BOSTON — The top Republican in the Massachusetts House is still parsing the so-called “big, beautiful bill” that became law Friday to figure out where he lands.

House Minority Leader Brad Jones is nearly certain of one thing, though: He and his colleagues will find their own work altered as a result of what President Donald Trump signed into law.

“This [law] is, what, nearly 1,000 pages, touches on hundreds of different aspects of tax and public policy and spending policy?” Jones said in an interview Monday. “I would find it nearly impossible to think that the Legislature wouldn’t have something to do to bring us in sync, or to address something funding-wise that we view as a priority that’s now not going to be covered by the federal government.”

Top lawmakers, including Democrats who wield supermajority margins in both chambers, had their hands full over a long holiday weekend beginning to unpack one of the most significant new federal laws in decades, a package with major impacts for MassHealth, food aid, clean energy and more.

Rep. John Lawn, the point person for the House on most health care matters, said Monday he expects the new law to be “devastating” for Massachusetts — and he “do[es] not see any silver lining in these cuts.”

Hundreds of thousands of people who lose MassHealth coverage will still need care, Lawn said. He expects they will still show up in emergency rooms and “go into the free care pool,” further straining community hospitals and safety-net providers who are already struggling financially.

“The cuts will really ripple across our entire health care system,” he said.

His counterpart on the Health Care Financing Committee, Sen. Cindy Friedman, agreed.

“It’s not hyperbole to say that this bill is far from beautiful, and in fact is terrible for our economy, for our working-class residents and for government operations of Massachusetts,” Friedman said in a statement.

Both Lawn and Friedman signaled they will have their hands full developing and navigating a legislative response — Friedman said “it will take an immense, collaborative effort to even begin to mitigate the negative impact this bill will have on just physical health here in Massachusetts” — to the Medicaid cuts.

However, Lawn said the timeline is not clear, especially because lawmakers are still trying to get a better grasp of the full scope of impacts.

“We’ve already been having discussions, but until we knew actually what the cuts would be, how we go from there will remain to be seen,” he said. “As you know, we’ve got a hospital system and health care system that’s very fragile going into this, and these cuts will really have effects downstream on our workforce, especially in our rural areas.”

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has not yet released updated projections on how the final law could affect Medicaid enrollment by state. Nonprofit health policy organization KFF previously estimated the House version of the bill could cause 165,000 to 275,000 Massachusetts residents to lose coverage by 2034.

Food security and assistance

Tens of thousands of Bay Staters are also at risk of losing access to food aid.

The Massachusetts Law Reform Institute estimated that about 175,000 residents could lose some or all of their Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits under the law, which, according to anti-hunger group Project Bread, tightens work requirements, eliminates SNAP eligibility for immigrants with legal status and shifts a significant portion of program costs to state governments.

For about half a century, food stamp benefits have been completely funded by the federal government, while Washington and states split administrative costs evenly, according to Leran Minc, Project Bread’s director of public policy.

The new law will require states to pick up 75% of administrative costs and, depending on a state’s “error rate” in paying out aid, 5% to 15% of benefit costs. Minc said those two changes could together add roughly $450 million per year to the amount Massachusetts must pay to maintain SNAP.

“We’re very much concerned about what are we not going to be able to do or what are we going to scale back on because we’re covering that amount,” Minc said.

“If the state ultimately decides that they can’t fund that, it’s a bit of an open question of what the federal government would do,” he added. “What’s expected is that cost-sharing, cost-shift would slide proportionally, so if the state was only able to cover half of their obligation, the federal government would likely only cover half of their obligation. That becomes a very big cut to the program, so then there have to be decisions made of, ‘How do we scale back eligibility and benefit levels?’”

Cost-sharing changes will not take effect immediately — especially if Massachusetts winds up triggering a carveout delaying implementation in states with the highest payment error rates — so there will be some time for lawmakers and Gov. Maura Healey to craft a response plan.

Minc said Beacon Hill could also invest more to lower its payment error rate, which might lower the share of benefits the state government needs to cover.

“It would be really hard to walk away from that 85% and still find a way to help people meet their basic needs, so I believe once we think about all those different facts, as much as it’s a bitter pill to swallow, I feel fairly hopeful it is a pill they will swallow,” he said of the cost to cover benefits.

House and Senate Democrats in recent years have deployed state dollars to plug gaps opened up by changes to federal programs or to continue offering services once funded by the federal government, like free school meals and so-called C3 grants to early education providers.

While legislative leaders have not made any pledges yet, they’re already facing calls from advocacy groups to once again function as a financial cavalry.

“If we do not mitigate this federal damage in the commonwealth, hundreds of thousands of Massachusetts residents will go hungry, get sicker, grow poorer and struggle unnecessarily — and our local communities and economies will suffer the consequences,” said Georgia Katsoulomitis, executive director of the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute.

Sen. Jo Comerford, a regular advocate for enhanced food security funding through SNAP and other programs, said Monday that the “big brutal betrayal bill” represents “cuts to lifeline programs” for people across Massachusetts. She said cuts to food aid programs are particularly surprising in light of increases in food insecurity nationally.

“They’re cutting at a time when folks are struggling more,” she said.

Comerford stressed that it will take time for the impacts of the new federal law to trickle through state agencies and for issues to reveal themselves. As vice chair of the Senate Committee on Steering, Policy and Scheduling, the Northampton Democrat is involved in the Senate’s “Response 2025” effort to address changes out of Washington. She said she believes state government is “bracing for real hardships here.”

She said she has focused on protecting Massachusetts residents from federal cuts and has not identified a positive from the new federal law.

“We’re all preparing for how Massachusetts responds to what happens out of Congress and we’re doing it in, I think, responsible ways as we understand that it’s going to be a range of cuts, from health care to food security to other critical programs for constituents,” she said, pointing to an $800 million cushion lawmakers built into the new state budget and the governor’s further budget cutting. “I hope that for the people I work for there isn’t pronounced or prolonged hardship. That’s what I hope will be the case. I fear that people will experience some — they certainly are experiencing anxiety right now, that’s without question. I hope we’re able to work together as the House and Senate and the administration to do the best we can in these really, really difficult circumstances for the people we serve.”