reaction to the decision, including Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, advocacy groups and plaintiffs in the case against DOGE and the Social Security Administration.

“This is a sad day for our democracy and a scary day for millions of people,” said the coalition of plaintiffs including American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; the American Federation of Teachers; and the Alliance for Retired Americans, who are represented by Democracy Forward.

“This ruling will enable President Trump and DOGE’s affiliates to steal Americans’ private and personal data,” they said, while vowing to “use every legal tool at our disposal” to prevent the misuse of public data as the case moves forward.