logo
Congress approves Trump's $15b cuts to public broadcasting, foreign aid

Congress approves Trump's $15b cuts to public broadcasting, foreign aid

1News3 days ago
The House gave final approval to President Donald Trump's request to claw back about US$9 billion (NZ$15 billion) for public broadcasting and foreign aid Saturday as Republicans intensified their efforts to target institutions and programs they view as bloated or out of step with their agenda.
The vote marked the first time in decades that a president has successfully submitted such a rescissions request to Congress, and the White House suggested it won't be the last. Some Republicans were uncomfortable with the cuts, yet supported them anyway, wary of crossing Trump or upsetting his agenda.
The House passed the bill by a vote of 216-213. It now goes to Trump for his signature.
'We need to get back to fiscal sanity and this is an important step,' said House Speaker Mike Johnson.
Opponents voiced concerns not only about the programs targeted, but about Congress ceding its spending powers to the executive branch, as investments approved on a bipartisan basis were being subsequently cancelled on party-line votes. They said previous rescission efforts had at least some bipartisan buy-in and described the Republican package as unprecedented.
ADVERTISEMENT
No Democrats supported the measure when it passed the Senate, 51-48. Final passage in the House was delayed for several hours as Republicans wrestled with their response to Democrats' push for a vote on the release of Jeffrey Epstein files.
The package cancels about US$1.1 billion (NZ$1.8 billion) for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and nearly US$8 billion (NZ$13 billion) for a variety of foreign aid programs, many designed to help countries where drought, disease and political unrest endure.
The effort to claw back a sliver of federal spending came just weeks after Republicans also muscled through Trump's tax and spending cut bill without any Democratic support. The Congressional Budget Office has projected that the measure will increase the US debt by about US$3.3 trillion (NZ$5.5 trillion) over the coming decade.
"No one is buying the the notion that Republicans are actually trying to improve wasteful spending,' said Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries.
A heavy blow to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting
This photo provided by Kanesia McGlashan-Price shows Lauren Adams, general manager of public radio station KUCB in Unalaska, Alaska, in the broadcast studio. (Source: Associated Press)
The cancellation of US$1.1 billion for the CPB represents the full amount it is due to receive during the next two budget years.
ADVERTISEMENT
The White House says the public media system is politically biased and an unnecessary expense.
The corporation distributes more than two-thirds of the money to more than 1500 locally operated public television and radio stations, with much of the remainder assigned to National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service to support national programming.
Democrats were unsuccessful in restoring the funding in the Senate.
Lawmakers with large rural constituencies voiced particular concern about what the cuts to public broadcasting could mean for some local public stations in their state.
Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski from Alaska, said the stations are "not just your news — it is your tsunami alert, it is your landslide alert, it is your volcano alert'.
As the Senate debated the bill Wednesday, a 7.3 magnitude earthquake struck off the remote Alaska Peninsula, triggering tsunami warnings on local public broadcasting stations that advised people to get to higher ground.
Senator Mike Rounds said he secured a deal from the White House that some money administered by the Interior Department would be repurposed to subsidise Native American public radio stations in about a dozen states.
ADVERTISEMENT
But Kate Riley, president and CEO of America's Public Television Stations, a network of locally owned and operated stations, said that deal was 'at best a short-term, half-measure that will still result in cuts and reduced service at the stations it purports to save'.
Inside the cuts to foreign aid
Demonstrators and lawmakers rally against President Donald Trump and his ally Elon Musk as they disrupt the federal government. (Source: Associated Press)
Among the foreign aid cuts are $800 million for a program that provides emergency shelter, water, and family reunification for refugees, and US$496 million (NZ$1.3 billion) to provide food, water, and healthcare for countries hit by natural disasters and conflicts. There also is a US$4.15 billion (NZ$6.9 billion) cut for programs that aim to boost economies and democratic institutions in developing nations.
Democrats argued that the Republican administration's animus toward foreign aid programs would hurt America's standing in the world and create a vacuum for China to fill.
'This is not an America first bill. It's a China first bill because of the void that's being created all across the world,' Jeffries said.
The White House argued that many of the cuts would incentivise other nations to step up and do more to respond to humanitarian crises and that the rescissions best served the American taxpayer.
ADVERTISEMENT
'The money that we're clawing back in this rescissions package is the people's money. We ought not to forget that,' said Representative Virginia Foxx, chair of the House Rules Committee.
After objections from several Republicans, Senate GOP leaders took out a US$400 million (NZ$669 million) cut to PEPFAR, a politically popular program to combat HIV/AIDS that is credited with saving millions of lives since its creation under Republican President George W Bush.
Looking ahead to future spending fights
Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought speaks with reporters at the White House. (Source: Associated Press)
Democrats say the bill upends a legislative process that typically requires lawmakers from both parties to work together to fund the nation's priorities.
Triggered by the official rescissions request from the White House, the legislation only needed a simple majority vote to advance in the Senate instead of the 60 votes usually required to break a filibuster. That meant Republicans could use their 53-47 majority to pass it along party lines.
Two Republican senators, Murkowski and Senator Susan Collins of Maine, joined with Democrats in voting against the bill, though a few other Republicans also raised concerns about the process.
ADVERTISEMENT
'Let's not make a habit of this,' said Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker of Mississippi, who voted for the bill but said he was wary that the White House wasn't providing enough information on what exactly will be cut.
Russ Vought, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, said the imminent successful passage of the rescissions shows 'enthusiasm' for getting the nation's fiscal situation under control.
'We're happy to go to great lengths to get this thing done,' he said during a breakfast with reporters hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.
In response to questions about the relatively small size of the cuts - US$9 billion - Vought said that was because 'I knew it would be hard' to pass in Congress. Vought said another rescissions package is 'likely to come soon'.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Strike out power on Bill in Winston Peters' hands
Strike out power on Bill in Winston Peters' hands

