Bill to claw back public media, foreign aid funds clears key Senate hurdle with Vance breaking tie
Vice President Vance had to break the 50-50 tie vote after three Republicans — Sens. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Susan Collins (Maine) and Mitch McConnell (Ky.) — voted against a motion to discharge the rescissions package out of the Senate Appropriations Committee, allowing the full upper chamber to advance to consideration of the package.
The bill, which passed the House last month, calls for $8.3 billion in cuts to the United States Agency for International Development and foreign aid, and more than $1 billion in cuts to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB).
Congress has until July 18 to pass the legislation under the special rescissions process initiated by the White House last month that allows the Senate to approve the funding cuts with a simple majority vote, bypassing expected Democratic opposition.
Top Republicans are ramping up work to lock down support for Trump's package to claw back previously congressionally approved funds. The party can afford to lose three votes in the Senate.
Murkowski and Collins both expressed concerns about the cuts to public broadcasting and the way the rescissions package had been presented to Congress.
'We do rescissions in our annual budget, bills, in our own appropriations bills, in fact, bills that we are working on right now as appropriators,' Murkowski said from the floor ahead of the vote.
Murkowski also expressed concern that the administration hasn't been able to provide 'very transparent explanation about the programs and the priorities that are going to be cut as a result of the measure.'
She additionally expressed concerns about public media cuts, saying lawmakers can work to address potential bias in coverage, but that there isn't a need to 'gut the entire Corporation for Public Broadcasting.'
'But more important than all of that, more important is our role here. I don't want us to go from one reconciliation bill to a rescissions package to another rescissions package to a reconciliation package to a continuing resolution. We're lawmakers. We should be legislating,' she said.
The vote comes after the Trump administration worked with Republicans on potential changes to the package after some, including Collins and Murkowski, expressed concerns about the scope of cuts.
Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought told reporters on Tuesday that the administration would be 'fine with' an amendment to the package that shields the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) from proposed cuts in the package.
Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), who had previously held off from backing the package due to concerns about how tribal stations would fare with proposed public media cuts, also said he'd support the plan after a deal with the administration.
Rounds said Tuesday that he worked with OMB on a deal that would redirect some funding approved under the Biden administration as part of the Inflation Reduction Act.
'We have an agreement with OMB to resource the funds from other already allocated funding through what had been [former President] Biden's Green New Deal program, and we'll take that money and we'll reallocate it back into the tribes to take care of these radio stations that have been granted this money for the next two years,' Rounds told reporters Tuesday.
While the CPB provides some funding to NPR and PBS, which have come under heavy GOP scrutiny as the party has leveled allegations of bias against the media organizations, Republicans in both chambers have raised concerns the cuts could have a disproportionate effect on rural and tribal stations.
In a statement later on Tuesday, Collins, chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said while she was pleased the administration 'abandoned its original request to impose a $400 million cut to PEPFAR,' the 'excessive cuts to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting would harm local programming and the accessibility to popular programs like 'Antiques Road Show' and 'Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood.''
'I recognize the need to reduce excessive spending and I have supported rescissions in our appropriations bills many times, including the 70 rescissions that were included in the year-long funding bill that we are currently operating under,' she said. 'But to carry out our Constitutional responsibility, we should know exactly what programs are affected and the consequences of rescissions.'
