logo
House GOP approves first batch of DOGE cuts

House GOP approves first batch of DOGE cuts

The Hill21 hours ago

House Republicans voted on Thursday to claw back billions of dollars in federal funding for public broadcasting and foreign aid, locking in the first set of slashes made by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
The chamber approved the legislation — known as a rescissions package — in a 214-212 vote, greenlighting $9.4 billion in cuts to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which DOGE went after earlier this year, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funnels dollars to NPR and PBS.
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) hailed the package as a large step forward in the GOP's quest to bringing down the $36 trillion — and growing — deficit.
'Today's House passage of this initial rescissions package marks a critical step toward a more responsible and transparent government that puts the interests of the American taxpayers first,' Johnson said in a statement after the vote. 'It is just one of the ways Republicans are codifying DOGE's findings and putting taxpayer dollars to better use.'
Despite the emphasis on the legislation, passage was not a sure thing: A handful of Republicans, largely moderates, voiced concerns with the package in the days leading up to the vote, taking issue with cuts to public broadcasting, slashes to the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) — first established during the George W. Bush administration — and the overall effort undermining Congress's authority.
But in the end, only four GOP lawmakers joined all Democrats in voting 'no,' giving the package enough support to squeak through the chamber.
The bill's fate in the Senate, however, remains unclear. A cohort of Republicans have aired qualms with some of the provisions in the measure — namely cuts to public broadcasting — prompting questions about whether the package will ever make it to President Trump's desk for signature.
In accordance with the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the bill is subject to a simple majority in the Senate, meaning Republicans can only afford to lose three of their own and muscle it through the chamber, assuming all Democrats vote no. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said the body is unlikely to turn to the issue until July, after the party finishes its work on its 'big, beautiful bill' of tax cuts and spending.
'We'll do reconciliation first so I would expect that rescissions package probably will be a July timeframe,' Thune said, adding that the Senate 'could' tweak parts of the legislation when it comes to their hands.
For now, however, the successful vote marks a win for Johnson, who brought skeptical Republicans on board to pass the bill, and hardline conservatives, who upped the pressure on leadership to codify the DOGE cuts amid their deficit concerns.
And it came at an interesting moment for the Republican Party: Trump and Elon Musk, the brainchild behind DOGE, had a fierce falling out last week, which began with the billionaire criticizing his marquee bill and quickly devolved into personal insults.
The two have since begun showing signs of a potential détente. Musk earlier this week said he had 'regret' for some of his social media posts about Trump that 'went too far,' and the two spoke by phone, according to multiple reports.
Trump is seeking to clawback $8.3 billion in foreign aid as part of the request, targeting dollars for items like migration and refugee assistance that the administration says support activities that 'could be more fairly shared with non-U.S. Government donors,' USAID efforts they say have been used to 'fund radical gender and climate projects,' and development assistance they argued 'conflict with American values' and 'interfere with the sovereignty of other countries,' among other rescissions.
The administration also calls for eliminating funding for the United Nations Children's Fund, U.N. Development Program and the U.N. Population Fund under the proposal, as well as the World Health Organization and 'portions of the U.N. Regular Budget for the U.N. Human Rights Council and the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East.'
The plan additionally calls for rescinding $535 million in funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which provides some funding to NPR and PBS, in both fiscal 2026 and 2027.
The proposed $1.1 billion clawback for public broadcasting funds has sparked concern from Republicans in both chambers, who have sounded alarm over what the cuts would mean for local stations and those in rural communities.
However, Rep. Mark Amodei (R-Nev.), a spending cardinal and co-chair of the Public Broadcasting Caucus, has pushed the administration to reconsider the proposed rescissions to public broadcasting programs.
'You ask yourself, well, is it easier for the national people to raise money, or is it easier for the affiliate in Reno or wherever?' Amodei said to reporters this week, while also saying, 'Of the total funding that was pre-funded for 26 and 27 we've been told 70 percent of that gets passed through to local TV stations.'
Other Republicans, however, have suggested that lawmakers could make further changes to protect local stations after the bill passes if needed, and some have argued that stations could also raise funding from outside sources.
While the special rescissions process has not been frequently used in the last two decades, Trump also tried to use the maneuver to yank back funds in his first term without success, despite Republicans having control of the House and Senate at the time.
Republicans are optimistic history won't repeat itself as they navigate their first trifecta in years.
'[Trump's] done this before, and they've got a great team, I think, in place,' House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole said last week. 'They've thought about these things a lot in the time in between His first and his second term.'
'And there's no question, the President has much more influence inside the Republican Party than he had during his first term,' he added.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Exclusive: Trump's tariff deal ‘quietly' added 10% raise which nobody is complaining about anymore, says his former commerce secretary
Exclusive: Trump's tariff deal ‘quietly' added 10% raise which nobody is complaining about anymore, says his former commerce secretary

