Congress Approves Trump's $9 billion Cut to Public Broadcasting, Foreign Aid
The vote marked the first time in decades that a president has successfully submitted such a rescissions request to Congress, and the White House suggested it won't be the last. Some Republicans were uncomfortable with the cuts, yet supported them anyway, wary of crossing Trump or upsetting his agenda.
The House passed the bill by a vote of 216-213. It now goes to Trump for his signature, The AP news reported.
'We need to get back to fiscal sanity and this is an important step,' said House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La.
Opponents voiced concerns not only about the programs targeted, but about Congress ceding its spending powers to the executive branch as investments approved on a bipartisan basis were being subsequently canceled on party-line votes. They said previous rescission efforts had at least some bipartisan buy-in and described the Republican package as unprecedented.
No Democrats supported the measure when it passed the Senate, 51-48, in the early morning hours Thursday. Final passage in the House was delayed for several hours as Republicans wrestled with their response to Democrats' push for a vote on the release of Jeffrey Epstein files.
The package cancels about $1.1 billion for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and nearly $8 billion for a variety of foreign aid programs, many designed to help countries where drought, disease and political unrest endure.
The effort to claw back a sliver of federal spending came just weeks after Republicans also muscled through Trump's tax and spending cut bill without any Democratic support. The Congressional Budget Office has projected that measure will increase the U.S. debt by about $3.3 trillion over the coming decade.
"No one is buying the the notion that Republicans are actually trying to improve wasteful spending,' said Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries.
A heavy blow to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting The cancellation of $1.1 billion for the CPB represents the full amount it is due to receive during the next two budget years.
The White House says the public media system is politically biased and an unnecessary expense.
The corporation distributes more than two-thirds of the money to more than 1,500 locally operated public television and radio stations, with much of the remainder assigned to National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service to support national programming.
Democrats were unsuccessful in restoring the funding in the Senate.
Lawmakers with large rural constituencies voiced particular concern about what the cuts to public broadcasting could mean for some local public stations in their state.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said the stations are "not just your news — it is your tsunami alert, it is your landslide alert, it is your volcano alert.'
As the Senate debated the bill Tuesday, a 7.3 magnitude earthquake struck off the remote Alaska Peninsula, triggering tsunami warnings on local public broadcasting stations that advised people to get to higher ground.
Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., said he secured a deal from the White House that some money administered by the Interior Department would be repurposed to subsidize Native American public radio stations in about a dozen states.
But Kate Riley, president and CEO of America's Public Television Stations, a network of locally owned and operated stations, said that deal was 'at best a short-term, half-measure that will still result in cuts and reduced service at the stations it purports to save.'
Inside the cuts to foreign aid Among the foreign aid cuts are $800 million for a program that provides emergency shelter, water and family reunification for refugees and $496 million to provide food, water and health care for countries hit by natural disasters and conflicts. There also is a $4.15 billion cut for programs that aim to boost economies and democratic institutions in developing nations.
Democrats argued that the Republican administration's animus toward foreign aid programs would hurt America's standing in the world and create a vacuum for China to fill.
'This is not an America first bill. It's a China first bill because of the void that's being created all across the world,' Jeffries said.
The White House argued that many of the cuts would incentivize other nations to step up and do more to respond to humanitarian crises and that the rescissions best served the American taxpayer.
'The money that we're clawing back in this rescissions package is the people's money. We ought not to forget that,' said Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., chair of the House Rules Committee.
After objections from several Republicans, Senate GOP leaders took out a $400 million cut to PEPFAR, a politically popular program to combat HIV/AIDS that is credited with saving millions of lives since its creation under Republican President George W. Bush.
Looking ahead to future spending fights Democrats say the bill upends a legislative process that typically requires lawmakers from both parties to work together to fund the nation's priorities.
Triggered by the official rescissions request from the White House, the legislation only needed a simple majority vote to advance in the Senate instead of the 60 votes usually required to break a filibuster. That meant Republicans could use their 53-47 majority to pass it along party lines.
Two Republican senators, Murkowski and Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, joined with Democrats in voting against the bill, though a few other Republicans also raised concerns about the process.
