logo
Senate GOP gears up for test on Trump's DOGE cuts

Senate GOP gears up for test on Trump's DOGE cuts

Yahoo2 days ago
Senate Republicans are staring down a mid-July deadline to approve a batch of funding cuts pursued by President Trump's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), even as some in the GOP express misgivings about the request.The GOP-led Congress has until July 18 to approve more than $9 billion in cuts to foreign aid and public broadcasting funds outlined in a special rescissions request sent by the White House last month.
The House approved the request last month, but it's largely been on the back-burner since as Republicans worked to pass Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' Now, the Senate is set to take it up.
Under the special rescissions process initiated by the White House, Republicans can approve Trump's proposal to yank back previously allocated funds with a simple majority in the Senate — allowing them to bypass Democratic support.
The White House is seeking $8.3 billion in cuts to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and foreign aid, and more than $1 billion in cuts to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which helps fund NPR and PBS.
Republicans supportive of the plan see the cuts as long overdue. Many in the party have long scrutinized the scope of funding for foreign aid and accused public radio and television of political bias.
In his testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee last month, White House budget chief Russell Vought touted the proposed cuts as the administration's 'steadfast commitment to cutting wasteful federal spending antithetical to American interests,' while pointing to funding for items like 'LGBTQ advocacy in Uganda,' 'transgender people, sex workers and their clients in Nepal' and 'LGBTQ activism.'
But in the same hearing, Vought faced pushback from Republicans as well as Democrats about the cuts.
Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) has repeatedly sounded the alarm about the administration's proposed cuts targeting the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), and pressed Vought on the topic.
'These are not only the right thing to do for humanitarian reasons, but they're incredible instruments of soft power,' she said, before asking Vought if the administration looks to cut the 'lifesaving multivitamins for pregnant mothers and the food supplement that's used for malnourished children.'
Vought told lawmakers in his previous testimony that there'd be about $10 billion left for PEPFAR if the rescissions package were to pass but he has also questioned the scope of preventative care, while pointing to funds for items recruiting 'gender and inclusive development experts' and the International Planned Parenthood Federation.
Some Republicans have also expressed concerns about how the proposed cuts to CPB would impact local stations and rural radio.
'A lot of your very small rural radio stations that serve a lot of our Native American reservations and so forth, about 90% of their funding comes through the federal government,' Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) told reporters on Tuesday.
'It's got to be resolved, because this is where in these rural areas they get through emergency services, they get their announcements,' he said. 'They're not political in nature, but it's the only way of really communicating in some very rural areas in our state and a lot of other states as well.'
It's been decades since Congress has approved a request to yank back funds previously approved by lawmakers. Trump tried to use the same process to rescind funds in his first term but was unsuccessful, despite Republicans controlling the House, Senate and White House at the time.
Trump officials have signaled more rescissions requests could be on the way if congressional Republicans are able to push through the rescissions package before them.
A committee meeting to advance the bill to the Senate floor has not yet been scheduled and Senate leaders have not indicated when a floor vote will take place this month. Collins indicated last month that she expected the bill to go to the Senate floor without changes, but that she would like to see it revised.
At the same time, Democrats are already warning that clawing back the funding will 'poison' negotiations for fiscal 2026 government funding.
In a letter to Democrats on Tuesday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) argued that passage of what he described as a 'purely partisan proposal would be an affront to the bipartisan appropriations process.'
'That's why a number of Senate Republicans know it is absurd for them to expect Democrats to act as business as usual and engage in a bipartisan appropriations process to fund the government, while they concurrently plot to pass a purely partisan rescissions bill to defund those same programs negotiated on a bipartisan basis behind the scenes,' he wrote.
His comments set the stage for what could be another nasty fight over government funding awaiting Congress in the months ahead when it comes time for both sides to hash out a deal to prevent a shutdown in October, the start of fiscal year 2026.
Al Weaver contributed.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Censorship for Citizenship
Censorship for Citizenship