Yahoo

time7 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Exclusive: Trump's tariff deal ‘quietly' added 10% raise which nobody is complaining about anymore, says his former commerce secretary

Wilbur Ross, former Commerce Secretary and a key architect of Trump's first-term trade policy, describes Trump's current tariff strategy as a deliberate evolution: moving faster, hitting harder, and using broader executive powers to impose tariffs for both economic and diplomatic leverage. The Trump administration's use of tariffs has sparked debate over the ultimate goals of its economic strategy. However, a former Cabinet member and key trade advisor to the President has suggested there is an underlying logic to the approach. Since winning the Oval Office, President Trump has announced an evolving range of policies. with economic sanctions spinning higher on some trade partners while others have been granted pauses. Many of the announcements have not come through official White House channels; for example, Trump threatened a 50% tariff on the EU in April in a bid to get European negotiators to the table—by posting on his social media site, Truth Social. Indeed, Trump has come under scrutiny from Beijing, arguably the most critical region for the U.S. to make a deal, who claim America's tariff tactics have been 'coercion and blackmail' when instead it should 'convey information to the Chinese side…through relevant parties.' But Wilbur Ross, Trump's Commerce Secretary in his first administration, says there's a clear tactic at play beneath Trump's bluster. The 87-year-old banker turned D.C. power player said there is an 'art' to Trump's dealmaking, as White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has suggested; Ross told Fortune in an exclusive interview: 'Well, everybody's reaction to [tariffs] was first shock and amazement, but the actual retaliatory measures that they put in were fairly modest—even China didn't match in dollar for dollar. 'There's a real reason for that, I think the other countries, as they've thought about it, have recognized that while they have to talk very bravely for their domestic political constituencies… They also recognize that at the end of the day, they can't afford a tit-for-tat escalating trade war with us.' And this was a fact Trump was relying on, continued Ross: 'One of the earliest things he put in was that 10% tariff on everything from everywhere. 'Nobody is even complaining about that anymore. When you think about it, in the normal course, getting quietly to do a 10% tariff on everything from everywhere was a huge achievement, even if he didn't get anything else. But because he followed it with these much more extreme things, it makes the 10% look like it's not such a big bother. 'But it's a huge number, and he's been collecting it every day.' Indeed, imported goods alone into the U.S. in 2024 stood at $3.36 trillion—even before tax, duties, and levies were collected (worth $82 billion) and before imported services are added to those figures. Even 10% of near-$3.4 trillion is an eye-watering sum to add to federal budgets, though some items like autos and steel are even higher. Indeed nations like China, Canada, and Mexico are all already subject to more than the baseline 10% universal tariff. When Ross spoke to Fortune in a previous exclusive interview earlier this year, he said President Trump would be all the more confident in his second term because he now better understands the inner workings of Washington, D.C., and has a stronger mandate courtesy of a solid election sweep. And President Trump's tactics, which have included everything from threatening a 25% hike on Apple's iPhones specifically to raising sanctions to more than 150% on China at some points, reflect the path Ross expected. After all, as Secretary, Ross was one of the key allies in Trump's team when renegotiating America's position on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). At the time, Trump was a fierce critic of the deal with Mexico and Canada and wanted to withdraw from the agreement and begin negotiating from there. Ross felt the better tactic was to threaten such action and keep an exit as a last resort, an opinion that Trump eventually came around to agreeing with. Likewise, having been appointed in 2017 Ross oversaw the tariff action in the first Trump administration which included sanctions on Chinese goods as well as aluminum and steel more widely. 'He has started out on a much more adventurous path than last time,' Ross told Fortune this week. 'Broader in scope and more extreme in terms of the numbers themselves.' Trump has three objectives, he adds: shrinking trade deficits, producing revenue to offset his 'One Big, Beautiful Bill' and achieving other diplomatic purposes such as the flow of fentanyl into the U.S. and global defense spending. 'He has a much more fulsome, much more complicated agenda than before,' Ross explains. 'It's also different in…that last time I was very careful to set the groundwork to do public hearings, stakeholder meetings, to do written reports, to set a whole record so that under the Administrative Procedures Act we would be relatively safe from people trying to knock it out in court. 'This time, they did a very different thing. They went in mostly just by his say so using the IFA, the Emergency Powers Act, and they ran into a snag at the Court for International Trade.' This snag may alter the course of tariff reaction on the account of businesses, he added, because their investment timelines may shift based on when the tariffs are legally approved. But Ross added: 'Most people are operating under the assumption that sooner or later, he'll get something like what he was looking for…and therefore, while it's slowed down a bit, [I] don't think it will derail [trade talks] because [foreign governments] also know there are other ways he could punish them rather than just the tariffs. 'So it's a bump in the road, but I don't think it's a huge pothole that would wreck the car.' This story was originally featured on

