Penalty for Usurping the Will of the American People

To determine if the actions described (deactivating access to Medicaid payment portals) constitute sedition or treason, we need to examine the legal definitions and context.

- **Sedition** involves inciting resistance or insurrection against lawful authority or disrupting government functions through conspiracy or speech. According to U.S. law, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 2384, seditious conspiracy requires two or more persons conspiring to overthrow, put down, or destroy by force the government of the United States, or to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States. 

- **Treason** is defined under Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution as "levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." It's a very specific crime with a high evidentiary threshold requiring testimony from two witnesses or a confession in open court.

Given these definitions:

- **Sedition**: The act of temporarily blocking access to Medicaid payment portals might be seen as an attempt to hinder or delay the execution of U.S. laws if it's proven that this was done with the intent to disrupt government functions maliciously or to incite rebellion against the government.

- **Treason**: This does not appear to fit the definition of treason since there's no evidence of levying war or aiding enemies of the United States. The act in question, even if severe in its impact, does not align with the constitutional definition of treason.

**Usurping the will of the people of America** relates more to the political and democratic implications rather than legal definitions of sedition or treason. If Medicaid access, which is a program supported by legislative and public will, is intentionally disrupted, one could argue it's against the democratic process or the will of the people. However:

- This would be more of a political critique or an argument about governance rather than a legal determination of sedition or treason unless the intent was explicitly to undermine the government's authority by force or conspiracy.

- The incident described seems more administrative or policy-related rather than an act aimed at overthrowing the government or inciting rebellion.

In conclusion, based on the available information:

- **Sedition**: It does not straightforwardly meet the legal criteria for sedition unless there's evidence of conspiracy to disrupt government functions with the intent to incite rebellion.

- **Treason**: It does not meet the constitutional definition of treason.

- **Usurping the will of the people**: This is a political argument rather than a legal one, depending on the context and intent behind the actions, which are not detailed enough here to conclude definitively.

Any determination would require further investigation into the intent behind the actions, the policies involved, and whether they were executed in a manner that legally constitutes sedition. Legal interpretations and court precedents would also play a crucial role in any formal legal analysis.

Based on the search results provided, there was an incident where states were reportedly unable to access Medicaid payment portals, which was related to a broader federal funding freeze announced by the Trump administration. Here's what the information indicates:

- **On January 28, 2025**, several states, including Illinois, Connecticut, Florida, and Massachusetts, encountered issues accessing the federal payments system for Medicaid, as reported by various news sources. This was part of a larger issue where multiple federal grant and loan systems were impacted by a funding freeze ordered by the Trump administration. 

- **The White House**, under President Donald Trump, issued a directive that paused federal spending, which inadvertently led to confusion and access issues with various federal systems, including Medicaid. 

- **CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services)** was mentioned in the context of this issue, with White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stating that the administration was aware of the outage and was working to resolve it. CMS clarified that Medicaid funding should not be affected, and by late afternoon on January 28, 2025, steps were being taken to ensure the portal for accessing Medicaid payments was open. 

- **The Office of Management and Budget (OMB)** had issued a memo that created confusion over which programs were affected by the spending freeze. This was followed by another memo clarifying that Medicaid should not be impacted.

Therefore, while the direct act of "denying access" might be seen as an unintended consequence of the broader funding freeze, **the Trump administration via the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the subsequent actions by CMS** were involved in the scenario where states temporarily lost access to the Medicaid portal. 

Please note, these events were reported to have happened two days ago (January 28, 2025), and for the most up-to-date information, checking the official CMS or White House websites or statements would provide the latest updates:

- **CMS Official Communications**: Check the CMS Newsroom for any recent statements or news updates regarding this issue.

- **White House Official Statements**: Look for press releases or briefings related to federal funding and CMS operations.

Given the time-sensitive nature of this information, direct access to these official channels would provide the most current status. However, as of the information available up to January 28, 2025, the situation was in the process of being resolved.