Atlantic

time22 minutes ago

  • Atlantic

Censorship for Citizenship

This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Not that long ago, believe it or not, Donald Trump ran for president as the candidate who would defend the First Amendment. He warned that a 'sinister group of Deep State bureaucrats, Silicon Valley tyrants, left-wing activists, and depraved corporate news media' was 'conspiring to manipulate and silence the American people,' and promised that 'by restoring free speech, we will begin to reclaim our democracy, and save our nation.' On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order affirming the 'right of the American people to engage in constitutionally protected speech.' If anyone believed him at the time, they should be disabused by now. One of his most brazen attacks on freedom of speech thus far came this past weekend, when the president said that he was thinking about stripping a comedian of her citizenship—for no apparent reason other than that she regularly criticizes him. 'Because of the fact that Rosie O'Donnell is not in the best interests of our Great Country, I am giving serious consideration to taking away her Citizenship. She is a Threat to Humanity, and should remain in the wonderful Country of Ireland, if they want her,' he posted on Truth Social. This must have been exhilarating to O'Donnell, who received a brief new grant of relevance and told the Irish broadcaster RTE, 'I am very proud to be opposed to every single thing he says and does and represents.' But once the exhilaration subsides, the fundamental idea is very disturbing: Trump appears to view both free speech and U.S. citizenship as conditional, things he can revoke based on his own whims. Writing off the threat to O'Donnell as just another instance of Trumpian trolling—or an attempt to distract from fatal flooding in Texas, dozens of incomplete trade deals, or intramural MAGA battles over Jeffrey Epstein —is tempting. And the odds that Trump would actually successfully strip O'Donnell of her passport seem slim. But that doesn't mean the threat is irrelevant. What in particular set Trump off here is unclear—he and O'Donnell have been feuding for years—but by all indications, the answer is simply that she has exercised her freedom of speech to jab him. Perhaps this should go without saying, but native-born American citizens like O'Donnell generally cannot be stripped of their citizenship. (Citizens can, however, choose to relinquish their citizenship—something that has become a somewhat popular option for people wishing to avoid U.S. taxes, including former U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson, a New York native.) A president can't just decide that he wants to take it away. In other recent cases where the Trump administration has attempted to suppress speech, officials have at least claimed that they have evidence of criminality (though that's not to say even that was a legitimate standard; such accusations are also dangerous, and judges have dismissed them). With O'Donnell, Trump isn't even pretending she has crossed some sort of criminal line. He's also not (yet) taking action, but Trump often uses initially brash and outlandish threats as a way to acclimate the populace to his overreaching, as I wrote in the January 2024 issue of The Atlantic: 'When a second-term President Trump directs the Justice Department to lock up Democratic politicians or generals or reporters or activists on flimsy or no grounds at all, people will wring their hands, but they'll also shrug and wonder why he didn't do it sooner. After all, he's been promising to do it forever, right?' I wish this argument had aged worse. Trump has begun talking more frequently about revoking citizenship as a means of punishing political speech. He has mused about using the tool against political opponents, including the New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, alleging potential fraud, and his former buddy Elon Musk, who had the temerity to insult him. Both of these men are naturalized, which makes their citizenship marginally easier to remove—though, again, not for simple speech. The administration has also been pursuing denaturalizations of citizens whom it believes it can prove lied on their application, which is an established legal basis for stripping their legal status. Even if Trump doesn't normalize taking away citizenship, he is continuing to entrench the idea that the government—or, really, just the president on his own—can punish citizens who criticize it, or him. That's been one of the most prominent themes of his term so far: He has banished the Associated Press from some White House spaces simply for refusing to adopt his preferred terminology, extorted law firms that employed lawyers involved in the criminal cases against him, and demanded huge payouts from news organizations. He'll continue as long as he's successful. 'If we don't have free speech, then we just don't have a free country,' Trump said in a campaign video posted in 2022. 'It's as simple as that. If this most fundamental right is allowed to perish, then the rest of our rights and liberties will topple just like dominos one by one. They'll go down.' Here are three new stories from The Atlantic: Today's News President Donald Trump announced a new weapons-transfer plan for Ukraine and threatened to impose high tariffs on Russia if a peace deal is not reached in 50 days. The Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to move forward with dismantling the Education Department and firing nearly 1,400 workers. Twenty-four states and the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration for withholding more than $6.8 billion in education funding, which helps pay for free or low-cost after-school programs and assistance for students learning English. Dispatches Evening Read The AI Mirage By Ian Bogost 'I'm not going to respond to that,' Siri responded. I had just cursed at it, and this was my passive-aggressive chastisement. The cursing was, in my view, warranted. I was in my car, running errands, and had found myself in an unfamiliar part of town. I requested 'directions to Lowe's,' hoping to get routed to the big-box hardware store without taking my eyes off the road. But apparently Siri didn't understand. 'Which Lowe?' it asked, before displaying a list of people with the surname Lowe in my address book … The latest version of Siri has 'better conversational context'—the sort of thing that should help the software know when I'm asking to be guided to the home-improvement store rather than to a guy called Lowe. But my iPhone apparently isn't new enough for this update. I would need cutting-edge artificial intelligence to get directions to Lowe's. More From The Atlantic Read. Alert the incels! The rest of us love Pamela Anderson, and we will always love her, Caitlin Flanagan writes. Let go. And let your kid climb that tree, Henry Abbott writes. It could actually make them safer. Play our daily crossword.