'Let's not make a habit of this,' said Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker of Mississippi, who voted for the bill but said he was wary that the White House wasn't providing enough information on what exactly will be cut.
Russ Vought, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, said the imminent successful passage of the rescissions shows 'enthusiasm' for getting the nation's fiscal situation under control.
'We're happy to go to great lengths to get this thing done,' he said during a breakfast with reporters hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.
In response to questions about the relatively small size of the cuts -- $9 billion -- Vought said that was because 'I knew it would be hard' to pass in Congress. Vought said another rescissions package is 'likely to come soon.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Arabiya
5 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
Kansas Republican Senate President Announces 2026 Gubernatorial Bid
Kansas Senate President Ty Masterson entered the race for governor on Sunday as the 2026 Republican primary field gets more crowded. Republicans are keen to recapture the governor's office in GOP-leaning Kansas after Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly narrowly won a second four-year term in 2022. Kelly is term-limited and cannot run again. Masterson, a small-business owner, has been a state senator representing a district in eastern Kansas since 2009. He became Senate president in 2021. He previously served in the Kansas House of Representatives from 2005 to 2008. Other Republicans in the 2026 governor's race include Secretary of State Scott Schwab, who built his public profile pushing back against unfounded election conspiracy theories, and former Gov. Jeff Colyer. Colyer was elevated to the office for about a year in 2018 after former Gov. Sam Brownback resigned. He failed to get past the primary in that year's gubernatorial election, then entered the 2022 governor's race but dropped out early after being diagnosed with prostate cancer.
Arab News
6 hours ago
- Arab News
Request to unseal Epstein grand jury transcripts likely to disappoint, ex-prosecutors say
NEW YORK: A Justice Department request to unseal grand jury transcripts in the prosecution of chronic sexual abuser Jeffrey Epstein and his former girlfriend is unlikely to produce much, if anything, to satisfy the public's appetite for new revelations about the financier's crimes, former federal prosecutors say. Attorney Sarah Krissoff, an assistant US attorney in Manhattan from 2008 to 2021, called the request in the prosecutions of Epstein and imprisoned British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell 'a distraction.' ' The president is trying to present himself as if he's doing something here and it really is nothing,' Krissoff told The Associated Press in a weekend interview. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche made the request Friday, asking judges to unseal transcripts from grand jury proceedings that resulted in indictments against Epstein and Maxwell, saying 'transparency to the American public is of the utmost importance to this Administration.' The request came as the administration sought to contain the firestorm that followed its announcement that it would not be releasing additional files from the Epstein probe despite previously promising that it would. Epstein is dead while Maxwell serves a 20-year prison sentence Epstein killed himself at age 66 in his federal jail cell in August 2019, a month after his arrest on sex trafficking charges, while Maxwell, 63, is serving a 20-year prison sentence imposed after her December 2021 sex trafficking conviction for luring girls to be sexually abused by Epstein. Krissoff and Joshua Naftalis, a Manhattan federal prosecutor for 11 years before entering private practice in 2023, said grand jury presentations are purposely brief. Naftalis said Southern District prosecutors present just enough to a grand jury to get an indictment but 'it's not going to be everything the FBI and investigators have figured out about Maxwell and Epstein.' 'People want the entire file from however long. That's just not what this is,' he said, estimating that the transcripts, at most, probably amount to a few hundred pages. 'It's not going to be much,' Krissoff said, estimating the length at as little as 60 pages 'because the Southern District of New York's practice is to put as little information as possible into the grand jury.' 'They basically spoon feed the indictment to the grand jury. That's what we're going to see,' she said. 'I just think it's not going to be that interesting. ... I don't think it's going to be anything new.' Ex-prosecutors say grand jury transcript unlikely to be long Both ex-prosecutors said that grand jury witnesses in Manhattan are usually federal agents summarizing their witness interviews. That practice might conflict with the public perception of some state and federal grand jury proceedings, where witnesses likely to testify at a trial are brought before grand juries during lengthy proceedings prior to indictments or when grand juries are used as an investigatory tool. In Manhattan, federal prosecutors 'are trying to get a particular result so they present the case very narrowly and inform the grand jury what they want them to do,' Krissoff said. Krissoff predicted that judges who presided over the Epstein and Maxwell cases will reject the government's request. With Maxwell, a petition is before the US Supreme Court so appeals have not been exhausted. With Epstein, the charges are related to the Maxwell case and the anonymity of scores of victims who have not gone public is at stake, although Blanche requested that victim identities be protected. 