Otago Daily Times

timean hour ago

  • Otago Daily Times

Strike out power on Bill in Winston Peters' hands

Winston Peters, Christopher Luxon, David Seymour. PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES New Zealand First are polling better in government than they ever have. No longer encumbered by the optics of being too close to the baubles of office, its leader Winston Peters is free to control the script at a time when his coalition partners are looking tired. One can expect that the (grand)father of the House will spend the next 18 months oscillating between the seriousness of his job as Foreign Minister and the less serious but equally important job of trolling his political opponents. So far, he's winning. A million or more voters would have seen Mr Peters gleefully wave an A4 print of the Soviet flag while describing the Green Party's alternative budget; a tiny fraction would have read the 43-page manifesto. The modern Greens are not communists or socialists; some are barely even social democrats, but that's all beside the point. Mr Peters' best sales pitch is that his party is neither of the main parties (who he suggests can't be trusted) nor any of the others (who he suggests are bonkers). They are enormous claims for the man who appears to have successfully courted the Freedom movement on his way back to Parliament. The departure of Tanya Unkovich from the NZ First caucus comes at an opportune time for Mr Peters, who will be thinking about how to sensibly pivot his party back to the so-called political centre and by doing so claim an even bigger share of the electoral pie. Party insiders have suggested that new list MP David Wilson will help smooth the ride. A reliable member of the party faithful who shares Mr Peters' liberal underpinnings but frank distaste for the excess of market forces. How might Mr Peters use his clear air to grow support for his party further? The most obvious play is to double down on a position that his party is the only independent voice in town, with each of the major parties being dragged either left or right by the demands of smaller parties. The coalition agreement between National and Act commits to passing a Regulatory Standards Bill as soon as is practicable. Well, it won't be practicable if Mr Peters decides it isn't. It could be his next chance to show his credentials as the voice of the people by pulling up the legislative handbrake. For that to happen, Mr Peters needs someone from across the aisle to explain to the public, in a few sentences or less, why the Regulatory Standards Bill is not in their best interests. Most opposition MPs have been fixated on how the Bill enhances property rights by embedding quasi-libertarian ideology into various pieces of legislation. The obvious rejoinder is that we have been doing that already for the past 40-odd years, starting with the Fourth Labour Government. Submissions on the Bill have been notable for two reasons: how many there are and how many are vehemently opposed. Limiting the number of submitters allowed to give oral presentations and having others dismissed as bots, is neither respecting parliamentary processes, nor the people. Questions of fairness and responsible stewardship give New Zealand First further cause to adapt their position on the Bill. Indeed, it is reverence for our political institutions that differentiates Mr Peters from the less effective theatrical populists in other parts of the liberal world. Usually, legislation that risks upending constitutional norms would be something tested via a referendum, or at the very least, receive a clearer mandate on election night e.g. a National-Act New Zealand majority coalition. How might the coalition partners respond if Mr Peters says that the Regulatory Standards Bill must stay on the order paper until after the next election? In 2018, Prime Minister Ardern dismissed the failure to repeal the three strikes as "simply democracy and MMP". Prime Minister Luxon might be compelled to say something similar. For Act leader David Seymour? Probably just the first strike. — Dr Luke Oldfield is a lecturer of political science at Te Herenga Waka-Victoria University of Wellington.

