Senate passes $9 billion in spending cuts to public broadcasting, foreign aid
The Senate has passed about $9 billion in federal spending cuts requested by President Donald Trump, including deep reductions to public broadcasting and foreign aid, moving forward on one of the president's top priorities despite concerns from several Republican senators.
The legislation, which now moves to the House, would have a tiny impact on the nation's rising debt but could have major ramifications for the targeted spending, from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to U.S. food aid programs abroad.
It also could complicate efforts to pass additional spending bills this year, as Democrats and even some Republicans have argued they are ceding congressional spending powers to Trump with little idea of how the White House Office of Management and Budget would apply the cuts.
The 51-48 vote came after 2 a.m. Thursday after Democrats sought to remove many of the proposed rescissions during 12 hours of amendment votes. None of the Democratic amendments were adopted.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said Republicans were using the president's rescissions request to target wasteful spending. He said it is a "small but important step for fiscal sanity that we all should be able to agree is long overdue."
But Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, said the bill "has a big problem — nobody really knows what program reductions are in it."
Collins and Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, joined Democrats in voting against the legislation. Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, the former Republican leader, had voted against moving forward with the bill in a Tuesday procedural vote, saying he was concerned the Trump White House wanted a "blank check," but he ultimately voted for final passage.
The effort to claw back a sliver of federal spending comes after Republicans also muscled Trump's big tax and spending cut bill to approval without any Democratic support. The Congressional Budget Office has projected that measure will increase future federal deficits by about $3.3 trillion over the coming decade.
Lawmakers clash over cuts to public radio and TV stations
Along with Democrats, Collins and Murkowski both expressed concerns about the cuts to public broadcasting, saying they could affect important rural stations in their states.
Murkowski said in a speech on the Senate floor Tuesday that the stations are "not just your news — it is your tsunami alert, it is your landslide alert, it is your volcano alert."
Less than a day later, as the Senate debated the bill, 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.
The situation is "a reminder that when we hear people rant about how public broadcasting is nothing more than this radical, liberal effort to pollute people's minds, I think they need to look at what some of the basic services are to communities," Murkowski said.
The legislation would claw back nearly $1.1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which represents the full amount it's due to receive during the next two budget years.
The corporation distributes more than 70% of the money to more than 1,500 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.
Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., said he secured a deal from the White House that some funding administered by the Interior Department would be repurposed to subsidize Native American public radio stations in about a dozen states.
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, while leaving behind all other stations, including many that serve Native populations."
Slashing billions of dollars from foreign aid
The legislation would also claw back about $8 billion in foreign aid spending.
Among the cuts are $800 million for a program that provides emergency shelter, water and 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 also is a $4.15 billion cut for programs that aim to boost economies and democratic institutions in developing nations.
Democrats argued 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.
Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, said the amount of money it takes to save a starving child or prevent the transmission of disease is miniscule, even as the investments secure cooperation with the U.S. on other issues. The cuts being made to foreign aid programs through Trump's Department of Government Efficiency were having life-and-death consequences around the world, he said.
"People are dying right now, not in spite of us but because of us," Schatz said. "We are causing death."
After objections from several Republicans, GOP leaders took out a $400 million cut to PEPFAR, a politically popular program to combat HIV/AIDS that is credited with saving millions of lives since its creation under then-President George W. Bush.
Looking ahead to future spending fights
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 recissions request from the White House, the legislation only needs a simple majority vote instead of the 60 votes usually required to break a filibuster, meaning Republicans can use their 53-47 majority to pass it along party lines.
The Trump administration is promising more rescission packages to come if the first effort is successful. But some Republicans who supported the bill indicated they might be wary of doing so again.
"Let's not make a habit of this," said Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, 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. Wicker said there are members "who are very concerned, as I am, about this process."
North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis echoed similar concerns and said Republicans will need to work with Democrats to keep the government running later in the year.
"The only way to fund the government is to get at least seven Democrats to vote with us at the end of September or we could go into a shutdown," Tillis said.