Shortly after the discharge vote, Vance again broke a tie to allow the Senate to begin debating the bill. That will be followed by a series of amendment votes known as a vote-a-rama, and then final passage.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
2 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump orders a 35% tariff for goods from Canada, citing a lack of cooperation on illicit drugs
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump has raised the tariff rate on U.S. imports from Canada to 35% from 25%, effective Friday. The announcement from the White House late Thursday said Canada had failed to 'do more to arrest, seize, detain or otherwise intercept … traffickers, criminals at large, and illicit drugs.' Trump has heckled Canada for months and suggested it should become its 51st U.S. state. He had threatened to impose the higher tariff on Canada if no deal was reached by Friday, his deadline for reaching trade agreements with dozens of countries. Earlier Thursday, the president said Canada's announcement it will recognize a Palestinian state would 'make it very hard' for the United States to reach a trade agreement with its northern neighbor. Trump has also expressed frustration with a trade deficit with Canada that largely reflects oil purchases by America. Prime Minister Mark Carney had tempered expectations over tariffs, saying Ottawa would only agree to a deal 'if there's one on the table that is in the best interests of Canadians.' In a statement released early Friday, he said he was disappointed by Trump's actions and vowed to diversify Canada's exports. 'Canada accounts for only 1% of U.S. fentanyl imports and has been working intensively to further reduce these volumes,' he said, pointing to heavy investments in border security. Carney added that some industries — including lumber, steel, aluminum and automobiles — will be harder hit, but said his government will try to minimize the impact and protect Canadian jobs. Canada was not included in Trump's updated list of tariff rates on other countries announced late Thursday. Those import duties are due to take effect on Aug. 7. Trump sent a letter to Canada a few weeks ago warning he planned to raise duties on many goods imported from Canada to 35%, deepening the rift between the two North American countries that has undermined their decades-old alliance. Some imports from Canada are still protected by the 2020 United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA, which is up for renegotiation next year. The White House's statement said goods transshipped through Canada that are not covered by the USMCA would be subject to a 40% tariff rate. It did not say where the goods might originate. President Donald Trump said Thursday that there would be a 90-day negotiating period with Mexico after a call with that country's leader, Claudia Sheinbaum, keeping 25% tariff rates in place.
CNBC
3 minutes ago
- CNBC
CNBC Daily Open: New Trump tariffs (August remix) have dropped
The first time U.S. President Donald Trump unveiled his "reciprocal" tariffs on the rest of the world, the April 2 event had a cinematic, even grand, quality. It took place at the White House Rose Garden. There was a live band playing, according to The Wall Street Journal. Trump hoisted huge physical charts of his tariff rates, which were helpfully color-coded for visual clarity. This time, Trump's updated "reciprocal" tariffs, released the night before they come into effect on Aug. 1, seemed in comparison stripped of pomp and glamor. The White House's executive order popped up around 7 p.m. ET, just as people in the U.S. were getting off work. There was no live event, no big chart and certainly no entertainment — just a stern website with a black-and-white table. That austerity — and, one might even say, stealth — surrounding the recent announcement suggests two things. First, the White House could be aware that the dramatic shock of tariffs has less power to sway trade deals when staged a second time. The "90 deals in 90 days" that trade advisor Peter Navarro had promised in April are, after all, nowhere in sight. Trump, however, still left ajar the door to making "some kind of a deal." Second, the U.S. might actually be pleased with the effects of its higher-than-expected tariffs on countries without deals, and is willing to keep levies at those levels. In June, the U.S. Treasury Department reported an unexpected surplus thanks to tariff revenue, which were more than four times higher from a year ago. And economists aren't as alarmed by tariff-driven inflation as they once were. All that's speculation, of course. The order could have been released in this low-key fashion simply because the Rose Garden is now more like a Concrete Path. Or perhaps Trump doesn't want the penguins on the Heard and McDonald islands to hear about his levies this time. The U.S. rejigs tariff rates ahead of Aug. 1 deadline. Trump's executive order also imposed a 40% duty on all goods considered to have been transshipped to America. Here's how Asian leaders are reacting to the announcement, made Thursday evening stateside. The S&P 500 falls, retreating from an intraday high. Microsoft shares, however, rose around 4% to push the company's market cap above $4 trillion. Asia-Pacific markets — and tech giants, in particular — fell on Friday as investors digest latest tariff developments. Apple beats expectations for profit and revenue. The Cupertino-based company's iPhone sales grew 13% year over year, while overall revenue rose 10% in its fiscal third quarter, the fastest growth since December 2021. Amazon's gloomy guidance overshadows its earnings. Even though the company surpassed Wall Street's estimates for its second-quarter results, its expected operating income for the current quarter wasn't as high as analysts had hoped for. [PRO] Novo Nordisk's stock plunge isn't that surprising. On Tuesday, the firm's shares fell as much as 26% after it slashed its full-year guidance — and appointed a new CEO. Here's why companies tend to make both announcements simultaneously. Tariff turmoil: How global CEOs are shifting gears In interviews with CNBC this earnings season, CEOs across industries sent a clear message: tariffs are no longer just a political tactic. As trade rules grow more uncertain and tariffs resurface in policy discussions, business leaders say they're rethinking everything from where factories are located to how products are priced. The old "just in time" model is giving way to something more cautious: make goods closer to the buyer, ask for exemptions where possible, and stay alert to shifting consumer habits. —
Forbes
3 minutes ago
- Forbes
A Big, Beautiful Fiction - Does The EU/US Trade Deal Make Sense?
