Trump-backed DOGE cuts pass Senate: $1.1B slash to public broadcasting including PBS and NPR, $8B to foreign aid
The most high-profile cut in the package is the elimination of federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) — a move that effectively strips future federal support for Public Broadcasting Service, National Public Radio.
Amount cut: Nearly $1.1 billion, covering the full amount the CPB was due to receive over the next two years.
Impact: CPB distributes over 70% of its funds to more than 1,500 local television and radio stations. These funds support not just national programming but also vital local public affairs, educational, and cultural content—especially in rural and underserved areas.
Smaller stations that rely heavily on CPB funds could shut down or reduce programming.
Reduction in educational programming, including content aimed at children and underserved populations.
Critics of the move, including Republican Senators Susan Collins (Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) — who both voted against the bill — warned that the cuts could harm essential public services in remote and tribal communities. In response, Senate leaders agreed to a one-time $10 million infusion for tribal broadcasting stations as a concession to holdout votes.
Alongside domestic cuts, the bill also imposes reductions to foreign aid programs across several US agencies, including the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the US Institute of Peace.
Key foreign aid cuts include:
$800 million: Emergency assistance for refugees, including shelter, sanitation, and family reunification.
$496 million: Food, health, and water aid for countries experiencing natural disasters or conflict.
$4.15 billion: Economic and democratic development programs in emerging nations.
Multiple smaller agency grants earmarked for elimination or consolidation under the Trump-era DOGE mandate.
Programs spared: A planned $400 million cut to PEPFAR (the US program to combat HIV/AIDS) was removed after bipartisan backlash, especially from lawmakers who credited it with saving millions of lives globally.
Senator Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) condemned the foreign aid cuts as life-threatening, saying: 'People are dying right now, not in spite of us but because of us. We are causing death.'
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer warned the cuts would allow China to fill the void in global influence: 'It's simple incompetence and cruelty based on extreme ideology.'
Supporters of the measure, including Senate GOP leaders like John Thune (R-S.D.), called the move a long-overdue step toward fiscal sanity. 'This is a small but important step for fiscal sanity that we all should be able to agree is long overdue,' said Thune , who championed the bill as part of a broader effort to reduce 'wasteful spending.'
The House had already approved a version of the bill in a narrow 214-212 party-line vote, but because the Senate made amendments (such as the $10 million tribal media carve-out), the package must return to the House for final approval.
The bill must be signed into law by midnight Friday for the cuts to take effect. If Congress fails to act by then, the targeted funds remain intact.
The White House has signaled plans to send additional rescission packages to Congress, using DOGE's findings and the expedited 45-day review window under the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
26 minutes ago
- News18
Trump ‘Had No Clue' About Israel's Syria Attack Plan, US Hails Sharaa's ‘Best Efforts' In Sweida
Trump 'Had No Clue' About Israel's Syria Attack Plan, US Hails Sharaa's 'Best Efforts' In Sweida |4K US president Donald Trump was "caught off guard" by Israeli strikes in Syria last week, White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said on July 21Leavitt added that the president quickly called the Israeli prime minister and told him to "rectify" the situation n18oc_world n18oc_crux
India Today
26 minutes ago
- India Today
Will tariff the hell out of you: Trump aide warns India, China on Russia ties
US President Donald Trump's close aide Lindsey Graham issued an open warning to India, China and Brazil over maintaining trade ties with Russia and said their economies will be crushed. The US Senator, while speaking on Live TV, said if countries don't stop buying oil from Russia, they will face even higher claimed that the Trump administration was planning to impose a 100 per cent tariff on oil-related imports. He further highlighted that these three countries account for nearly 80 per cent of Russia's crude oil exports, arguing that their purchases are helping to bankroll Vladimir Putin's war in is going to impose tariffs on people that buy Russian oil - China, India, and Brazil... Here's what I would tell China, India and Brazil: If you keep buying cheap Russian oil to allow this war to continue, we're going to tear up the hell out of you, and we're going to crush your economy," Graham said during an interview with Fox News. Graham is the same Republican lawmaker who had earlier proposed a bill calling for 500 per cent tariffs on goods from countries continuing to trade with Russia, including India and a direct message to Putin, Graham said, 'You have played President Trump at your own peril. You made a major league mistake, and your economy is going to continue to be crushed. We're flowing weapons to Ukraine, so Ukraine will have the weapons to fight Putin back.'The Republican Senator accused Vladimir Putin of trying to revive the Soviet Union by invading sovereign nations.'Putin wants to take countries that are not his. In the mid-90s, Ukraine gave up 1,700 nuclear weapons with a promise that their sovereignty would be respected by Russia. Putin broke that promise.'INDIA'S STANCEIndia has always maintained that it will take a call that best suits the interests of its people. Most recently, when Nato secretary general Mark Rutte's warned of possible secondary sanctions against countries buying Russian oil, the Ministry of External Affairs made it clear that energy needs are India's priority.'We have seen reports on the subject and are closely following the developments. Let me reiterate, and I have said this in the past as well, securing the energy needs of our people is understandably an overriding priority for us,' ministry of external affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said.'In this endeavour, we are guided by what is there on offer in the markets, as also by prevailing global circumstances. We would particularly caution against any double standards on the matter,' Jaiswal added. - Ends
