Latest news with #rescission
Washington Post
19 hours ago
- Entertainment
- Washington Post
Musicians brace for impact as Senate vote on public radio looms
Bob Boilen didn't think there was anything to be worried about. When the co-creator of NPR's All Songs Considered and Tiny Desk Concerts retired from the organization in 2023, Congress had been funding the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for more than 50 years. But if the rescission bill headed to the Senate this week is signed by President Donald Trump by July 18, the $1.1 billion-plus already allocated for the CPB's 2026 and 2027 budgets will be withdrawn.
Daily Mail
2 days ago
- Business
- Daily Mail
Trump's next round of DOGE cuts
Republicans in Congress are set for another internal skirmish, this time over how much money to cut from a slew of programs Donald Trump wants gutted. The Senate will consider a package this week that was sent over from the White House and passed by the House of Representatives last month. It is the first of what GOP leaders expect to be many so-called 'rescission' packages where the White House asks lawmakers to rethink their approval of certain programs. The bill specifically contains 21 budget rescissions, many identified by DOGE. The $9.4 billion in funds that Trump wants Congress to reclaim includes about $1.1 billion in financing for public broadcasters, like PBS and NPR. It also contains roughly $8.3 billion in USAID funding for social foreign aid programs abroad, like operas for transgender people and pro-LGBT groups throughout the world, is on the chopping block. The bill is widely supported by conservative members of Congress, though some more moderate GOP lawmakers are nervous about the legislation's deep cuts to the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and impacts on public broadcasters. These are warning signs a new GOP civil war is brewing. And making matters even more complicated is a tenuous deadline for the rescission package - if it is not passed before this Friday, July 18, the package will dissolve - and the measure to strike the spending will be moot. Trump has also warned possible defectors that he will not support their re-election if they don't vote for the bill clawing back the unspent funds. 'It is very important that all Republicans adhere to my Recissions Bill and, in particular, defund the corporation for public broadcasting (PBS and NPR), which is worse than CNN & MSDNC put together,' Trump posted on Truth Social last week. 'Any Republican that votes to allow this monstrosity to continue broadcasting will not have my support or endorsement.' Moderate Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, meanwhile, does not seem concerned with securing Trump's stamp of approval. During a Senate hearing with the architect of the White House's rescissions bill, Director of the United States Office of Management and Budget Russ Vought, Collins told the official she cannot support his sweeping budget reforms. 'I cannot support the cuts that are so deep and so damaging in global health programs,' Collins told Vought at the end of June. PEPFAR, which was started under former President George W. Bush, has been credited with saving millions of lives. Collins has said she is looking to amend the WH package to exclude cuts to the AIDS prevention program. 'I can't imagine why we would want to terminate that program,' she has said. Collins has also questioned the cuts to public broadcasters, which she has noted are important to Maine residents - particularly in emergency situations. The moderate has admitted that NPR has a 'partisan bent' and has called actions from the outlets president Katherine Maher, including her calling Trump a 'liar' and wearing a Joe Biden hat are 'very troubling.' South Dakota Republican Sen. Mike Rounds has also taken issue with the public broadcasting cuts. 'I can't support this [package] ... until we get the issue resolved with regard to these rural radio stations,' he told CNN. Alaska's two Republican senators, Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, are also signaling that they may oppose the rescissions package over public broadcasting cuts.
