Senate votes 52-47 to protect new ACA exchange plan sales rules.

Republican senators have backed the Trump administration’s push to overhaul marketing practices and application review standards for HealthCare.gov, Covered California, and other Affordable Care Act (ACA) public exchange programs.

Democrats countered with Senate Joint Resolution 84, which sought to block the administration’s new ACA exchange “market integrity” rules. On Tuesday, the Senate rejected the resolution by a 47–52 vote. Every participating Democrat voted in favor of the measure, while every participating Republican voted against it.

What it means: For employers, the failed resolution suggests that the ACA exchange system is likely to continue operating—at least for the next year—providing coverage options for workers without employer-sponsored insurance, as well as for employees using employer-funded individual coverage health reimbursement arrangements (ICHRAs).

The Trump administration has invested significant effort in redesigning exchange rules and now appears intent on operating the system under those revised standards.

How the ACA exchange system works: ACA exchanges allow individuals and families to shop for health insurance through online marketplaces offering plans from commercial insurers. Consumers may apply for federal premium subsidies to lower their share of premium costs. While insurers may adjust pricing based on factors such as age and geographic location, they are prohibited from considering an applicant’s health status.

To discourage people—particularly younger and healthier individuals—from waiting until they become ill to enroll, the system relies on defined open enrollment periods. Outside these windows, consumers generally must demonstrate a qualifying reason to enroll.

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, open enrollment typically ran from approximately Nov. 1 through Dec. 31. For 2026 coverage, open enrollment began Nov. 1 in most states and is scheduled to close Jan. 15.

Critics argue that some applicants have bypassed enrollment restrictions by misrepresenting their state of residence or falsely claiming Native American status to qualify for special enrollment periods. Others, they say, have misstated income to gain access to premium subsidies or increase the amount of assistance received.

In some cases, subsidies reduced premiums to zero. Critics allege that certain unethical brokers exploited these “free” plans by enrolling consumers without their knowledge.

The Trump administration’s “market integrity” rules: In response, the administration proposed reforms including a shorter open enrollment period, stricter verification requirements for applicants, and the elimination of zero-premium plans.

While courts allowed some of these changes to take effect for the current enrollment cycle, they delayed implementation of several others. At the same time, many congressional Republicans supported allowing the temporary increase in ACA subsidies—introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic—to expire on Dec. 31, 2025.

Supporters of ending the subsidy boost acknowledge that the return of the “subsidy cliff” could raise costs for some consumers, but argue it would reduce federal interference in the commercial insurance market. Critics of the current system contend that generous subsidies incentivize insurers to raise premiums in order to capture more federal dollars.

Administration officials maintain that the new market integrity rules will improve efficiency, reduce fraud related to income and residency claims, limit abuse of special enrollment periods, and curb deceptive broker practices that result in consumers being enrolled in coverage without receiving premium bills or notification.

Democrats, however, argue that both the rule changes and the expiration of enhanced subsidies threaten to undermine the ACA exchanges by making it harder for individuals to prove eligibility for coverage and financial assistance.

According to ACASignups.net, as of Monday, enrollment among new exchange participants is down roughly 12% compared with the same period last year, following the implementation of current rule and subsidy changes.

The backdrop: While President Trump has repeatedly criticized the cost and quality of “Obamacare,” he has not directly targeted HealthCare.gov or opposed the broader concept of helping consumers afford individual health coverage. During federal budget cuts in early 2024, the administration imposed only modest reductions to exchange funding and staffing. It also allowed exchange operations to continue largely uninterrupted during the government shutdown that ran from Oct. 1 through Nov. 12.