Republicans face a Friday deadline
Collins attempted to negotiate a last minute change to the package that would have reduced the cuts by about $2.5 billion and restored some of the public broadcasting and global health dollars, but she abandoned the effort after she didn't have enough backing from her Republican colleagues in the Senate and the House.
The House has already shown its support for the president's request with a mostly party line 214-212 vote, but since the Senate amended the bill, it will have to go back to the House for another vote.
The bill must be signed into law by midnight Friday for the proposed rescissions to kick in. If Congress doesn't act by then, the spending stands.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Nahar Net
39 minutes ago
- Nahar Net
Trump tariff pressure pushes Asia toward American LNG at cost of climate goals
by Naharnet Newsdesk 18 July 2025, 17:13 Asian countries are offering to buy more U.S. liquefied natural gas in negotiations with the Trump administration as a way to alleviate tensions over U.S. trade deficits and forestall higher tariffs. Analysts warn that strategy could undermine those countries' long-term climate ambitions and energy security. Buying more U.S. LNG has topped the list of concessions Asian countries have offered in talks with Washington over President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs on foreign goods. Vietnam's Prime Minister underlined the need to buy more of the super-chilled fuel in a government meeting, and the government signed a deal in May with an American company to develop a gas import hub. JERA, Japan's largest power generator, signed new 20-year contracts last month to purchase up to 5.5 million metric tons of U.S. gas annually starting around 2030. U.S. efforts to sell more LNG to Asia predate the Trump administration, but they've gained momentum with his intense push to win trade deals. Liquefied natural gas, or LNG, is natural gas cooled to a liquid form for easy storage and transport that is used as a fuel for transport, residential cooking and heating and industrial processes. Trump discussed cooperation on a $44 billion Alaska LNG project with South Korea, prompting a visit by officials to the site in June. The U.S. president has promoted the project as a way to supply gas from Alaska's vast North Slope to a liquefication plant at Nikiski in south-central Alaska, with an eye largely on exports to Asian countries while bypassing the Panama Canal Thailand has offered to commit to a long-term deal for American fuel and shown interest in the same Alaska project to build a nearly 810-mile (1,300-kilometer) pipeline that would funnel gas from The Philippines is also considering importing gas from Alaska while India is mulling a plan to scrap import taxes on U.S. energy shipments to help narrow its trade surplus with Washington. "Trump has put pressure on a seeming plethora of Asian trading partners to buy more U.S. LNG," said Tim Daiss, at the APAC Energy Consultancy, pointing out that Japan had agreed to buy more despite being so "awash in the fuel" that it was being forced to cancel projects and contracts to offload the excess to Asia's growing economies. "Not good for Southeast Asia's sustainability goals," he said. LNG deals could derail renewable ambitions Experts say LNG purchasing agreements can slow adoption of renewable energy in Asia. Locking into long-term deals could leave countries with outdated infrastructure as the world shifts rapidly toward cleaner energy sources like solar or wind that offer faster, more affordable ways to meet growing power demand, said Indra Overland, head of the Center for Energy Research at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs. Building pipelines, terminals, and even household gas stoves creates systems that are expensive and difficult to replace—making it harder to switch to renewables later. "And you're more likely then to get stuck for longer," he said. Energy companies that profit from gas or coal are powerful vested interests, swaying policy to favor their business models, he said. LNG burns cleaner than coal, but it's still a fossil fuel that emits greenhouse gases and contributes to climate change. Many LNG contracts include "take-or-pay" clauses, obliging governments to pay even if they don't use the fuel. Christopher Doleman of the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis warns that if renewable energy grows fast, reducing the need for LNG, countries may still have to pay for gas they no longer need. Pakistan is an example. Soaring LNG costs drove up electricity prices, pushing consumers to install rooftop solar panels. As demand for power drops and gas supply surges, the country is deferring LNG shipments and trying to resell excess fuel. The LNG math doesn't add up Experts said that although countries are signaling a willingness to import more U.S. LNG, they're unlikely to import enough to have a meaningful