Trump tells NFL team to restore Redskins name or he'll pull stadium
Trump tells NFL team to restore Redskins name or he'll pull stadium

1News

time12 hours ago

  • 1News

Trump tells NFL team to restore Redskins name or he'll pull stadium

US President Donald Trump is threatening to hold up a new stadium deal for Washington's NFL team if it does not restore its old name of the Redskins that was considered offensive to Native Americans. Trump also said on Sunday that he wants Cleveland's baseball team to revert to its former name, the Indians, saying there was a "big clamouring for this" as well. The Washington Commanders and Cleveland Guardians have had their current names since the 2022 seasons, and both have said they have no plans to change them back. Trump said the Washington football team would be "much more valuable" if it restored its old name. "I may put a restriction on them that if they don't change the name back to the original 'Washington Redskins,' and get rid of the ridiculous moniker, 'Washington Commanders,'' I won't make a deal for them to build a Stadium in Washington," Trump said on his social media site. ADVERTISEMENT His latest interest in changing the name reflects his broader effort to roll back changes that followed a national debate on cultural sensitivity and racial justice. The team announced it would drop the Redskins name and the Indian head logo in 2020 during a broader reckoning with systemic racism and police brutality. The Commanders and the District of Columbia government announced a deal earlier this year to build a new home for the football team at the site the old RFK Stadium, the place the franchise called home for more than three decades. Trump's ability to hold up the deal remains to be seen. President Joe Biden signed a bill in January that transferred the land from the federal government to the District of Columbia. The provision was part of a short-term spending bill passed by Congress in December. While DC residents elect a mayor, a city council and commissioners to run day-to-day operations, Congress maintains control of the city's budget. Josh Harris, whose group bought the Commanders from former owner Dan Snyder in 2023, said earlier this year the name was here to stay. Not long after taking over, Harris quieted speculation about going back to Redskins, saying that would not happen. The team did not immediately respond to a request for comment following Trump's statement. The Washington team started in Boston as the Redskins in 1933 before moving to the nation's capital four years later. The Cleveland Guardians' president of baseball operations, Chris Antonetti, indicated before Sunday's game against the Athletics that there weren't any plans to revisit the name change. ADVERTISEMENT "We understand there are different perspectives on the decision we made a few years ago, but obviously it's a decision we made. We've got the opportunity to build a brand as the Guardians over the last four years and are excited about the future that's in front of us," he said. Cleveland announced in December 2020 it would drop Indians. It announced the switch to Guardians in July 2021. In 2018, the team phased out "Chief Wahoo' as its primary logo. The name changes had their share of supporters and critics as part of the national discussions about logos and names considered racist. Trump posted Sunday afternoon that "The Owner of the Cleveland Baseball Team, Matt Dolan, who is very political, has lost three Elections in a row because of that ridiculous name change. What he doesn't understand is that if he changed the name back to the Cleveland Indians, he might actually win an Election. Indians are being treated very unfairly. MAKE INDIANS GREAT AGAIN (MIGA)!" Matt Dolan, the son of the late Larry Dolan, no longer has a role with the Guardians. He ran the team's charity endeavours until 2016. Matt Dolan was a candidate in the Ohio US Senate elections in 2022 and 2024 but lost. Washington and Cleveland had another thing in common — David Blitzer was a member of Harris' ownership group with the Commanders and held a minority stake in the Guardians.

