Senate Clears $9 Billion Cuts in Major Win for Trump’s Budget Agenda

17 July 2025

In a tight 51-48 vote on July 17, the U.S. Senate narrowly approved a $9 billion rescissions package championed by President Trump, reclaiming funds previously allocated to foreign aid and public broadcasting, a move that signals a consolidation of executive influence over fiscal priorities in his second term.

Originally proposed at $9.4 billion, the package was trimmed to exclude $400 million in funding for PEPFAR, America’s global HIV/AIDS initiative launched in 2003. This modification came just before Senate passage and necessitates a return to the House for final approval ahead of the Impoundment Control Act’s 45‑day deadline.

$8 billion redirected from international aid and development programs

$1.1 billion extracted from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which supports NPR and PBS stations has ignited fierce opposition from Democrats and moderate Republicans alike. Senators Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins joined Democrats in voting no, citing concerns over the lack of transparency, the potential harm to rural broadcasting services, and the undermining of Congress’s constitutional “power of the purse”

Murkowski articulated her reservation on the Senate floor, urging colleagues to protect the CPB and global health efforts, and accusing proponents of treating the Senate as a mere approval mechanism for executive priorities . Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer echoed this sentiment, warning that Congress was relinquishing critical authority once held tight during government funding decisions.

Supporters of the package framed it as a necessary fiscal realignment. Senate Majority Leader John Thune described it as "small but important" for bringing sanity to federal budgets. In context, this push forms part of a broader campaign to curtail excessive federal spending, with over $425 billion in appropriations currently frozen as part of Trump’s “Department of Government Efficiency” initiative.

Public media advocates have sounded the alarm. The cuts threaten over 1,500 local public broadcasting stations, a lifeline for emergency communications in rural America. Even after partial carve-outs benefiting Native American radio stations, critics insist that the loss of funding for NPR and PBS will shutter local newsrooms and deprive millions of educational and civic programming .

Overseas, the sliced foreign aid presents another headache. Longstanding bipartisan programs combating malaria, polio, and child mortality are under threat, with allies voicing concern that the rollback could endanger hard-won public health progress in developing nations .

Legally, this rescissions package would mark the first of its kind passed in decades, affirming presidential authority under the 1974 Impoundment Control Act to withdraw previously appropriated funds, though critics argue such unilateral retracts bypass democratic budget checks. Its passage in the Senate sets a swift 48‑hour timeline for House approval. If validated, funds will be officially rescinded; if not, existing spending plans will proceed.

In the backdrop of these dramatic budget maneuvers are broader political currents. President Trump has issued recent executive orders targeting the CPB and public media, including directives to defund NPR and PBS over alleged liberal bias, a move soon met with First Amendment lawsuits. Meanwhile, debates have intensified over national priorities like foreign aid versus domestic fiscal control, reflecting shifting voter sentiments on global leadership and government size .

The stakes extend beyond dollars. Should the rescissions pass, the resulting hemorrhage of federal support could imperil health campaigns overseas, starve rural towns of critical news services, and deprive classrooms of science and educational programming. These consequences may galvanize resistance when crafting larger fiscal frameworks for 2026.

Yet the success of this legislation underscores an evolving power dynamic in Washington. Trump’s ability to marshal Senate votes even Syrian Republicans signals a consolidation of executive influence over budget processes long seen as bipartisan turf.

American observers may soon judge whether this act represents a prudent pivot toward fiscal discipline or a problematic precedent that erodes legislative authority and the nation’s global values.