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Ten years after US Supreme Court's ‘Obergefell' judgment legalised same-sex marriage, an erosion of LGBTQIA+ rights
Written by Kanav N Sahgal June 26 marked the 10-year anniversary of Obergefell vs Hodges — the landmark US Supreme Court ruling that legalised same-sex marriage in the country. While some activists celebrated the anniversary, others decried how drastically the legal and political landscape has regressed for LGBTQIA+ people since that historic victory. Backlash against the LGBTQIA+ community, especially transgender individuals, is on the rise across the United States. But more tellingly, the US Supreme Court's jurisprudence in the years since Obergefell has shifted sharply to the right — limiting rather than expanding LGBTQIA+ rights in a range of arenas: Education, public accommodation law and, more recently, healthcare access. During this time, the Court has also routinely upheld religious objections to LGBTQIA+ equality in four separate cases — most recently, just days ago, in the case of Mahmoud vs Taylor, where the Court ruled that parents have the right to opt their children out of public-school instruction involving LGBTQIA+-themed storybooks based on religious free exercise rights. Two previous cases — one in 2018 (Masterpiece Cakeshop vs Colorado Civil Rights Commission) and another in 2023 (303 Creative LLC vs Elenis) — involved business owners who operated public accommodations and approached the Court seeking permission to deny same-sex couples' access to services. In both cases, the Supreme Court sided with the business owners, holding that enforcing anti-discrimination laws in these contexts would violate their First Amendment rights. In another case from 2021, Fulton vs City of Philadelphia, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favour of a Catholic foster care agency that refused to certify same-sex couples as foster parents. This list is not exhaustive — and does not even include the Court's recent rulings that have sharply curtailed legal protections for transgender people. But why this shift? One obvious reason is that the composition of the US Supreme Court has changed drastically over the past decade. During his first term as president, Donald Trump appointed three conservative justices to the Court — Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett — giving the nine-member bench a comfortable conservative supermajority. These three joined three other conservative-leaning justices already on the bench, forming a solid conservative bloc of six. This left only three Democratic appointees on the Court, unable to influence outcomes unless at least two conservative justices defected to their side. Also, unlike in previous decades, it has now become increasingly rare to find justices who cross ideological lines or serve as moderating influences. In the past, several justices — though appointed by Republican presidents — maintained a degree of independence in their rulings. Take, for example, Justices Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor, both of whom, despite being Republican appointees, did at various times cast decisive swing votes in landmark LGBTQIA+ rights cases. Justice Kennedy famously authored the majority opinion in Obergefell and provided the crucial fifth vote that allowed the decision to take effect. Yet, just a few years later, he ruled against LGBTQIA+ plaintiffs in Masterpiece Cakeshop, authoring the majority opinion there as well. Similarly, Justice O'Connor cast the fifth and deciding vote in Bowers vs Hardwick (1986), a case that upheld laws criminalising sodomy. But in 2003, she joined the majority in Lawrence vs Texas, which overturned Bowers and effectively decriminalised consensual same-sex intimacy nationwide. It would be difficult, if not downright impossible, to imagine or expect the current crop of conservative justices to display that kind of openness to LGBTQIA+ issues today. But a second, less frequently discussed reason for the weakening of jurisprudence on LGBTQIA+ rights in the United States comes from the Obergefell decision itself. While Obergefell legalised same-sex marriage nationwide, it also included a carveout that acknowledged the rights of individuals with 'decent and honourable religious or philosophical' objections to continue holding dissenting views on same-sex marriage. Ironically, this one sentence — arguably obiter dicta, and therefore not necessarily binding precedent — has since been repeatedly invoked by the Supreme Court's conservative majority again and again. In Mahmoud, for instance, the conservative bloc relied on Obergefell to explicitly justify parents' religious objections to LGBTQIA+ themed story books being read to their children. In a similar vein, the conservative bloc's resistance to substantive due process claims in the context of LGBTQIA+ rights has also intensified in recent times, most notably since the reversal of Roe vs Wade (1973) in Dobbs vs Jackson Women's Health Organisation (2022). There, in his concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas explicitly called for the Court to reconsider Obergefell, suggesting rather unequivocally that if the logic employed in Dobbs were to be applied consistently, then the constitutional foundation for same-sex marriage may also fail to survive renewed judicial scrutiny. Ten years after Obergefell, therefore, same-sex marriage remains a legal right — but the broader legal framework supporting it has been deeply eroded by the US Supreme Court, and there appears to be little hope for reversal in the near future. The writer is a researcher at the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy and visiting faculty at the National Law School of India University, Bengaluru
