A Senate vote this week will test the popularity of DOGE spending cuts
Senate Democrats are trying to kill the measure but need a few Republicans uncomfortable with the president's effort to join them.
Trump's Republican administration is employing a rarely used tool that allows the president to transmit a request to cancel previously approved funding authority. The request triggers a 45-day clock under which the funds are frozen. If Congress fails to act within that period, then the spending stands. That clock expires Friday.
The House already has approved Trump's request on a mostly party line 214-212 vote. The Senate has little time to spare to beat the deadline for the president's signature. Another House vote will be needed if senators amend the legislation, adding more uncertainty to the outcome.
Here's a closer look at this week's debate.
Trump has asked lawmakers to rescind nearly $1.1 billion from the Corp. for Public Broadcasting, which represents the full amount it's 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 System to support national programming.
The potential fallout from the cuts for local pubic media stations has generated concern on both sides of the political aisle.
Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) said he's worried about how the rescissions will hit radio stations that broadcast to Native Americans in his state. He said the vast majority of their funding comes from the federal government.
'They're not political in nature,' Rounds said of the stations. 'It's the only way of really communicating in the very rural areas of our state, and a lot of other states as well.'
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said that for the tribal radio stations in her state, 'almost to a number, they're saying that they will go under if public broadcasting funds are no longer available to them.'
To justify the spending cuts, the Trump administration and Republican lawmakers have cited certain activities they disagree with to portray a wide range of a program's funding as wasteful.
In recent testimony, Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought criticized programming aimed at fostering diversity, equity and inclusion. He said NPR aired a 2022 program entitled 'What 'Queer Ducks' can teach teenagers about sexuality in the animal kingdom.' He also cited a special town hall that CNN held in 2020 with 'Sesame Street' about combatting racism.
As part of the package, Trump has asked lawmakers to rescind about $8.3 billion in foreign aid programs that aim to fight famine and disease as well as promote global stability.
Among the targets:
— $900 million to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases and strengthen detection systems to prevent wider epidemics.
— $800 million for a program that provides emergency shelter, water and sanitation as well as family reunification for those forced to flee their own country.
— $4.15 billion for two programs designed to boost the economies and democratic institutions in developing and strategically important countries.
— $496 million to provide humanitarian assistance such as food, water and healthcare for countries hit by natural disasters and conflicts.
Some of the health cuts are aimed at the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, which President George W. Bush, a Republican, began to combat HIV/AIDS in developing countries. The program is credited with saving 26 million lives and has broad bipartisan support.
On PEPFAR, Vought told senators 'these cuts are surgical and specifically preserve lifesaving assistance.' But many lawmakers are wary, saying they've seen no details about where specifically the administration will cut.
The administration also said some cuts, such as eliminating funding for UNICEF, would encourage international organizations to be more efficient and seek contributions from other nations, 'putting American taxpayers first.'
U.S. leaders have often argued that aiding other nations through 'soft power' is not just the right thing to do but also the smart thing.
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told Vought that there is 'plenty of absolute nonsense masquerading as American aid that shouldn't receive another bit of taxpayer funding,' but he called the administration's attempt to root it out 'unnecessarily chaotic.'
'In critical corners of the globe, instead of creating efficiencies, you've created vacuums for adversaries like China to fill,' McConnell told Vought.
The president has issued a warning on his social media site directly aimed at individual Senate Republicans who may be considering voting against the cuts.
He said it was important that all Republicans adhere to the bill and in particular defund the Corp. for Public Broadcasting.
'Any Republican that votes to allow this monstrosity to continue broadcasting will not have my support or Endorsement,' he said.
For individual Republicans seeking reelection, the prospect of Trump working to defeat them is reason for pause and could be a sign that the package is teetering.
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) opted to announce that he would not seek reelection recently after the president called for a primary challenger to the senator when he voted not to advance Trump's massive tax and spending cut bill.
Spending bills before the 100-member Senate almost always need some bipartisan buy-in to pass. That's because the bills need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster and advance. But this week's effort is different.
Congress set up a process when Republican Richard Nixon was president for speedily considering a request to claw back previously approved spending authority. Under those procedures, it takes only a simple Senate majority to advance the president's request to a final vote.