Oil prices jump after Israel's attack on Iran and it could lead to higher gas costs
Oil prices jump after Israel's attack on Iran and it could lead to higher gas costs

Yahoo

time8 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Oil prices jump after Israel's attack on Iran and it could lead to higher gas costs

Oil prices have jumped following Israel's attack on Iran as experts warn the conflict could lead to higher gas costs. The price of a barrel of benchmark U.S. crude jumped 6.8 percent to $72.65 Friday. Brent crude, the international standard, rose 7.1 percent to $74.30 a barrel. 'Gas prices will likely start to rise across much of the country later this evening in response to Israel's attacks on Iran, which have caused oil prices to surge. For now, I expect the rise to be noticable, but limited. Approx 10-25c/gal thus far, but this could change,' industry expert Patrick De Haan wrote on X. Iran is one of the world's major producers of oil and if a wider war escalates, it could slow the flow of Iranian oil to U.S. customers and elsewhere. 'Iran knows full well that Trump is focused on lower energy prices and actions by Iran that impact Middle East supply and consequently raise oil prices damage Trump politically,' Andy Lipow, president of Lipow Oil Associates consulting firm, told CNN. Past attacks involving Iran and Israel have seen prices for oil spike initially, only to fall later 'once it became clear that the situation was not escalating and there was no impact on oil supply,' said Richard Joswick, head of near-term oil at S&P Global Commodity Insights. The Secretary of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries warned industry executives not to 'raise false alarms.' 'There are currently no developments in supply or market dynamics that warrant unnecessary measures,' the organization said on X. Israel said 200 fighter jets took part in strikes on more than 100 targets in Iran overnight in an escalation that threatens to spark a wider conflict in the Middle East. Israel said Iran has launched more than 100 drones towards Israel in response - but Tehran has denied these reports, according to Iranian media. Trump firmly put the U.S. in Israel's corner after the attacks. The president said he'd given Tehran 'chance after chance to make a deal' that would have headed off the strikes by putting restrictions on the country's nuclear weapons program and complained that Iranian negotiators had never been able to come to an agreement. 'I gave Iran chance after chance to make a deal. I told them, in the strongest of words, to 'just do it,' but no matter how hard they tried, no matter how close they got, they just couldn't get it done,' he wrote on Truth Social. Trump also said he'd warned Iran that Israel 'has a lot' of American-made military hardware — 'the best and most lethal' — and is quite proficient in using it. 'Certain Iranian hardliner's spoke bravely, but they didn't know what was about to happen. They are all DEAD now, and it will only get worse!' he added. 'Iran must make a deal, before there is nothing left. No more death, no more destruction, JUST DO IT, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE,' the president wrote. The Associated Press contributed reporting Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

If Not Washington, Who Will Fund Harvard?
If Not Washington, Who Will Fund Harvard?

Wall Street Journal

time9 minutes ago

  • Wall Street Journal

If Not Washington, Who Will Fund Harvard?

Jason Riley describes how Harvard has become a punching bag for political grandstanding ('Does the President Want to Fix Harvard or Destroy It?,'Upward Mobility, May 28). Yet the Trump administration swings at its peril. Harvard isn't a delicate orchid that will fold under political heat. It's a $53 billion juggernaut with labs, patents and partnerships that span the globe. If Washington starts revoking grants, threatening tax status or chilling academic freedom to score points with the base, Harvard isn't going to sit tight until President Trump is over. It's going to pivot—aggressively. Someone else, be it Berlin, Seoul or Abu Dhabi, will fund it. The idea that the greatest minds in medicine, energy and artificial intelligence will suddenly transfer their breakthroughs to a U.S. government-licensed trade school is laughable. In a century where data, biotech and artificial intelligence are the new oil, dismantling our own research powerhouse is like banning railroads in 1900 because the engineers read Karl Marx.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store