Senate Passes Controversial $9 Billion Spending Cut Bill

In a narrow 51-48 vote on July 17, 2025, the U.S. Senate approved the Rescissions Act of 2025, a $9 billion federal spending cut package targeting public broadcasting and foreign aid programs. The legislation now returns to the House of Representatives for final approval before a Friday deadline.

The bill proposes nearly $1.1 billion in cuts to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which funds over 1,500 local stations, including National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). Additionally, it seeks approximately $8 billion in reductions to foreign aid programs managed by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., defended the measure, stating, "We are using the president's rescissions request to target wasteful spending. This is a small but important step for fiscal sanity that we all should be able to agree is long overdue."

However, the bill faced opposition from both sides of the aisle. Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, expressed concern over the lack of transparency, saying, "The bill has a big problem — nobody really knows what program reductions are in it." Senators Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., also opposed the measure, citing potential impacts on rural public broadcasting services and global humanitarian efforts.

The proposed cuts to CPB have raised alarms about the viability of local public media stations, especially in rural areas that rely heavily on federal funding. Senator Murkowski highlighted that these stations provide essential services, including emergency alerts for natural disasters. During Senate debates, she noted that public broadcasting stations are "not just your news — it is your tsunami alert, it is your landslide alert, it is your volcano alert."

In response to concerns about Native American public radio stations, Senator Mike Rounds, R-S.D., secured a deal from the White House to repurpose some funding administered by the Department of the Interior to subsidize these stations in about a dozen states. However, Kate Riley, president and CEO of America's Public Television Stations, criticized the deal as "at best a short-term, half-measure that will still result in cuts and reduced service at the stations it purports to save, while leaving behind all other stations, including many that serve Native populations."

The legislation also aims to rescind about $8 billion in foreign aid spending. Among the cuts are $800 million for a program that provides emergency shelter, water, sanitation, and family reunification for those who flee their own countries, and $496 million to provide food, water, and health care for countries hit by natural disasters and conflicts. There's also a $4.15 billion cut for programs that aim to boost economies and democratic institutions in developing nations.

Democrats argued that the Trump administration's animus toward foreign aid programs would hurt America's standing in the world and create a vacuum for China to fill. Senator Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, emphasized the minimal cost of saving lives through foreign aid, stating, "People are dying right now, not in spite of us but because of us. We are causing death."

After objections from several Republicans, GOP leaders removed a $400 million cut to the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), a program credited with saving millions of lives since its creation under then-President George W. Bush.

The passage of the Rescissions Act has intensified partisan debates over federal spending priorities. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., criticized the legislation, stating it "guts local news, defunds rural radio stations, and makes America less safe on the world stage." Some Republicans also expressed concerns that such cuts undermine bipartisan trust required for passing annual spending bills, potentially risking a government shutdown.

As the Rescissions Act of 2025 moves to the House of Representatives for final approval, the debate over balancing fiscal responsibility with the preservation of essential public services and international aid continues to unfold.