It's a rarely employed maneuver. In 1992, President George H.W. Bush, a Republican, had some success with his rescissions request, though the final bill included some cuts requested by the president and many that were not. Trump proposed 38 rescissions in 2018, but the package stalled in the Senate.
If senators vote to take up the bill, it sets up the potential for 10 hours of debate plus votes on scores of potentially thorny amendments in what is known as a vote-a-rama.
Democrats see the president's request as an effort to erode the Senate filibuster. They warn that it's absurd to expect them to work with GOP lawmakers on bipartisan spending measures if Republicans turn around a few months later and use their majority to cut the parts they don't like.
Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York offered a stern warning in a letter to colleagues: 'How Republicans answer this question on rescissions and other forthcoming issues will have grave implications for the Congress, the very role of the legislative branch, and, more importantly, our country,' Schumer said.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) took note of the warning.
'I was disappointed to see the Democrat leader in his recent Dear Colleague letter implicitly threaten to shut down the government,' Thune said.
The Trump administration is likening the first rescissions package to a test case and says more could be on the way if Congress goes along.
Freking writes for the Associated Press.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
19 minutes ago
- The Hill
DC residents heckle authorities at checkpoint amid ramped-up federal presence
Federal law enforcement agents in Washington were heckled Wednesday as tensions rise in the nation's capital over President Trump's moves to take over the local police force. A group of protestors near the 14th St. NW corridor, where the agents established a vehicle checkpoint, shouted out or held up signs with phrases such as 'Go home, fascists' and 'Get off our streets,' The Associated Press reported. The group also encouraged drivers to take other routes to avoid the officers, according to the news wire. National Guard vehicles were also spotted near the National Mall early Thursday, according to NewsNation's Cameron Congdon. Trump announced on Monday that his administration would take federal control of Washington's police force, citing 'out-of-control' crime and violence in the city. The president also deployed hundreds of National Guard service members to the district a day later to assist with patrolling the streets. On Wednesday, Trump signaled he would go before Congress to ask for an extension on his federal takeover. Under Washington's ' Home Rule Act,' the president can only take authority over the local police department for up to 30 days without the approval of lawmakers. 'And we're going to be asking for an extension on that, long-term extensions, because you can't have 30 days. Thirty days is, that's, by the time you do it — we're going to have this in good shape,' he said, adding, 'We're going to do this very quickly, but we're going to want extensions.' 'I don't want to call a national emergency. If I have to, I will. But I think the Republicans in Congress will approve this pretty much unanimously,' the president added. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) pushed back on the sentiment, arguing that Democrats would not go along with Trump's request. 'No f‑‑‑ing way,' Schumer told podcaster Aaron Parnas. 'We'll fight him tooth and nail. 'He needs to get Congress to approve it, and not only are we not going to approve it, but there are some Republicans who don't like either,' he added. Other Democrats, including local authorities, have also criticized the administration's efforts as 'unprecedented' and 'unnecessary,' citing data showing that crime in the district is declining.


The Hill
19 minutes ago
- The Hill
Data vs. dog whistles: Debunking Trump's manufactured DC emergency
Washington, D.C. is not a war zone, but you wouldn't know it from the president's orders. On Monday, President Trump staged a dramatic show of federal force: 800 National Guard troops patrolling D.C. streets, the Metropolitan Police Department seized under the District of Columbia Home Rule Act of 1973 and 130 FBI agents ordered to 'take our capital back.' All because of a so-called 'crime emergency.' The real crisis is that Trump is ignoring research-backed crime deterrent strategies and actively gutting programs that actually work to promote public safety. Trump's manufactured emergency is not a public safety strategy — it is political theater. It is a distraction from more pressing national headlines, from the Epstein investigation to ongoing tariff disputes. Although the Home Rule Act grants the president emergency authority, using it to occupy the city in defiance of data-backed realities tramples D.C.'s autonomy, needlessly scares tourists off and sets a perilous precedent for federal overreach. The truth? No emergency exists. Violent crime in D.C. has dropped 26 percent compared to last year, including declines in homicides, carjackings and other serious offenses. Crime analyst Jeff Asher notes that: Murders have steadily declined since late 2023, tracking pre-pandemic trends. Carjackings, after 2023, have fallen back to early-pandemic levels and continue to drop Violent crime overall remains far below its peak in the early 1990s and below levels from a decade ago. This trend isn't unique to D.C. Violent crime nationally is near 50-year lows. So