Under threat of a ‘snapback' of sanctions, Iran has agreed to talks with Britain, France and Germany
Under threat of a ‘snapback' of sanctions, Iran has agreed to talks with Britain, France and Germany

NZ Herald

time12 hours ago

  • NZ Herald

Under threat of a ‘snapback' of sanctions, Iran has agreed to talks with Britain, France and Germany

A German diplomatic source had told AFP earlier that the E3 were in contact with Tehran and said: 'Iran must never be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon'. 'That is why Germany, France and the United Kingdom are continuing to work intensively in the E3 format to find a sustainable and verifiable diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear programme,' the source said. Israel launched on June 13 a wave of surprise strikes on its regional nemesis, targeting key military and nuclear facilities. The US launched its own set of strikes against Iran's nuclear programme on June 22, hitting the uranium enrichment facility at Fordow, in Qom province south of Tehran, as well as nuclear sites in Isfahan and Natanz. Kremlin meeting Iran and the US had held several rounds of nuclear negotiations through Omani mediators before Israel launched its 12-day war against Iran. However, US President Donald Trump's decision to join Israel in striking Iranian nuclear facilities effectively ended the talks. The E3 countries last met Iranian representatives in Geneva on June 21 - just one day before the US strikes. Also today, Russian President Vladimir Putin held a surprise meeting in the Kremlin with Ali Larijani, a top adviser to Iran's Supreme Leader on nuclear issues. Larijani 'conveyed assessments of the escalating situation in the Middle East and around the Iranian nuclear programme', Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said of the unannounced meeting. Putin had expressed Russia's 'well-known positions on how to stabilise the situation in the region and on the political settlement of the Iranian nuclear programme', he added. Moscow has a cordial relationship with Iran's clerical leadership and provides crucial backing for Tehran but did not swing forcefully behind its partner even after the US joined Israel's bombing campaign. Snapback mechanism Iran and world powers struck a deal in 2015 called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which placed significant restrictions on Tehran's nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief. But the hard-won deal began to unravel in 2018, during Trump's first presidency, when the US walked away from it and reimposed sanctions on Iran. European countries have in recent days threatened to trigger the deal's 'snapback' mechanism, which allows the reimposition of sanctions in the event of non-compliance by Iran. After a call with his European counterparts on Friday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the Western allies had 'absolutely no moral [or] legal grounds' for reactivating the snapback sanctions. He elaborated in a post to social media. 'Through their actions and statements, including providing political and material support to the recent unprovoked and illegal military aggression of the Israeli regime and the US ... the E3 have relinquished their role as 'Participants' in the JCPOA,' said Araghchi. That made any attempt to reinstate the terminated UN Security Council resolutions 'null and void', he added. 'Iran has shown that it is capable of defeating any delusional 'dirty work' but has always been prepared to reciprocate meaningful diplomacy in good faith,' Araghchi wrote. However, the German source said that 'if no solution is reached over the summer, snapback remains an option for the E3'. Ali Velayati, an adviser to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said last week there would be no new nuclear talks with the US if they were conditioned on Tehran abandoning its uranium enrichment activities. -Agence France-Presse

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store