'This is not a 50-, 60-, 80-year-old case,' Krissoff noted. 'There's still someone in custody.' Appeals court's 1997 ruling might matter She said citing 'public intrigue, interest and excitement' about a case was likely not enough to convince a judge to release the transcripts despite a 1997 ruling by the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals that said judges have wide discretion and that public interest alone can justify releasing grand jury information. Krissoff called it 'mind-blowingly strange' that Washington Justice Department officials are increasingly directly filing requests and arguments in the Southern District of New York, where the prosecutor's office has long been labeled the 'Sovereign District of New York' for its independence from outside influence. 'To have the attorney general and deputy attorney general meddling in an SDNY case is unheard of,' she said. Cheryl Bader, a former federal prosecutor and Fordham Law School criminal law professor, said judges who presided over the Epstein and Maxwell cases may take weeks or months to rule. 'Especially here where the case involved witnesses or victims of sexual abuse, many of which are underage, the judge is going to be very cautious about what the judge releases,' she said. Tradition of grand jury secrecy might block release of transcripts Bader said she didn't see the government's quest aimed at satisfying the public's desire to explore conspiracy theories 'trumping — pardon the pun — the well-established notions of protecting the secrecy of the grand jury process.' 'I'm sure that all the line prosecutors who really sort of appreciate the secrecy and special relationship they have with the grand jury are not happy that DOJ is asking the court to release these transcripts,' she added. Mitchell Epner, a former federal prosecutor now in private practice, called Trump's comments and influence in the Epstein matter 'unprecedented' and 'extraordinarily unusual' because he is a sitting president. He said it was not surprising that some former prosecutors are alarmed that the request to unseal the grand jury materials came two days after the firing of Manhattan Assistant US Attorney Maurene Comey, who worked on the Epstein and Maxwell cases. 'If federal prosecutors have to worry about the professional consequences of refusing to go along with the political or personal agenda of powerful people, then we are in a very different place than I've understood the federal Department of Justice to be in over the last 30 years of my career,' he said. Krissoff said the uncertain environment that has current prosecutors feeling unsettled is shared by government employees she speaks with at other agencies as part of her work in private practice. 'The thing I hear most often is this is a strange time. Things aren't working the way we're used to them working,' she said.
Arab News
9 hours ago
- Arab News
Why the Nile dam crisis demands action and accountability
The dispute over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam has become one of the world's major water conflicts. In recent weeks, it has gained renewed international attention, particularly after remarks from US President Donald Trump and a declaration by Ethiopia. As Ethiopia celebrates the 'completion' of the dam, Egypt views the announcement as a direct challenge to international law and a threat to the foundation of its national security. With its inauguration set for September, the question remains: will diplomacy prevail or will unilateralism triumph over cooperation? The GERD is Africa's largest hydroelectric power project, constructed by Ethiopia on the Blue Nile, the main tributary of the Nile River. Launched in 2011, the dam is expected to generate more than 6,000 megawatts of electricity. While it promises much-needed energy for Ethiopia's population, the project has been controversial from the start. Egypt depends on the Nile for 97 percent of its freshwater needs. For more than a century, its water rights were guaranteed by treaties and its downstream position. But the GERD, located just a few kilometers from the Sudanese border, threatens to disrupt that balance. In Cairo, the concern is existential. Despite years of negotiations and a 2015 Declaration of Principles signed by Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan, Addis Ababa has pressed ahead with construction and the phased filling of the dam's reservoir without a binding legal agreement on its operation. Cairo has repeatedly warned that such actions violate international norms governing transboundary watercourses. Ethiopia, however, has largely ignored these warnings, framing the GERD as a sovereign project. Trump this month broke the American diplomatic silence that had defined the Biden years, issuing frank statements about the dam. Speaking at a press conference, Trump described the Nile as the 'lifeline' of the Egyptian people, a description that aligns precisely with Cairo's long-standing argument. He also criticized the American role in having, as he put it, 'stupidly funded' the dam without adequately addressing its consequences. 