why the military spectacle? Because fear is politically useful. Trump's rhetoric casts D.C. as a city overrun with ' bloodthirsty criminals,' ' drugged-out maniacs ' and homeless people who must be removed. This rhetoric seemingly justifies carceral responses, even though research shows they neither solve crime nor address underlying causes, and often make conditions worse. Trump's emphasis on locking up young people may grab headlines, but it does not produce long-term safety. By invoking exaggerated threats and casting youth, especially Black and Hispanic youth as inherently violent, Trump is resurrecting the long-discredited 'superpredator' myth. Coined by criminologist John Dilulio in the 1990s, this false narrative fueled punitive juvenile sentencing laws and disproportionately criminalized youth in communities of color. While we should be rejecting this toxic legacy, Trump is instead ignoring what works, rooted in evidence, to keep communities safe. Decades of research show that mass incarceration of youth yields no evidence of sustainable crime reduction. What works instead? Mentorship, employment, safe spaces, educational pathways — investments that anchor youth rather than isolate and incarcerate them. Arrest sweeps also won't erase the need for housing, and neither FBI agents nor National Guard troops are equipped to tackle the structural drivers of crime. Crime is fundamentally a problem of social conditions, including housing, jobs, education, healthcare and mental health needs, all well documented. Evidence is clear: permanent supportive housing, robust mental health services, and targeted economic support reduce chronic homelessness. Starve a community, and you invite instability. This 'emergency' was built strategically. Earlier this year, Republicans in Congress gutted D.C.'s budget, freezing funding for everything from violence interruption programs to youth employment initiatives. It's a calculated, exploitative playbook: Cut resources that keep people safe, let the fractures deepen, then point to the damage as proof the city is 'out of control.' Now, Trump leverages this fabricated crisis to justify militarizing the nation's capital, while distracting from dominating headlines that further undermine his credibility. Imagine redirecting even a fraction of the D.C. military deployment budget (estimated to be in the millions) into community investments. Research is unequivocal — these investments lower crime more sustainably than militarized, force-first approaches. These are real solutions grounded in prevention, not political propaganda. The spectacle of soldiers may project power, but effective public safety comes from prevention, not performance. The District doesn't need occupation; it needs investment. We must reject fearmongering and demand an evidence-based response to crime that builds a safer D.C. for all.


The Hill
19 minutes ago
- The Hill
Veterans may be denied food stamps under Trump's new tax law
Veterans will no longer be exempt from work requirement rules for food stamps under President Trump's 'big, beautiful' spending and tax law, leaving many worried about how they will find employment. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which is the federal aid program formerly known as food stamps, currently allows work exemptions for veterans, but that will soon end under legislation signed into law last month. Starting in 2026, all SNAP recipients, including vets, will have to prove they are working, volunteering, participating in job training or looking for work for at least 80 hours a month to keep their food stamps beyond three months — unless they qualify for another exemption, such as having certain disabilities, reported Stateline. About 1.2 million veterans live in households that participate in the SNAP program, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. 'What I'm trying to do is get settled into, you know, stabilize into an apartment. I have the credentials to get a job. So it's not like I'm not gonna look for a job,' Darryl Chavis, a former Army service member, told Stateline. 'I have to work. I'm in transition, and the obstacles don't make it easy.' 'Nobody even came to help me,' Chavis, who said he was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder from his service, told the outlet. Veterans have lower employment rates largely due to the fact that fewer vets are looking for work, since they often have more health conditions from serving and lower educational attainment, according to the Center. Veterans may face barriers to employment, such as little work experience beyond military service, trouble finding a position that matches their skills, discrimination by employers or lack of access to support services, they said. In addition, Black and Latino veterans experience higher unemployment rates than white veterans, the group states. While many vets say the new work requirements don't take into consideration the additional barriers they face, those who support the measures say eligibility changes are necessary to stop people who could be working from abusing the system, Stateline reported. 'Most of the people that are in this category live in households with other people that have incomes, and so there really isn't a chronic food shortage here,' Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, told the outlet. 'We have tens of thousands of free food banks that people can go to,' he added. 'So it's just a requirement to nudge these people in the proper direction, and it should no longer go unenforced.'