Daily Mail
2 days ago
- Politics
- Daily Mail
New Republican civil war erupts over Trump's next round of DOGE cuts
Republicans in Congress are set for another internal skirmish, this time over how much money to cut from a slew of programs Donald Trump wants gutted. The Senate will consider a package this week that was sent over from the White House and passed by the House of Representatives last month. It is the first of what GOP leaders expect to be many so-called 'rescission' packages where the White House asks lawmakers to rethink their approval of certain programs. The bill specifically contains 21 budget rescissions, many identified by DOGE. The $9.4 billion in funds that Trump wants Congress to reclaim includes about $1.1 billion in financing for public broadcasters, like PBS and NPR. It also contains roughly $8.3 billion in USAID funding for social foreign aid programs abroad, like operas for transgender people and pro-LGBT groups throughout the world, is on the chopping block. The bill is widely supported by conservative members of Congress, though some more moderate GOP lawmakers are nervous about the legislation's deep cuts to the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and impacts on public broadcasters. These are warning signs a new GOP civil war is brewing. And making matters even more complicated is a tenuous deadline for the rescission package - if it is not passed before this Friday, July 18, the package will dissolve - and the measure to strike the spending will be moot. Yesterday, I chaired an Appropriations Committee hearing to review the Administration's proposed rescissions package. I questioned OMB Director Russ Vought about the potential effects of the proposed rescissions on life-saving programs, including HIV/AIDS prevention efforts and… — Sen. Susan Collins (@SenatorCollins) June 26, 2025 Trump has also warned possible defectors that he will not support their re-election if they don't vote for the bill clawing back the unspent funds. 'It is very important that all Republicans adhere to my Recissions Bill and, in particular, defund the corporation for public broadcasting (PBS and NPR), which is worse than CNN & MSDNC put together,' Trump posted on Truth Social last week. 'Any Republican that votes to allow this monstrosity to continue broadcasting will not have my support or endorsement.' Moderate Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, meanwhile, does not seem concerned with securing Trump's stamp of approval. During a Senate hearing with the architect of the White House's rescissions bill, Director of the United States Office of Management and Budget Russ Vought, Collins told the official she cannot support his sweeping budget reforms. 'I cannot support the cuts that are so deep and so damaging in global health programs,' Collins told Vought at the end of June. PEPFAR, which was started under former President George W. Bush, has been credited with saving millions of lives. Collins has said she is looking to amend the WH package to exclude cuts to the AIDS prevention program. 'I can't imagine why we would want to terminate that program,' she has said. Collins has also questioned the cuts to public broadcasters, which she has noted are important to Maine residents - particularly in emergency situations. The moderate has admitted that NPR has a 'partisan bent' and has called actions from the outlets president Katherine Maher, including her calling Trump a 'liar' and wearing a Joe Biden hat are 'very troubling.' South Dakota Republican Sen. Mike Rounds has also taken issue with the public broadcasting cuts. 'I can't support this [package] ... until we get the issue resolved with regard to these rural radio stations,' he told CNN. Alaska's two Republican senators, Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, are also signaling that they may oppose the rescissions package over public broadcasting cuts. Speaker Mike Johnson has shared his concern that the Senate could try to amend the package and gum up the tight timeline that remains to get the bill passed before the Friday deadline. 'Yeah. I have concerns. I mean, this should be a pretty simple matter from our perspective, so I'm not sure what to expect, but I hope they keep it intact,' he told Punchbowl News on Monday. If the moderates in the Senate amend the House-passed version that will be a 'problem' Johnson said, adding 'I asked them not to modify our work.'
Forbes
5 days ago
- Business
- Forbes
Pocket Rescissions May Be Part Of U.S. Fiscal 2025 End Game