Sen. Schumer Channels Marx
Sen. Schumer Channels Marx

Wall Street Journal

time23 minutes ago

  • Wall Street Journal

Sen. Schumer Channels Marx

In 'Chuck Schumer's Mamdani Test' (Review & Outlook, July 10), you ask whether the Senate minority leader will endorse Zohran Mamdani, the socialist who has given the OK to globalize the intifada. By doing so, Mr. Schumer would being turning his back 'on a good portion of his life's work.' Maybe. It seems to me that the senator's main achievement is simply getting re-elected. If bending the knee to Mr. Mamdani is what it takes to secure another term, count on it. Dana R. Hermanson

Trump Backs Bondi, Blames Dems For Epstein List Fiasco
Trump Backs Bondi, Blames Dems For Epstein List Fiasco

Yahoo

time24 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump Backs Bondi, Blames Dems For Epstein List Fiasco

President Donald Trump has sought to calm growing divisions within his political base by defending Attorney General Pam Bondi and dismissing renewed scrutiny over the handling of Jeffrey Epstein-related documents. Trump took to social media over the weekend and posted to support Bondi, writing that Bondi is 'doing a FANTASTIC JOB!' Trump claimed in his post that the Epstein 'client list,' which has recently been claimed nonexistent by the Department of Justice (DOJ), was created by previous Democratic leaders. 'For years, it's Epstein, over and over again. Why are we giving publicity to Files written by Obama, Crooked Hillary, Comey, Brennan, and the Losers and Criminals of the Biden Administration…' wrote the President. 'They created the Epstein Files, just like they created the FAKE Hillary Clinton/Christopher Steele Dossier that they used on me, and now my so-called 'friends' are playing right into their hands. Why didn't these Radical Left Lunatics release the Epstein Files? If there was ANYTHING in there that could have hurt the MAGA Movement, why didn't they use it?' Trump also berated a reporter last week when asked about the handling of the Epstein documents, indicating that more important things were to be focused on than Epstein. 'And are people still talking about this guy, this creep?' Trump questioned. 'That is unbelievable.' These statements from the President come shortly after a joint memo from the DOJ and FBI claiming that there is no evidence supporting conspiracy theories about Epstein's death or the existence of a so-called 'client list.' However, the claims made by the FBI and DOJ directly contradict Bondi's previous statement, in which she claimed to have the client list ready for review. 'It's sitting on my desk right now to review. That's been a directive by President Trump,' she said in February when asked about the client list. Bondi has since attempted to clarify these comments, claiming that she meant to review more than just Epstein's files. 'I did an interview on Fox, and it's been getting a lot of attention because I said I was asked a question about the client list, and my response was, it's sitting on my desk to be reviewed – meaning the file along with the JFK, MLK files as well. That's what I meant by that,' she explained, per CNN. Despite the attempt at clarification, many political activists have now called for changes within the Trump administration. 'Blondi [sic] has been very DAMAGING to the admin and she has damaged public trust in the DOJ. She is hurting President Trump and his staff/advisors,' wrote Laura Loomer on social media. 'She lied on national TV and needs to be held accountable for harming the Trump admin and public trust.' Similarly, Tucker Carlson called out Bondi's claims, adding that he now believes that the government does not have 'much relevant information about Jeffrey Epstein's sex crimes.' 'Rather than just admit that, Pam Bondi made a bunch of ludicrous claims on cable news shows that she couldn't back up, and this current outrage is the result,' he explained during an interview with NBC News. Currently, there has been no indication made by the White House about plans to move on from Bondi, with many expecting the attorney general to retain her role for the foreseeable future.

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