James Thurber's famous book 'The Secret Life of Walter Mitty' is yet another book I would recommend to readers, to continue a recurring theme of recent weeks. It is especially apt in the context of the US-EU trade deal. Walter Mitty appeared at the end of the 1930's, a decade that was shaped by Herbert Hoover's tariff policy, and that was marked by profound economic and geopolitical tensions. Mitty's fantasies were provoked by the reality of his pedestrian, harangued life – which will appeal to European leaders who care to dream of better days. Equally, the giddiness of Mitty's fantasies has its equivalent in the promises that Donald Trump has elicited from the EU – namely, to buy and invest hundreds of billions of dollars in energy. One week on, reaction to the US-EU trade deal is still mixed, and it is not quite clear who has 'won'. This may be because it is not a trade deal in the classical sense – at least in the sense of the laborious trade deals that the EU is used to striking, partly because a large facet of the 'deal' is based on a promise and also because the optics of the deal are quite depressing for Europe. At the headline level, EU exports into the US will be met with a 15% tariff to be paid by the US consumer, not unlike the Japanese 'deal'. Auto companies will not be displeased with a 15% tariff. Wines and spirits, steel and notably pharmaceuticals have yet to have tariff levels finalised and there will be some relief on the confirmation of 15% tariffs on pharmaceuticals, though the investigation into pharmaceutical exports back to the US is a tail risk. Interestingly, the EU has resisted attempts to water down its digital regulations. Politically the spin that the EU is putting on the agreement is that it was the best possible outcome in a difficult geopolitical climate (recall that the recent EU-China summit was a damp-squib). While there were some public expressions of dismay, notably from the French prime minister Francois Bayrou – these can be seen to be largely aimed at the public, rather than Brussels. Though Ursula von der Leyen is unpopular with EU governments for the singular way she runs her office – it is populated with officials who are close to national government (i.e. Alexandre Adam one of von der Leyen's key deputies is an arch Macronist) – there is no sense that the large countries were left out of the negotiation process, and any effort to isolate von der Leyen for blame, is ignoble. However, amongst the professional trade staff, there is still some despair at the humiliating optics of the deal, the fact that it is in many ways not binding, and the risk that there is no undertaking that it is final in the sense that another round of tariffs is imposed later. On the positive side for Europe, and flipping to the 'Mitty-esque' part of the deal, two of the key undertakings in the deal – that European companies invest USD 600 bn in the US, in addition to a commitment to purchase microchips, as well as a commitment from the EU to buy USD 750bn in energy from the US over the course of the Trump presidency – are not at all clear in their implementation, and very much open to a fudge, with the right accounting treatment. In particular the energy purchase commitment is unrealistic because it exceeds what the EU spends on energy in a given year and US energy firms do not have the capacity to service a commitment of USD 250bn in demand from Europe, whilst also serving other markets. In my view there are several aftershocks to watch for. The first is that the deal further damages trans-Atlantic relations, and the level of trust between the EU and the US is likely the lowest it has ever been, and this has strategic implications as far afield as Russia/Ukraine and the Middle East. One other implication may be a drift, by government and consumers, away from US brands – as this may well be an effect that is seen in other regions. Two financial market implications are that the dampening of growth in Europe will maintain downward pressure on rates in Europe. More importantly, in the context of a very oversold dollar, there is now an incentive for EU policy makers to try hard to talk down the euro, and we may see a short-term rebound in the currency pair. On the whole, if this is a 'final' deal and the topic of tariffs does not re-emerge in the next three years, it is not a bad deal for the semi's, autos and aerospace sectors in Europe, though the public optics are not good for the EU. The best parts of the deal for Europe are the fantastical claims of incoming European investment and energy purchases in the US. This is a Mitty style fairy tale that the Europeans hope Mr Trump believes in. The telling factor is that this deal has now emptied all goodwill from the trans-Atlantic relationship, and effectively completes another diplomatic rupture by President Trump. From a European point of view, this is yet another 'wake up call' and the best that can be hoped for is that it accelerates projects like the savings and investment union and 'strategic autonomy'. European leaders and the European policy elite keep talking about this, but until we see hard evidence (for example, German real GDP over the last five years is close to zero), they are the fantasists. Have a great week ahead Mike