The current U.S. fiscal year closes on September 30. Though the recently enacted One Big Beautiful Bill has dominated attention in the nation's capital, other pressing concerns—centering on the limits of presidential budgetary power—will likely emerge in the run-up to the September 30 fiscal year-end. Efforts by the Trump administration to curtail spending rely on unusual and legally dubious budget execution including a novel legal tactic known as a pocket rescission. That tactic holds that presidential rescission proposals made late in the fiscal year allow the executive branch to not spend lawfully provided funds if the Congress fails to act on such requests. A widespread use of pocket rescissions could prevent many billions of dollars of policy priorities mandated in law, via legislation passed by the Congress and signed by the President Trump, from being carried out. Are Spending Deferrals Permitted? An early indication of the novel approach of pocket rescission was a memo issued a week after the inauguration directing agencies to pause a broad range of financial assistance. While later withdrawn, the memo's intent appears to have remained in place: Delay spending to ensure agencies are delivering assistance that aligns with administration policies. Presumably, at least some of the rationale for pulling back the memo stemmed from its inconsistency with the Impoundment Control Act, part of a 1974 law stipulating U.S. budgeting procedures. That statute gives the president the power to temporarily withhold funds if Congress is notified. But such deferrals are permissible only to provide for contingencies, to achieve savings from changed requirements or operational efficiencies, or as explicitly provided by law. The Government Accountability Office has supplemented those reasons with a category known as 'programmatic delay,' or an unavoidable delay despite good faith efforts to comply with the law. Delays based on executive branch disagreement with the merits of appropriations are prohibited, and deferrals cannot extend beyond the end of the fiscal year. Rescissions In The Back Pocket? Beyond deferrals, the ICA empowers the president to propose the rescission (or cancellation) of spending that has been provided through the appropriations process. Like deferrals, congressional notification is required. However, in the case of rescissions, Congress must pass a new law agreeing to such cuts. Passage is facilitated by expedited legislative procedures—a simple majority required in the Senate—provided in the ICA. While funds proposed for rescission may be withheld for 45 calendar days of continuous session of Congress, they must be released for expenditure if the rescission legislation is not enacted. The GAO is investigating numerous instances where appropriated funds have not been allocated. Its findings have met resistance from the Office of Management and Budget. While GAO has the statutory authority to sue to compel the release of these funds, the rapidly approaching fiscal year-end likely renders that prospect impractical. (The term of Comptroller General Gene Dodaro, the current head of GAO, concludes later this year, with President Trump to appoint his replacement.) The White House has now thrown a significant new wrinkle into the mix: The Trump administration appears to have failed to make plans to use some funds before they are scheduled to expire. During a June 1 appearance on CNN, OMB Director Russell Vought asserted, 'Even the Impoundment Control Act allows for procedures that both require their assent on a rescissions bill -- that's the one that we're sending up this -- early this week -- and also allow for pocket rescissions for those that come later in the fiscal year.' That latter idea flows from a notion that if rescissions are proposed late in the fiscal year and Congress does not have the full 45-day period to act on any such proposals, the funds expire and become unavailable for obligation. The reasoning extends to assert that even without explicit congressional approval, funds could be allowed to lapse at year's end in a manner mimicking a pocket veto of legislation. (A pocket veto can occur when Congress sends a bill to the president but then ends its session, thereby preventing the president from returning the bill with objections; if the president does not sign the bill, it does not become law.) Working at cross purposes with that theory are various statutes and constitutional principles requiring the executive branch to ensure funds are prudently obligated during their period of availability. The president is granted the explicit power to propose rescissions, not to enact them. To that point, GAO has ruled that an ICA violation occurs if a rescission package is sent late in the fiscal year and funds are not released in a manner allowing for their prudent obligation before expiration. Can Pocket Rescissions Occur If Budget Is Properly Executed? While the administration argues the ICA implicitly allows pocket rescissions, if it explicitly follows the requirements of both the ICA and the Antideficiency Act (which demands continuous funding apportionments to agencies), a pocket rescission becomes legally impossible. This is because proper apportionments and timely proposals for deferring or rescinding unneeded appropriations prevent the accumulation of large unobligated balances that could otherwise be offered as late-fiscal-year rescissions. As of now, the White House has notified Congress only of a pending $9.4 billion rescission request (and no funding deferrals). While the House has approved the request and the Senate is considering it, the administration might attempt a pocket rescission to cancel the funding even if congressional approval is not forthcoming. Operating under the belief that pocket rescissions are legal, a cascade of similar requests could soon be made, potentially resulting in billions of dollars not spent, contrary to appropriations law.