'I do not know why they didn't solve the problem before they built the dam,' Trump said. For Egypt, these remarks were not only long overdue, but they were also a validation. President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi welcomed the comments, praising Trump's stance. Egyptian diplomats saw the US president's statements as a diplomatic turning point, bringing renewed pressure to bear on Ethiopia's unilateralism. From Ethiopia's side, the response was defensive and dismissive. Officials said the dam was funded domestically and some even portrayed Trump's comments as an insult to Ethiopia's sovereignty. But the broader reality is hard to ignore: the GERD has become a global concern and Ethiopia's dismissiveness only reinforces the perception that it is acting outside the bounds of international consensus. Days before Trump's remarks, Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed announced that all construction on the GERD had been completed. He declared that the dam would be officially inaugurated in September, calling it a victory for Ethiopia and inviting neighboring countries to join in the celebration. Trump this month broke the American diplomatic silence, issuing frank statements about the dam. Dr. Abdellatif El-Menawy But in Egypt, this announcement was met with alarm. Cairo immediately condemned the move as a 'flagrant violation of international law' and an act of provocation. The Egyptian Ministry of Water Resources issued a statement calling Ethiopia's behavior 'destabilizing,' arguing that the move to operate the dam unilaterally undermines every principle of cooperation and trust in international water governance. The Ethiopian government claims that the dam will not reduce water flow downstream and that Egypt's concerns are exaggerated. But these assurances ring hollow, as experts note that the GERD's reservoir can hold 74 billion cubic meters of water, almost the entire annual flow of the Blue Nile. Egypt, already below the global water poverty line, cannot gamble on goodwill. Ethiopia has repeatedly rejected calls to sign a legally binding agreement governing how the dam is filled and managed during droughts. This refusal alone should cause alarm in the international community. What nation would accept such unilateral control over its primary source of life? Sudan, Egypt's southern neighbor and fellow downstream country, has long had an ambivalent position on the GERD. At times, it saw possible benefits, such as regulated water flow and access to cheap electricity. But in recent years, Khartoum has leaned closer to Cairo's position, especially after experiencing erratic water releases and infrastructure concerns. Today, Sudan is wracked by internal conflict and thus largely sidelined in the GERD diplomacy. However, the interim leadership has reaffirmed its opposition to any unilateral action by Ethiopia. In a meeting with El-Sisi last month, Gen. Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan stressed the need for a coordinated solution and joint safeguards. More broadly, the GERD dispute could destabilize the region. It threatens to fracture regional relations, provoke proxy conflicts and fuel instability in a region already grappling with conflict, economic crisis and foreign intervention. Under international law, the use of shared rivers is governed by two core principles: equitable and reasonable use, and the obligation not to cause significant harm. Egypt has abided by these rules and has called, again and again, for negotiations to reach a fair agreement. Ethiopia has adopted a narrow definition of sovereignty that places its national interests above regional stability. While no one denies Ethiopia's right to development, that right must be exercised within a framework of shared responsibility. It cannot come at the expense of 100 million Egyptians and the security of an entire region. The GERD is not a local dam. It is a regional project with continental consequences. Its success or failure will signal whether powerful upstream states can impose their will on downstream neighbors without consequence, or whether diplomacy, legality and fairness can still shape international outcomes. With the dam's inauguration looming and the US now taking a more decisive tone, the coming months will determine the future of one of the most important rivers on Earth. Trump's words, if backed by action, could revive negotiations and pressure Ethiopia to concede. But the international community must act decisively. Ethiopia's unilateralism cannot become the new norm. Letting one country control another's lifeline — without oversight, agreement or accountability — sets a dangerous precedent not just for Africa but for all transboundary river systems around the world.