impact on U.S. trade deficits. South Korea would need to import 121 million metric tons of LNG in a year — 50% more than the total amount of LNG the U.S. exported globally last year and triple what South Korea imported, said Doleman. Vietnam — with a trade surplus with the U.S. twice the size of Korea's — would need to import 181 million metric tons annually, more than double what the U.S. exported last year. Other obstacles stand in the way. The Alaska LNG project is widely considered uneconomic. Both coal and renewable energy in Asia are so much cheaper that U.S. gas would need to cost less than half its current price to compete. Tariffs on Chinese steel could make building building gas pipelines and LNG terminals more expensive, while longstanding delays to build new gas turbines mean new gas power projects may not come online until 2032. Meanwhile, a global glut in LNG will likely drive prices lower, making it even harder for countries to justify locking into long-term deals with the United States at current higher prices. LNG deals raise energy security concerns Committing to long-term U.S. LNG contracts could impact regional energy security at a time of growing geopolitical and market uncertainties, analysts said. A core concern is over the longterm stability of the U.S. as a trading partner, said Overland. "The U.S. is not a very predictable entity. And to rely on energy from there is a very risky proposition," he said. LNG only contributes to energy security when it's available and affordable, says Dario Kenner of Zero Carbon Analytics. "That's the bit that they leave out ... But it's pretty important," he said. This was the concern during the recent potential disruptions to fuel shipments through the Strait of Hormuz and earlier during the war in Ukraine, when LNG cargoes originally destined for Asia were rerouted to Europe. Despite having contracts, Asian countries like Bangladesh and Sri Lanka were outbid by European buyers. "Events in Europe, which can seem very far away, can have an impact on availability and prices in Asia," Kenner said. Asian countries can improve their energy security and make progress toward cutting carbon emissions by building more renewable energy, he said, noting there is vast room for that given that only about 1% of Southeast Asia's solar and wind potential is being used. "There are genuine choices to meet rising electricity demand. It is not just having to build LNG," he said.
Nahar Net
3 hours ago
- Nahar Net
US Envoy to visit Lebanon next week with timeline for Hezbollah disarmament
by Naharnet Newsdesk 18 July 2025, 14:31 U.S. envoy Thomas Barrack is currently holding consultations in New York and will visit Lebanon next week, local al-Joumhouria newspaper said Friday. According to the daily, Israel has told Barrack that it expects Hezbollah to hand over its ballistic and hypersonic missiles before engaging in further discussions. The new U.S. paper would focus, according to the daily, on halting hostilities for a comprehensive and lasting solution to the Lebanese-Israeli conflict. It proposes a timeline for Hezbollah's disarmament. The deadline for the government to announce its plan to disarm Hezbollah is August 1 and the the plan must be completely implemented before the end of November. After the complete disarmament of Hezbollah, the reconstruction of war-hit regions can begin, the daily said. Lebanese leaders who took office in the aftermath of more than a year of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah have vowed a state monopoly on bearing arms, while demanding Israel comply with a November ceasefire. Israel has warned it will continue to strike until Hezbollah has been disarmed. Barrack's visit next week would be his third. In previous visits the diplomat asked Lebanese leaders to formally commit to disarming Hezbollah and later said he was satisfied by the response of Lebanon's authorities to his request.
Nahar Net
3 hours ago
- Nahar Net
Israeli forces blow up two bulldozers in Mays al-Jabal incursion
by Naharnet Newsdesk 18 July 2025, 13:22 Israeli forces made an incursion at dawn Friday into the center of the southern border town of Mays al-Jabal, the state-run National News Agency reported. Israeli military vehicles and ATVs passed through inhabited homes as troops blew up two bulldozers that were removing the rubble of houses destroyed in the latest war, NNA said. The Israeli forces later withdrew to their side of the border, the agency added. The Israeli army had said on July 9 that Israeli troops had entered southern Lebanon days earlier to dismantle alleged infrastructure belonging to Hezbollah, describing the incursion as 'special, targeted operations' to prevent Hezbollah from 'reestablishing itself in the area.' It claimed the ground incursion had been launched based on 'intelligence information and the identification of Hezbollah weapons and terrorist infrastructure in several areas of southern Lebanon.'