Fox News
7 days ago
- Business
- Fox News
Republicans navigate post-victory agenda after Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' becomes law
What do they do now? The One, Big, Beautiful Bill is law. Congressional Republicans and the Trump administration stuffed every legislative initiative imaginable (that would mesh with Senate budget rules) into the package. Now Republicans must figure out what to tackle during the remaining 18 months of the 119th Congress. There are always subjects on which the GOP wants to focus and legislate. But after approving the hallmark of President Trump's legislative agenda, there are frankly not a lot of other big items rolling down the parliamentary pike. But we'll focus on a few that are important to the GOP – and could make headlines. The first big project comes next week. A "rescissions" bill is due in the Senate. A "rescission" is a request by the administration to cancel spending that Congress had already appropriated. Congress approved an interim spending bill in March to avoid a government shutdown, but a few months later, White House Budget Director Russ Vought sent a "rescissions" request to Congress. Vought hoped to claw back $9.4 trillion in spending for USAID and public broadcasting. The House barely approved the package, 214-212, last month. Flip one vote and the bill would have failed. Now, it's up to the Senate to align with the House. Senators must do so before a July 18 deadline. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., noted that the measure was "subject to amendments." A change to the plan means the Senate would have to bounce it back to the House to sync up. And the administration hopes to do multiple rescissions plans this year. So if the House and Senate can't even trim a few billion dollars from what the GOP considers low-hanging fruit…. Cutting public broadcasting? Especially in rural areas? Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., who represents a sprawling state which still relies on radio in places, indicated that he'd like to see some changes to the rescissions package, especially in light of the flooding in Texas. "Looking at radio stations in some of the rural areas that do a lot of emergency services," said Rounds. Without question, the biggest challenge facing Congress this fall – and next fall – is funding the government and avoiding a shutdown. Congress managed to avoid a shutdown in March – simply renewing all existing funding at the levels dictated by the Democrat-controlled Congress last year, and signed off by former President Biden. The only reason they avoided a shutdown was because Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., decided a shutdown was a worse option. So Schumer and several Democrats voted to assist the GOP overcome a filibuster – and keep the government lights burning. Democrats railed against Schumer for essentially helping bail out Republicans and getting nothing in return. Some called on him to step aside. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., and other Democrats seethed at Schumer's maneuver. Schumer can probably only go to that well once. One wonders what Schumer could possibly extract from Republicans and President Trump – who aren't exactly ready to deal – even though they lack the votes to fund the government themselves. Moreover, it's unclear if a government funding measure of any sort can even make it through the House with just GOP votes. Remember that House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., promised conservatives that they would do funding bills one by one when he secured the speakership in October 2023. After all, that was the knock against former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif. Johnson managed to advance some spending bills last year, but the path to doing all 12 spending bills before the Oct. 1 deadline is narrowing. The House Appropriations Committee has readied several spending packages through the spring and early summer, but none are ready for the floor. What's the magic potion for funding the government on time this year? Well, the question is whether Johnson can again keep his coalition together and convince conservatives to approve yet another interim spending measure. And, since it's about the math, they absolutely must have assistance from Schumer and Senate Democrats to avoid a filibuster yet again. Some of this will boil down to what President Trump wants. The easy path is simply re-upping the old Biden/Democrats' money (again) for a short period and then hammering out a broader spending pact later in the fall or before Christmas. But that doesn't change the numbers in the House and Senate. And guess what? They have to do this all again by Oct. 1, 2026. There are also expectations – and some promises – of GOP leaders advancing another "reconciliation" package full of items they weren't able to stuff into the Big, Beautiful Bill. A "reconciliation" measure must deal with fiscal issues – not policy. It must also not add to the deficit over a decade. So, expect Republicans who didn't score certain savings items in the Big, Beautiful Bill to push for provisions in this package. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisc., has been among the most vocal advocates for two bills. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., even pushed for two reconciliation packages over the winter. He preferred a plan focused on beefing up the military and the border. Graham then wanted GOPers to turn to a bill to cut spending and accomplish many of the goals outlined by the Big, Beautiful Bill. In fact, the Senate's initial budgetary framework – adopted in February – focused on the border and military. What else is at stake? Well, Republicans are simultaneously looking backwards – and forwards. House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., is conducting an inquiry into what former Biden officials knew about the cognitive state of the former president. Republicans want to prevent future presidents from relying on staff if they are potentially out of it. The GOP wants to construct legislative remedies to address a potential future executive who can't handle the job. But we've been down this road before. Edith Wilson practically acted as president after Woodrow Wilson suffered a stroke. The press corps was complicit in hiding the physical condition of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1930s and 1940s. Addressing a future impaired executive is a worthy exercise, but gazing backwards may be problematic for the GOP. Republicans don't really have a good Democratic foil right now. Biden provides that. And so while the GOP focused on investigating the Bidens in 2023 and 2024, they're going back to the same well again. It also doesn't hurt Republicans politically to find out what former Vice President Kamala Harris knew. Same with former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg. Both are flirting with a 2028 presidential bid. This comprises much of the agenda for lawmakers over the coming months. The midterms will be here soon enough. Most anything else will likely pale in comparison to the Big, Beautiful Bill. And with the touchstone of President Trump's agenda now signed into law, Democrats are now determining how to weaponize it against Republicans in the fall of 2026. Most of the legislative agenda is in the books. So what do they do now? Campaign.
